To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater



3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief







Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition



YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines


Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video




WaterMotor kit


  • *Total Members: 83388
  • *Latest: PcJazz

  • *Total Posts: 509614
  • *Total Topics: 15187
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 6
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: E=MC2 - The mass energy relationship revisited  (Read 4865 times)

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
E=MC2 - The mass energy relationship revisited
« on: May 11, 2013, 01:30:28 PM »
This subject has been kicking around in my subconscious for over twenty years, and finally it has kicked back an answer. When I first learned the mass energy relationship E=MC2 (simplistic equation version) concerning the interactions and relationships, something did not quite fit what what I saw in reality. However, I never could really put my finger on anything specific. Everything seemed fine on the surface with the common model.

Now that the problem has finally worked itself out, the confliction is obvious. It should have been obvious then, but my knowledge was actually getting in the way of understanding.

I was taught to look at the relationship in an incorrect manner. It is a matter of perceived constants and variables and subsequent definitions.

Remember that a variable can change where a constant is static.

We are taught that C is a universal constant of 299,792,458 Km/sec[size=78%] [/size]
We are taught that mass is a measurement of the amount of matter contained in the makeup of a physical body which is measured by it's inertia, and that it is a variable.
We are taught that energy is the capacity to do work upon a mass, and when the work is complete it can be measured in either Joules or Watts.

In the case of E=MC2 the measurement is indistinct, as it is supposedly independent of specific measurement units. Alarm bells should be going off right now in everyone's brains.

If this were true, then joules = watts with no conversion necessary, which is not true. E can represent one or the other, but not both at once. Joules and watts can be converted back and forth at will, but do not use the same scale of measurement.

The E representing energy in the mass energy equivalency equation is measuring a specific type of force. In fact, the equations solves the enrgy measurement unit for us. E=MC2 can be restated as E = (given mass) X (a specific velocity). Now, mass times velocity, irrespective of the velocity is measured in joules of energy. That is why in practical use concerning the formula, E is always stated initially in joules.

Therefore E= MC2 is dependent upon specific measurement units, contrary to what I was taught. This is problem 1, and is so obvious that it isn't even funny.

E = joules
M =  Kg
C = m/s

Now, getting to the meat of the matter. It isn't an equivalency. E=MC2 is an inter-relationship, as all equations are.

An equivalency is something which is equivalent to, but not necessarily the same as, something else. Inertia is equivalent to weight, as a for instance. However, weight is not inertia as weight is dependent upon gravity which acts upon mass, while inertia is applicable even outside a gravity well. 1Kg weight = 1Kg inertia only on earth, as we used the gravitational mass as the basis for our measurement scale of inertia. The same mass will have less weight but the same inertia on the moon, for instance.

We are told that inertial mass is constant (true), but the relativistic mass can increase. (Inertial mass has to be constant as matter is neither created nor destroyed. thermo 1st law.)

Here is another problem. There is no such thing as relativistic mass. It is a fairy tale. Mass is a constant in the equation, just as C is a constant. Putting the fancy term 'relativistic' on the statement actually does violate the first law. REAL mass, is inertial mass. The mass never changes.

This should never have been a problem to begin with. let us look at another equation for the answer - F(E)=MV . F is in joules by the way, as it is a measurement of work. F and E are interchangeable in this instance. THIS is the equation actually being used when they think the mass changes, with the only difference being that the variable V is represented by a constant, specifically C2.

E = F when V is C2

A big problem lies in this goof up which has been promoted with relativistic mass. Two assumptions are made, WHICH HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO BE WRONG.

1. The assumption is made that mass can store energy.
2. The assumption is made that mass is matter and that matter is mass.

Matter can store energy, not mass. Mass is inertial, and is constant. However, NO EXTRA MATTER IS CREATED therefore no extra mass. Energy is stored. We see an example of this with the laser. Electrons are kicked to a higher energy level (electron shell) by the addition of energy, and when they fall back down, a photon is released. This is a big hint people. The energy being stored is photons.

Electrons, neutrons, protons, and other particles are by themselves invisible. Yet when ANY kind of explosion happens, from chemical to nuclear, vast amounts of photons are released. This should tell you something, namely that photons are stored in both the weak and the strong nuclear forces!!!

In either example of chemical or atomic, the only energy released is by the breaking of these two bonds.

It also explains an inherent enigma to the equation E=MC2.

Photons, or discrete packets of electromagnetic energy, are not matter. Matter is not light.

So why the heck is C2 even used in a formula which is matter specific?

The answer is that the rest mass/energy relationship within a mass at rest already has stored photons. They make up the various bonds in the atomic nucleus, and the bonds holding two atoms in proximity to each other. The faster an object is accelerated, the more photons are stored within these bonds.

Photons exert pressure in their own right.

The implications of this simple principle combined with the previous are enormous.

It means that F=MV is a measurement of EXTRA stored photons. The actual substance released upon impact is photons. That is why materials deform, as the weak force holding the molecules together have weakened due to the MINUTE transfer of photons. That is also why an impact gives off a minute amount of photons in the form of heat. That is also why friction causes the release of infrared photons, and why those same photons cause mechanical movement in molecules.

This ties relativity directly and seamlessly into classical mechanics. They are not two different seeming explanations, but a seamless whole when combined.

People, this goes a long way towards tying everything together.

I also know it raises a heck of a lot of questions. I am aware of this, and also of the various coincidental inferences. For instance, where do the extra photons come from? (The materials expelled to accelerate the mass. The photons are transferred as bonds are broken.)

My brain has started to wrap itself around these things next.

Let me walk this through once, using a bullet as an example.

A bullet is accelerated in a gun. As the powder burns, the chemical bonds are broken. Some are reabsorbed to make new bonds (chemical compounds), others are transferred into the bonds of the bullet itself as it accelerates. Some are absorbed into the material of the gun.

The bullet reaches maximum velocity when it has absorbed the available photons in it's environment. (the barrel). The bellet leaves the barrel and immediately starts transferring photons to it's environment, as it will return to normal energy state as fast as possible.

In this case, with the impact of every gas atom and molecule it approaches close enough to. (friction). It travels until it encounters another mass with enough volume to stop it, then the extra photons are given off as material deforms. This deformation can be of the material it strikes, the bullet itself, or both. This transference of photons will also take the form of infrared and vibration, as well as new molecular compounds created by the extra energy.

It means that the force we talk about in classical Newtonian mechanics is actually photons as described in relativistic physics.

Neither Einstein nor Newton were wrong. They were describing different aspects of the same coin, using different terms.

E = inherent plus additional photons within the bonds of matter before release
F = release of additional OR total stored photons within the bonds of matter, or both depending upon mass interaction at release, and velocity
F=E at approaching C2
F=MV at much less than C2

Something to think about.

There is one possible alternative to consider. If the atomic particles themselves are made of photons. If this is the case, then the particles such as electrons may increase in size with the addition of energy in an unstable state, then return to stable when it is released. However, this would require that photons have mass, and that matter = photons at rest. It would also mean that the strong and weak are a product of something else. I seriously doubt this, but have no proof.

You make the call.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Online forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3855
Re: E=MC2 - The mass energy relationship revisited
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2013, 02:52:29 PM »
There is no mass. It's abstract used to explain the mix of volume and density which both are taken from the experimental measurement.... You cannot measure mass, it's always by measuring force and computing.

Energy is real and momentum is real and volume is real and density is real (first two are figured out by science while two last by common practice)

Energy is the "opposition" to the time while momentum is "opposition" to space. Sorry I can't tell exactly how it's done, but if there would be no time flow energy wouldn't exists. Many of scientific therms are the "round around" almost mystical nothing used to compute things.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: E=MC2 - The mass energy relationship revisited
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2013, 04:53:22 AM »
Inertial mass the the resistance of a volume of matter towards motion. Mass is not volume, it is not weight, and it is not density. Nor is it really a combination of any of these. It is based more upon density, as a dense piece of matter will have more mass than a comparable volume of less dense material, but they are not the same measurement. Mass is directly measured, by resistance of motion.

A 1Kg mass will require 1kg of force to move it in a vacuum. Gravity affects inertial mass, and we created our mass scale based upon the effects of gravity upon mass here on earth. Therefore you can weigh an object here, and that will tell you its mass, yet mass is not a measure of weight. What weighs 1kg here will weigh a small fraction of that on the moon, yet it will still require 1kg of force to move the object around on the moon.

The basic definition sucks, I agree. I agree that many other definitions leave a lot to be desired as well. Many of them are self referencing as well, which is illogical.

For instance work is the ability to transfer energy from one object to another, and energy is the ability to do work upon an object. Therefore work is the ability to do work, and energy is the ability to transfer energy. These are nonsensical definitions and an exercise in applied circular logic.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: E=MC2 - The mass energy relationship revisited
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2013, 04:53:22 AM »
Sponsored links:

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: E=MC2 - The mass energy relationship revisited
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2013, 05:10:24 AM »
Concerning time, did you realize the spaceship logical model only works one way? Did you know that it was not fully explored?

Basically, it is a case of shallow thinking.

If a spaceship leaves earth traveling at close to C, then time in reference to the point of origin would appear to speed up for the travelers in the ship in which time would appear to be slowing down, as the light traveling from the point of origin travels at C.

However, time would also appear to slow down even further in relation to them on the ship if they looked in front of the ship towards their destination. Classic Newton, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. They arrive at their destination, and decide to go back home.

The classical understanding it that time slowed for them, and that when they return home, they would be young and much time would have passed from their point of origin. This view is one sided, and a 'Shallow Hal' type of thinking.

To return to their point of origin, they would have to stop the ship and accelerate back toward their original point of origin, which is now their point of destination. Time would appear to slow down in front of them on the return trip, and when they returned, it would be as if no time change had occurred.

They would find out that photons are not carriers of time, and that the whole stinking mess was an optical illusion to begin with.