+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: E = mc2 proven

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khyaal View Post
    I don't know how you established the relationship between the formula E=MC^2 and the age of the universe. This formula has nothing to do with the age and diameter of the universe. The pair production, i.e., the creation of electron-positron pair and the annihilation process, i.e., matter-anti matter interaction which destroys both particles and as a consequence gives birth to a gama ray photon are the undeniable proofs of the mass-energy relationship formula proved by Einstein.
    No contention in what you have said about the mass energy relationship in the context above.

    I have referred to the relationship the formula has to the time and distance scenario. The formula puts a barrier to the speed at which matter can travel....implying that matter turns into energy at the speed of light...if this is true then how was the distance of 28 b light years covered in 14 b years? So it is possible that matter can travel faster than the speed of light without changing into energy. This if true it will prove that the speed of light is not a barrier for matter and matter can travel faster than the speed of light.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hashnaghar Pakhtunkhwa
    Posts
    1,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdali View Post

    I have referred to the relationship the formula has to the time and distance scenario. The formula puts a barrier to the speed at which matter can travel....implying that matter turns into energy at the speed of light...if this is true then how was the distance of 28 b light years covered in 14 b years? So it is possible that matter can travel faster than the speed of light without changing into energy. This if true it will prove that the speed of light is not a barrier for matter and matter can travel faster than the speed of light.

    Btw, could you plz cite a scientific source (from a science journal or other web site) for the above inconsistency which you have pointed out above.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khyaal View Post
    Btw, could you plz cite a scientific source (from a science journal or other web site) for the above inconsistency which you have pointed out above.
    I have not heard of this question from someone else. If there is an answer to this conundrum I am not aware of it.

    Anyway, I will try to do some research and find out the answer if there is any.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hashnaghar Pakhtunkhwa
    Posts
    1,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdali View Post
    I have not heard of this question from someone else. If there is an answer to this conundrum I am not aware of it.

    Anyway, I will try to do some research and find out the answer if there is any.
    Sorry, but I'm not asking about its solution, I'm rather skeptic about the very claim. I think that the figures quoted above are incorrect and so the conclusion. I mean, since the premise is wrong it led to a wrong conclusion. I think that the figures for the diameter of the universe and thus the speed of cosmic bodies which acquired speeds greater than that of light, and which seemingly invalidated theory of special relativity, are not correct.
    Last edited by khyaal; 02-16-2010 at 06:10 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khyaal View Post
    Sorry, but I'm not asking about its solution, I'm rather skeptic about the very claim. I think that the figures quoted above are incorrect and so the conclusion. I mean, since the premise is wrong it led to a wrong conclusion. I think that the figures for the diameter of the earth and thus the speed of cosmic bodies which acquired speeds greater than that of light, and which seemingly invalidated theory of special relativity, are not correct.

    I have put something up for logical discussion. If you can logically prove that the premise is wrong, I will accept it...I want someone to prove it right or wrong as I have not been able to work out the disparity.

    BTW the point is not based on the diameter of the earth; it is the diameter of the Visible Universe....these figures (28b light years) are very conservative. I have seen much larger figures in publications...you can check for yourself. The higher the figure you take for the dia of the Universe the bigger the disparity will be with the age that is only 14b years.

    Again, just accepting anything as abosulte in science is a wrong approach (scientifically). New discoveries are being made everyday giving us a better understanding of the enivironments we live in. The speed of sound used to be a barrier a few decades ago; untill someone broke the myth.
    Last edited by Abdali; 02-21-2010 at 02:54 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hashnaghar Pakhtunkhwa
    Posts
    1,853

    Default

    In fact, according to general theory of relativity, the speed with which space is created ( space is actually created) is greater than the speed of light, and that is why the diameter of the universe is greater in comparison to the age of the universe.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts