Then it is the 'working definition' that is wrong, don't you think?
Nothing is 'put in'. From where is this energy 'put in'? The Cosmos is constantly re-cycled. It is our meagre understanding of it, that is lacking, and so the perceived 'expansion' is a representation of our state of mind regarding how much we currently know.
I'm sorry, but just because you don't understand or agree with the definition of a term, you cannot use it to mean something else.
You seem to understand that, since no energy is but in, and no enery is lost or destroyed in the universe, that the universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine. This is precisely the reason for the conservation of energy-momentum, or mass-energy, in general relativity; so that the solution does not violate any laws of thermodynamics!
It shouldn't be mysterious, neutralino, but I've been told that even Einstein misinterpreted his own work so I guess it is understandable.
It is based on E = mc^2, which equates to the energy being put into prior to the collision of the particles is squared after the collision, not just doubled.
It shouldn't be mysterious, neutralino, but I've been told that even Einstein misinterpreted his own work so I guess it is understandable.
It is based on E = mc^2, which equates to the energy being put into prior to the collision of the particles is squared after the collision, not just doubled.
The only squared term in that equation is c^2, which is, basically, a conversion factor. I can write units such that that equation becomes E=m: there's nothing squared here.
Note that I didn't say energy is conserved; I said that "energy momentum" is conserved. In special relativity, this means that the energy momentum 4-vector is conserved, whereas in general relativity, this is equivalent to the conservation of the energy momentum tensor.
I'm sorry, but just because you don't understand or agree with the definition of a term, you cannot use it to mean something else.
You seem to understand that, since no energy is but in, and no enery is lost or destroyed in the universe, that the universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine. This is precisely the reason for the conservation of energy-momentum, or mass-energy, in general relativity; so that the solution does not violate any laws of thermodynamics!
Dear sir,
Please read this again.
Quote:
You seem to understand that, since no energy is but in, and no enery is lost or destroyed in the universe, that the universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine.
How do you infer this? If I state that "The cosmos is constantly re-cycled', how do you then leap to me 'seeming' ...'that the Universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine'? Stop 'seeming', and find out!
You could also try tidying up your presentation, as people will be more likely to take a more coherent notion seriously.
Your 'working definition' is contradictory, for the very reason that it posits two 'definitions' of the same thing ('perpetual motion' and 'constant re-cycling'), and goes on to treat them as 'separate'. They are not; it is wrong; and so are you, when you follow blindly instead of finding out the reality for yourself.
pif.
People look after the things they have affection for. It is thus essential that we learn to have affection for the planet that sustains us.
"The sense of threat from every quarter of what is known as the Establishment – which is to say, of modern civilization – is not altogether a put-on or an act for many of these young folk, but an actual condition of soul. The break-off is real, and what is being bombed and blown up outside are actual symbols of interior fears." - Joseph Campbell
Lets see it this way.... high energy (typically near a black hole) will create matter. This matter will again fall inside the black hole creating radiation which will again create matter and so on..... is this perpetual motion possible???
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralino
This is a very technical question, and so to answer it, I'd need to know a lot more about the situation you have in mind.
That's my interpretation of the atom, dip, so it works for me.
Neutralino,
I don't see what invariant qualities have to do with a relativistic equation, but you're right about the conversion factor. Relativistic mass/energy is squared through conversion.
That's my interpretation of the atom, dip, so it works for me.
Neutralino,
I don't see what invariant qualities have to do with a relativistic equation, but you're right about the conversion factor. Relativistic mass/energy is squared through conversion.
How about, instead of questioning things, you go and actually study some relativity, and basic maths while you're at it.
I have said that the equation E=mc^2 is equivalent to E=m, with a different choice of units. This implies that the "c" here, which is a fundamental constant, is simply a conversion factor to make the thing on the right have units of energy. Neither energy nor mass are squared in this expression. Do you see that?
Yes I see that, neutralino, but we're not talking about rest mass - internal energy - re: the annihilation process in your link, we're talking about kinetic energy.
But does it not go against the principle of conservation of energy and mass??
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
That's my interpretation of the atom, dip, so it works for me.
Neutralino,
I don't see what invariant qualities have to do with a relativistic equation, but you're right about the conversion factor. Relativistic mass/energy is squared through conversion.
Linear Mode
