• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

E=Mc^2

John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
If E=Mc^2 then how do we describe gravity? Isn't gravity a form of energy or is it just considered a force? Or does the equation describe gravity?
 
Don't quote me on this but if I understood anything then all kinds of potential energy in whatever form adds to the mass of an object or a system or whatever. Apparently the mass of a hydrogen atom is smaller than the mass of an lone electron and a lone proton combined for this reason. But can mass exist somewhere where there is no more potential energy? Idk.
 
John Connor said:
If E=Mc^2 then how do we describe gravity? Isn't gravity a form of energy or is it just considered a force? Or does the equation describe gravity?
Click to expand...
\
There is no gravity for free falling bodies, like in space. If you are in an elevator which is in free fall and drop a ball held in your hand, there is no "pull" on the ball, which will stay in its position relative to you.
 
deustroop said:
\
There is no gravity for free falling bodies, like in space. If you are in an elevator which is in free fall and drop a ball held in your hand, there is no "pull" on the ball, which will stay in its position relative to you.
Click to expand...
Technically it would be drawn to whatever the most massive object in the vicinity is, as well as 'falling' toward the earth, so potentially it'd be drawn to your body (albeit slowly). Note that you would hit the bottom of the elevator before any substantial amount of force was exerted on the ball toward your direction.
 
Gravity is just the phenomenon that two mass attract to each other, it's not mass.

Gravitational force equation F = Gm1m2/r2,

where F is the force due to gravity, between two masses (m1 and m2), which are a distance r apart; G is the gravitational constant.

Most mass is from energy, as shown by equation M= E/C^2

if one gram (not kilogram) of mass is completely converted to energy, it's 21.5 kilotons of TNT = one Nagasaki atomic bomb.


 
Last edited:
a) It's 99.99899% certain that Poincare knew and had published E=Mc^2 for strictly limited distribution about 25 years before AlbertE plagiarized him. (Why do you think Albert didn't provide any footnoted credits to those he "borrowed" from? Same as Isaac Newton stealing calculus from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Same as Charles Darwin (I visited his boyhood house last week) ripping off a whole lotta predecessor guys who PUBLISHED everything Darwin said, about 100 years sooner. )

b) It'll probably be hundreds, if not thousands of years until we widely recognize the semiconscious property of light (aware but not self-aware). Understanding gravity will follow, maybe hundreds or thousands of years after that.
 
ringtail said:
a) It's 99.99899% certain that Poincare knew and had published E=Mc^2 for strictly limited distribution about 25 years before AlbertE plagiarized him. (Why do you think Albert didn't provide any footnoted credits to those he "borrowed" from? Same as Isaac Newton stealing calculus from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Same as Charles Darwin (I visited his boyhood house last week) ripping off a whole lotta predecessor guys who PUBLISHED everything Darwin said, about 100 years sooner. )

b) It'll probably be hundreds, if not thousands of years until we widely recognize the semiconscious property of light (aware but not self-aware). Understanding gravity will follow, maybe hundreds or thousands of years after that.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in seeing the evidence about the E=MC2 theory.
 
ringtail said:
a) It's 99.99899% certain that Poincare knew and had published E=Mc^2 for strictly limited distribution about 25 years before AlbertE plagiarized him. (Why do you think Albert didn't provide any footnoted credits to those he "borrowed" from? Same as Isaac Newton stealing calculus from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Same as Charles Darwin (I visited his boyhood house last week) ripping off a whole lotta predecessor guys who PUBLISHED everything Darwin said, about 100 years sooner. )

b) It'll probably be hundreds, if not thousands of years until we widely recognize the semiconscious property of light (aware but not self-aware). Understanding gravity will follow, maybe hundreds or thousands of years after that.
Click to expand...
You are drastically underestimating the rate at which we are developing and discovering knowledge and information. It's an exponential relationship, which is why we've already learned more in this century than the entire 20th century. I'm sure we won't have a solid understanding in the next decade, but thousands of years? That's way too long. Half of this shit was discovered less than 100 years ago and we are already making a ton of progress. Is it a drop in the bucket? Yes, but exponential relationships tend to behave that way and it's not obvious unless you take a big step back to examine the big picture.
 
Dude will you please stop spamming all of the HT threads with your nonsense? Most of what you're saying is incoherent and not helpful at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't even know who you're responding to. I didn't ask a question and your responses are completely incoherent. Stop spamming all of the threads please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that equation expresses maximum energy obtainable from mass. it doesnt express gravity the same way that it doesn't predict the weather - the two are not connected.
 
DigDog said:
that equation expresses maximum energy obtainable from mass. it doesnt express gravity the same way that it doesn't predict the weather - the two are not connected.
Click to expand...


I guess that's a simple way of putting it and making it easy to understand.

Quantum theory and astrophysics are interesting, and while I can understand the subjects to an extent, some of it is like Alice in Wonderland-like. LOL
 
you can get a fairly indepth understanding of physics without needing the maths that give the proof. after all, all physics does is describe physical events. some pretty solid videos on youtube .. PBS Space Time is currently my fav.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top