# E=mc^2

• Topic Is Sticky
• 521 Views
• Last Post 11 July 2018
Chris posted this 01 May 2018

A topic I have been through before, but requires attention again.

### E = mc2

The Term coined, Mass Energy Equivalence.

E = Energy, m = Mass and c is the speed of Light, but this is squared, so is c2

Today our entire Electrical world depends on Energy! We call this Electrical Energy, Voltage x Current. A Charge Potential and a Current that can Flow as a result of this Charge Potential.

Carbon Dioxide, a well known Gas, can change its form by Cooling it and Compressing it, or pressurising it. This process turns a Gas into a Liquid. Similarly, Energy is Mass Compressed by c2.

The good old fashioned Electrical "Generator" that so called "Generates" a Voltage Potential can do so with very little force required. This is similar to rubbing Glass with a Silk Cloth, Charge Separation!

However, as soon as we draw a Current, one Ampere being defined as 6.24 · 1018 Electrons per Second, we see a very large restriction. This restriction is called Lenz's Law, an Equal and opposite Magnetomotive Force, Lenz's law is initially provided as a Negative sign in Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction.

Magnetically, we have two equal and opposite Magnetomotive Forces, this creates a very high stress area, similar to the change in Carbon Dioxide, from a Gas to a Liquid, instead we have Mass release bound Electrons, freeing the Electrons so more Electrons can flow.

The Voltage produced is the already existing free Electrons, separated and guided to the Terminals. The direction of guidance can be determined by The Lorentz Force.

Applying a Stress, to a Mass, allows for the ability to Free more and more Electrons to become Free to Flow Electrons.

The Water Cell is an example:

Ref: fuelcellsworks.com

The Mass is Water ( H2O ), the applied Stress is Electrical, between two Capacitor Plates, this Separates the Oxygen molecule ( O ) from the Hydrogen Molecules ( H2 ) giving Hydrogen Gas and Oxygen Gas.

If no Stress were to be applied, then Water ( H2O ) is a well known Stable Mass.

Similarly, Copper, a Mass, the Atomic structure consisting of:

• 29 Electrons
• 29 Protons
• 34 Neutrons

when put under a Stress, can release its outermost Electrons for use as Free Electrons to Flow in a Circuit as Current.

I want to quote Floyd Sweet again, many others have said a similar thing:

The current and potential windings require relatively little power, and are applied in such a manner that rate of flow of moving charges may be accelerated beyond 1 Ampere = 6.24 x 1018 Electrons / second. Thus the duty factor of the copper changes.

Losses diminish and more charges drawn from the now coherent space field flow at a faster rate as current to the load. This means as more current is required by varying loads more feedback magnetomotive forces free more electrons from binding forces complimented by potential magnetic forces of the orientated, coherent space field. Thus a conductor that formerly had a temperature rise above ambient labelled as a factor of 10 would now operate at a temperature of 1.0. Thus the same gauge wire would carry 10 times more current at the same temperature.

And:

The current and voltage initiating fields are in such a direction to either accelerate or decelerate the rate of flow of charges depending on the applied polarity and voltage amplitudes.

As polarity may be maintained constant, that polarity of acceleration should be chosen so charges move at faster rates, lowering copper duty factor, at the same time opening the gates wider so more coherent field entities may enter for the conversion process.

It’s obvious, we have a self-regulated machine whose inherent conservation to the nth degree.

Floyd Sweet also makes special note of Freeing more Electrons. A Stress required to over come the Binding Forces of the Electron to its orbital/Nucleus, this Stress is specifically to make more Electrons Flow in the Conductor.

EDIT IN PROGRESS... More to come

• Liked by
Marathonman posted this 01 May 2018

There is no energy in mass and as you have stated above the equation it's self is wrongfully interpreted. i have a hard time with electrons being released from the outer shell because there is no energy in mass, it receives it from the Ether so there is where i am having the hardest time with these statements.

a generator does not generate, in reality it is an Ether accumulator that opens the door to the dielectric sea which flow from outside in.

these are the problems i am having understanding the relationship.

Marathonman

Chris posted this 01 May 2018

Hey MM, yes I hear you, we have had this discussion. I think we agree to dissagree on this one.

I have many reasons for sticking to the concepts of Science today.

The Electron is a Fundamental Particle and the only Particle we measure the Potential of, and Flow of, today. This, the very basis of why we are here, Electrical Energy is the Product of.

Chris

Chris posted this 01 May 2018

Hey Bob,

I have changed the Title. Was thinking on how to approach. I wish to stick to current well known convention.

Re the Nuclear Bomb, a horrible way to prove a theory, E = MC2 did prove to be true. The Nuclear bomb would not have been possible without the Theory and Equation.

Many articles and papers show this.

Mass Energy Equivalence is a very well known concept that a great deal of technology is based on today. If not all of it, realistically.

From the Mass Energy Equivalence link:

Any time energy is generated, the process can be evaluated from an E = mc2 perspective. For instance, the "Gadget"-style bomb used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Nagasaki had an explosive yield equivalent to 21 kt of TNT. About 1 kg of the approximately 6.15 kg of plutonium in each of these bombs fissioned into lighter elements totaling almost exactly one gram less, after cooling. The electromagnetic radiation and kinetic energy (thermal and blast energy) released in this explosion carried the missing one gram of mass. This occurs because nuclear binding energy is released whenever elements with more than 62 nucleons fission.

I think we need to stay grounded, Science is mostly right, postulates being the biggest hole, and most physicists will openly admit that Science is still incomplete. After all, all the technology we have today is based on the Science we have.

I have also seen the fact that Einstein did not formulate the E = MC2 equation and it was taken from others. I hope history can be corrected! I always want to see the right people get credited for their works!

Chris

Chris posted this 01 May 2018

Hey Bob,

Re Title, I was thinking how to approach at post time, adding a super script can be done in html using the sub or sup tags, but not in the title.

Your'e exactly correct, there is no Lenz's Law in creating a Potential! This is a Fundamental Error in what we classify as Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction. The Voltage is opposite! so the Equation E.M.F = -N d Phi / dt is correct, but the interpretation and definition of Lenz's Law is incorrect! I would say that this is deliberate, a constructed misinterpretation.

An error of this magnitude is not easily over looked when such theory and experiment proves such phenomena!

Yes, we are off topic! This should have been in the Lenz's Law Thread

Chris

Chris posted this 22 May 2018

Often, physicists will give a story of Matter and Energy:

There is enough energy in a single cubic meter of space to boil all the oceans in the world.

Richard P. Feynman

As an example, and please forgive my basic fumbling math skills:

E = mc2

m = 1kg

c2 = 89875517873681760

E = m * c2 = 89875517873681760 Joules

Of course my example shows Matter or Mass at 1 Kilogram, this could be any Element or mixture of Elements. Lets say Copper Block.

Isn't it amazing to see this, see how Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalence shows this so simply.

Chris

• Liked by
Vince posted this 04 July 2018

As a side note.  As the primary topics discussed here are electrodynamics/electromagnetics I thought some might find it interesting to discover that it was not Einsein that first discovered this relationship, but it was in fact Clerk Maxwell.  Eric Dollard mentioned this in one of his lectures and recently I found further confirmation of this in www.naturalphilosophy.org

A quote from the linked article.

"As for the origin of the formula, it wasn’t until five years before his death (1955) that Einstein publicly attributed the basis of E = mc2 to the 1862 charge-momentum field equations of James Clerk Maxwell"

• Liked by
dummyload posted this 04 July 2018

"Continuing with the concept of the variation of a quantity (or dimension) with respect to time (another dimension). We may say then we are talking about a RATIO of a physical dimension to a metrical dimension. Previously given, the ratio of a physical dimension, the Planck Q to a metrical dimension the time t gives then the dimensional relation of energy W. Then from the Newton-Liebnitz concept we say delta Q over delta t equals W, that is, the first order time derivative of electrification Q equals the energy W. Now the Einsteiner says the inverse, and that is, the time integral of W, the energy, over time interval t’ to t” is the electrification Q. This is to say Q is the PRODUCT of the energy W and the time interval T. W times T equals Q. This is backward-ass, thereby occluding the interrelationships of these three distinct relationships." Energy Defined - Eric Dollard.

• Liked by
Vince posted this 08 July 2018

I must apologize for my lack of attribution, or acknowledgment Bob.  It was not deliberate however.  Having read the previous posts a day or so before I had forgotten much of the content.  My memory has been quite impaired since developing CFS.

Personally I have mixed feelings re Einstein.  I have seen that in some respects he was quite noble, and yet at times he was otherwise.  Being a young man when he wrote his famous theories I suppose he was ambitious.  Ambition often to leads to poor judgement in my experience.

What I find curious is the way he was thrust onto the world stage.  A of couple years after he published Special Relativity an associate of his was asked if it was true that only three persons in the entire world actually understood his theories.  He said that he and Einstein understood them, and then asked, "who is the other one"?  How is it that he was so revered, when in fact no one actually understood the theories?  Having considered this in light of what I've learned over the years I believe there were very powerful people behind his meteoric rise to fame and their motives were quite sinister.  Removing the aether from science was a far greater genius than Einstein.  It has crippled scientific progress to a great extent.  However, Einstein himself once stated that his theories actually 'required' the aether, but this is not only overlooked, it is often denied.  The holy grail of science, fuel free limitless energy, is closely guarded by dragons, and they will devour anyone who approaches too closely.

• Liked by
Vince posted this 10 July 2018

It is said that after adding up all the remaining mass after fission that the small amount of mass missing in the total mass of the remaining particles shows that E = MC^2 is in fact correct.  However, I don't see the x rays and gamma photons ejected during the process being accounted for in this.  Those ejected photons impart momentum on interacting with other material objects.  The momentum seems to be conserved if you take the heat transferred into surrounding materials into account.  I think someone is cooking the books.

• Liked by
Vidura posted this 10 July 2018

Hi all,

as i am very bad in math's i cant give any comment regarding the questioned formula, but i would like to share this idea or concept.

I believe that all the known (and unknown) universe is actually made of energy, and it should be questioned if there is really something as matter , or if that what we know as matter has a proper  existence. It might be only a state of energy, a certain range of vibration which manifests as matter. I'm thinking about the similarity of the states of matter solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma . maybe this goes on further to the different types of radiation and finally all arises from the same causality.

• Liked by
Vince posted this 11 July 2018

It might be only a state of energy, a certain range of vibration which manifests as matter

Personally I am quite certain that you are correct Vidura.  Space, and by that I mean that which pervades the entire universe, is some type of superfluidic medium (aether)  that exists below the level of our physical world.  It would seem that physicality itself is manifestation via an underlying local vibratory condition of that medium.  There seems to be a universal desire in science to particulate everything in order to hide aethers existence.  If you can describe everything as purely particulate in nature the medium itself can be ignored.

• Liked by
Members Online:
Since Nov 27 2018
Our Above Unity Machines:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

Donate (PayPal)

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Donate (Patreon)

Thank You So Much!

Start Here:
Weeks High Earners:
The great Nikola Tesla:

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago go by instinct or reason. It has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who drives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians, and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).