einstien wrong ?

[Kapitan]

watching a t.v programme about nuclear physics and space and it shows many gamma ray bursts that are so powerful the einstiens E=MC2 is totaly wiped out.

the astrologers found and traced gamma rays with red shift and found an explosion so powerful its unimaginable. and does the impossible at first it breaks the E=MC2 law.

E=mc2 is a version of Einstein's Relativity equation. Specifically, it means that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared. it states that there is an equivalence between mass and energy. This simple statement has many profound implications... such as no object with mass can ever go faster than the speed of light

at first this is compleatly shatterd however it is in our own galaxy and what was traced back using red shift was shocking they found a black hole




during an explosion particles are thrown out in every direction and the scientists thought that the beam of gamma ray was just one part of this.
it turns out its not the case the black holes force is so emmence that it stops the out ward explosion and forms it into a small beam of force so enstiens theroy wasnt proved wrong



behind the black hole comes the star nurserys which just threw theroys out of the windows yet again in theroy no star should die in a star nusery

the formation of a super nova is where a star is expanding and becomes well big now the bigger doesnt mean better infact the biggest stars live for only a fraction of the time our own sun does.

when a super nova dies it collapses in on itself forming a black hole the hole sucks in everything it once was made of shooting out gamma rays.

so far weve seen back to 10 billion years and scientist are trying to find star nurserys from the dawn of time.

any one any theroys ?

[TLAM Strike]

It wouldn’t be the first time Einstein was wrong. In his latter years he mostly ignored the results of the work of the scientists who were splitting the atom. This is why his theories on the “Weak Force” don’t mesh together with modern theories on the “Strong Force”.

[Iceman]

the astrologers found and traced gamma rays with red shift and found an explosion so powerful its unimaginable.


Did you mean Astronomers?....Astrologers look like this....

http://www.cyberallies.com/nostro.gif

LMAO.... :rotfl:

[Neutrino 123]

watching a t.v programme about nuclear physics and space and it shows many gamma ray bursts that are so powerful the einstiens E=MC2 is totaly wiped out.

the astrologers found and traced gamma rays with red shift and found an explosion so powerful its unimaginable. and does the impossible at first it breaks the E=MC2 law.

If it's 'astrologers', then I wouldn't pay attention to what they say at all. :rotfl: Edit: Damn! Someone beat me to it!

By the way, gamma rays are photons, so E=mc^2 doesn't apply to them. Photons do not have any mass, and E=mc^2 only gives the rest mass of a particle. If you want the energy of a moving particle, you need to use E=sqrt(m^2c^4+p^2c^2) where p is the relativistic momentum of a particle (for a photon this is h/wavelegnth where h is Plank's constant). :ping:


E=mc2 is a version of Einstein's Relativity equation. Specifically, it means that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared. it states that there is an equivalence between mass and energy. This simple statement has many profound implications... such as no object with mass can ever go faster than the speed of light

Well, E=mc^2 is a result of relativity. Einstein's only starting points in special relativity were, 'The speed of light is the same for all observers' and 'the laws of physics are the same for all observers'.

Einstein definitely made some major mistakes, but relativity is not one of them. Relativity is certainly correct, and lots of people say its one of the two pillars of modern physics. :know:

This looks like a good link if you are interested in special relativity:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

[Kapitan]

the E=MC2 bit you quoted is from NASA exact words

but yeah im more into nuclear physics at the moment i want to learn about nuclear reactors and weapons

no reason in particular *coff coff * :D :roll:

[Wim Libaers]

Einstein definitely made some major mistakes, but relativity is not one of them. Relativity is certainly correct, and lots of people say its one of the two pillars of modern physics. :know:


Well, you can't be certain that it is correct, the most you can say is that it is consistent with currently available data. Just like Newton's laws were, before some annoying observations appeared that required the relativity correction.

Besides, the other pillar is quantum mechanics, and that theory is in some ways inconsistent with relativity.

[Abraham]

the E=MC2 bit you quoted is from NASA exact words

but yeah im more into nuclear physics at the moment i want to learn about nuclear reactors and weapons

no reason in particular *coff coff * :D :roll:
You don´t happen to move to Iran shortly, you mean...
;)
By the way, I love the title of this thread.
:rotfl:

[Kapitan]

lol :D thanks nah that was a quote of of the TV and the bloke who said it behind him was a big sign saying NASA

[Skybird]

Sciences means collecting sensory observation results by systematical effort, and then put the findings into an artifically created order of whatever a kind. This order is called a paradigm, and sometimes paradigms change, fundamentally. Whatever we believe we had found out about the universe, is not the ultimate, everlasting truth, but our mind dancing with the unlimited possebilities of it's own imagination. And that love affair is a truly eternal one.

This I have put in nice words, I think! :)

In a way I think, that everything that can be imagined, can become a reality, no matter if for good or for worse. As if it is all just a dream. And maybe it is.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Einstein, I think).

[Neutrino 123]

Einstein definitely made some major mistakes, but relativity is not one of them. Relativity is certainly correct, and lots of people say its one of the two pillars of modern physics. :know:


Well, you can't be certain that it is correct, the most you can say is that it is consistent with currently available data. Just like Newton's laws were, before some annoying observations appeared that required the relativity correction.

Besides, the other pillar is quantum mechanics, and that theory is in some ways inconsistent with relativity.

It's inconsistant in very important ways. Technically, both theories are most definitely 'wrong', but they explain what they set out to very well. Thus, they are highly successful theories, just like Newtonian mechanics is. Even if a new Theory of Everything (what I hope to be starting work on next year) is found, Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and relativity will still continue to be used successfully to conduct various investigations. :ping:

It's not really necessary to collect new data to show the theories are wrong, and in fact, to do so would be quite difficult (though Hawking radiation would probably do the trick, I am not completely familiar with the experimental side of things). One can see these theories are wrong simply by thinking about very small things with very high gravitational forces, particularly the early universe and black holes. These make gravity come into play on small scales, and gravity is not a quantum-consistant theory, so neither theory can explain things very well.

[Abraham]

lol :D thanks nah that was a quote of of the TV and the bloke who said it behind him was a big sign saying NASA
I thought it was a typing error from you...
:D

[Bill Nichols]

E=MC2 is the law. It can't be wrong :hulk:

[Kapitan]

just like drink driving is against the law but if you say it was an emergency or you feard for your life that one kinda gets you off the hook

[Rockstar]

In a way I think, that everything that can be imagined, can become a reality, no matter if for good or for worse. As if it is all just a dream. And maybe it is.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[Iceman]

Ecclesiastes 1

[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
[10] Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
[11] There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

[Skybird]

In a way I think, that everything that can be imagined, can become a reality, no matter if for good or for worse. As if it is all just a dream. And maybe it is.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Damn, I knew we had a problem.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm just waiting to see how this thread will be somehow linked to Russian military hardware, Russian military tactics, Russian material and/or economic superiority, Russian submarine construction or the Russian military-industrial complex at large.

[Kapitan]

hmmm i wonder what tak means :hmm: :D :roll:

[Bob Sakamano]

I like Pespi more than Coke

Oh yeah...Einstein was pretty cool too...

Anyway, about the Russian military complex...they tricked us all into believing that the theory of relatively good soda was lost with new formula coke back during the REagan Administration. So I can't see how we can now be even a little objective about being relatively clueless about just about everything or nothing at all.

Sorry folks...a bit goofy from lack of sleep plus my nightly medicinal...

Have a great day!

[porphy]

E=MC2 is the law. It can't be wrong

I'm with Bill, what is this world coming to... ;)


Cheers Porphy

[Bill Nichols]

Back when the US national speed limit was 55 miles per hour, one often saw signs that said, "55: It's the Law". :down:

My car sports a custom license plate frame that says, "299792458 M S-1: It's the Law" :|\

Now, I learn that scientists have broken the speed-of-light limit, too :o :

"Speed of light broken with basic lab kit"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796

:hmm:

[porphy]

Bill and all

If this was the only thing that was going on... now they say that "Light may have slowed down"... http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1158

No wonder they broke the speed of light, they simply used the oldand fast light comperad to the one we got. There should be a law against this behaviour... Einsteins law perhaps? :-j

Cheers Porphy

[Bill Nichols]

Porphy - It's even worse! Not only might the speed of light slowed over the life of the universe. Now, scientists have been able to create 'slow light' in the laboratory.

Physicists Slow Speed of Light
"Light, which normally travels the 240,000 miles from the Moon to Earth in less than two seconds, has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour." :o


http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

[porphy]

has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour."

Thats great news Bill! When I'm late for work I can say I did go by the speed of light. In case they still complain I will ask them how they possibly can expect me to go faster... :up: (Better be quiet about the other most disturbing news you have reported about in this thread....) :nope:

Could they possibly find a way to let sound break the soundbarrier to? :88)

Cheers Porphy

[Abraham]

has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour."

Thats great news Bill! When I'm late for work I can say I did go by the speed of light.
This is a stupid line of reasoning and very self-centered as well.
If light is really slowed to app. 38 miles you can't drive any faster than that in darknes, because you would overtake your own headlights and drive in the dark!
Perhaps a nice excuse to spend an extra hour with your secretary after office hours but very unsafe for highway traffic during evening hours...
:D

[Wim Libaers]

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm