Let`s say that mass is just cooler form of energy, I mean when energy get`s cold it turns into mass, wasn`t E=mc^2 wrong all the time then because E is the ultimate equation because everything is energy?

Energy is potential. Is measured in difference. For example the waterfall falls. That is the energy you can use. Energy = work.

There's no cold, dark or whatever else energy. Energy is energy.

If he was wrong? You'd have to study what they actually meant by what they said/claimed.

But as I can remember they were describing the energy that is present but we cannot detect it with our current tools. With other words, a to as invisible waterfall. This is just an example don't take it too literally.

Well...water falls but what about 9.81m/s/s2 ? The water is using KE causing friction as it cascades down. So that is not exactly true.

I do not agree that when energy gets cold that it turns into mass. Mass is mass. Energy has nothing to do with mass 'M' Mass simply alters it's vibration and slows down hence decreasing it's flow of energy. This can be seen in steam as energy is increased. The mass remains constant but the volume increases. This is the principle of heat dissipation

Simple tests include The Collapsing Can experiment and burning something in a tin and weighing the mass before and after. The weight stays the same There never was an energy of darkness itself. Darkness is merely the absence if light. Light being energy that can be measured with IR sensors .

Cold is the drawing of heat energy that does not deplete energy from it's mass but the vibration state around the mass.

Energy can take various forms from PE to KE. The potential being the resultant of direction. From example Velocity to Acceleration as in a pendulum clock.

E=mc^2 is NOT wrong. Just like when Newton said that light travels in straight lines. This formula is relative to the situation.

I suppose if you keep fiddling with your formula all kinds of things can happen in cyber space. The reality is here although I find this difficult to believe looking at some of the posts.

If you are going to take a genius like Einstein and compare him with some disembodied space theory...bits of paper and maths my man!

Einstein proved that time was relative and measured time bending. You firstly state that energy converts to mass followed by energy is energy.
Confused!

I have to agree with one of your points that sometimes the energy present cannot be detected with our current tools.

Believe what you wish.

Just another point...energy is NOT potential. Potential is potential and Kinetic is Kinetic energy being used.
For example a car battery is generally potential because energy is not actually stored but charged.


Energy is around us and contained in different ways.

For example:-

You draw a right angled triangle and can apply Sine or Cosine Rule. It literally means in mechanical science that one is relative to the other. A decrease on one is an increase in the other. Ie Cos 60= Cos 30
I a general sense this is our Yin-Yan basis of life.

Cos 60 is the TRANSIENT. It literally means that one energy replaces another. For example as PE is used up, it creates KE .

The basis of all this is that initially Hysteresis takes place as partial energy is used to 'crank up the system'

The simple analysis of this form is again in our simple pendulum and the swings of the pendulum producing the Involute of a Sine Wave.

Situation creates a kind of perpetual motion as energy gets absorbed similar to a fly wheel. Not perpetual in fact as the system will run down eventually. Circular motion as opposed to linear motion is superior as we have feedback as the energy is recycled

In pure advanced maths with can integrate our formula as opposed to differentiate as to form resultants of one component to the other.

Referring to our pendulum the simple arithmetic formulae changes into +/- b^2/ 4b^2 times AC (I could be slightly wrong) as this is the 3D version of our clock.

The trouble with this formula is that our mathematicians had to alter the 'b' into a '-b' in order that it equates in both negative and positive, Obviously this os our Spring formula as our simple circle has now got a 'Z' axis by integration. This is represented as our RESULTANT on a 2D equation.

When we integrate to the next stage we have a formula very similar to E=mc^2.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ene...AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=_


(see top left corner)

So you see...we now have ANALYTICAL maths because Einstein was correct!

Our linear form allows us to go in a straight line whilst our circular builds up on speed.

(UFOs?)

The next stage is more interesting because our spring changes into a sphere. This is our 2D circle originally

There is still stability because the sphere has forces which is keeping it's shape.

Integrate further and you need a White Board five yards long.

Our sphere turns into an egg as more energy is fed into it. On 2D representation from our simple right angled triangle the YY axis starts to collapse and the XX elongates into exponential and changes to infinity.

Mass starts to cancel out because the formulae unbalances itself .

God knows what happens because our mathematicians cannot prove anything.

Our time-space consortium BREAKS.

We are exceeding the speed of light.

Einstein remains correct because he can prove up to the point of his mathematics.

What happens to mass in relation to energy?

How the heck do I know...!!!

Just because we cannot see or value it does not mean that energy is also mass.
Mass to an extent has electrons and that Is I suppose is a form of stored energy?

We still have a nucleus so what happens to it? I am not into nuclear physics so I will shut up at this stage.

As a mechanical analysis this si my point.

I thought of another way to explain it...a simpler way in 2D.

Everyone should be conversant with the simple pendulum clock.

At school you learnt to draw your right angle triangle and eventually produce your U^2 ooooh heck the memory fails me.... The one with the exponential decay.

Velocity and acceleration are held together by the angle of 90 deg. One side collapses as the other increases vise versa.

What happens now if the angle at 90 degrees alters???

We start to get your a^2-b^2+c^2 ans so on as you still have equilibrium . The difference with your clock is that the hands will start to go faster and slower but still keep the same hourly time as one catches up with the other.
In other words warping occurs and flexes like a ruler tapped on a desk going up and down with vibration at one end.

We know taht it will still keep hourly time because the lines and angles still join up,

This is of course until the angle further separates and the lag between acceleration and velocity increase dramatically then getting nearer and further like the earth revolves around the sun.

The same as the EGG shape that I explained above. So instead of constant Earth temp we get the seasons like we do. Same with our clock going fast and slow instead due to the elliptical rotation compared to it's previous circular rotation.

YER...you can see it"!!!! Told you!

Now what happens when the thinnest diameter of our ellipse gets thinner and our 90 degrees spreads wide apart. That is 2D in 3D it is an egg

The middle will collapse completely pushing the elongation further away in both directions and eventually collapse the YY axis and extend the XX into infinity at super speed as the angle collapses. Now you are in 4D and time hence before being an abstract has become real and moves about in variations. We no longer have it constant...but variable only here on Earth we see time as relative depending on our state of mind. It appears longer a s we watch a paint dry

Where have you seen this before???

Star Trek with warp speed Mr Sulu. Then the universe folds in from top to bottom as the Enterprise accelerates to warp speed.
With our Here-Now as our clock dial changes shape to being more squashed it will fold into itself pressed from the top into a straight line and ...God knows...my brain cannot envisage it further.

Now let science prove me incorrect?

It cannot because I have even beaten Einstein.
It will say to me, that although calculable that I cannot prove it otherwise except on a while board.

Hey...do UFOs exist? Oh well the debate still goes on. Likewise with science...prove it!!!!

Normal verses the paranormal.

But when the first explosion happened and spread out, you mean there was mass there to begin with? But if so, where did it come from?

I will come to that later.

Something not entirely true in my last post....

It is the Earth tilt that alters the seasons not the distance away from the sun.

The principle is the same. The further away from a gas fire and the colder you get.

Hello frankie85,

First let me apologise for my limitation as a Mechanical Science engineer. I am not an astrophysicist.

We work on similar principles but they know more in this line of field.

Your post is interesting and very well put. From my understanding I will try and answer the question?

1) As I understand that sun has both energy and mass. Mass increases as the energy decreases , It could be said that mass is energy?

2) However......if we take E=mc^2 we have both factors of 'm' and 'E'. Transposing the formula m=E/c^2 We can see that c^2 is inversely proportional to energy 'E'

We know what 'c' is 38416,000 miles per second. so we can work out 'm' which is relative to 'E'
Mass of course is different to weight. Yet here we have a clear indication that energy is not mass because 'm' still remains in our equation after 38416K/s
Prior to reaching this figure light starts to misbehave but is still with the constraints of our valuation.

3) Energy is also light as light is in photons and has no mass

4) To the question.....
I assume that you refer to the gamma ray burst? To be honest I do not know. What I do know is that we have constraints on this Earth and cannot envisage the probability based on limitation.

5) Science (which I argue with as well) is based on the time of acceptance. Einstein was correct and so was Newton. Now we are projecting beyond Einstein but do not have the tools to argue his theories.
It means that unless someone can come along and demonstrate his incorrectness that he still stands! Light bends but Newton says that it travels in straight lines.
It travels in straight lines up to a stage and no one in Newton's time had cause to argue this.

6) In the beginning there was light. Wot spiritual light or actual light? The universe is put together by push and pull. Like an amplifier. It works in such a way that it pulls something behind it to help it move. Otherwise we get stagnation.
7) Ok there was this empty void to start with, then we can assume that energy was the foundation of God which in turn used his energy to create matter.
We have the chicken and the egg scenario.
To diversify we need maths and then we can think, but there is still proof that is needed.
Einstein was a genius because he used his blackboard to work out that light bends. He got the kick up the rump from Germany and ended up in America minus the footprint.

So he got his stuff and proved that light bends by using his stop watch.
He got it correct and so we all kiss his 'particulars' and make him a god.

I look at my wooden door and told that it is an illusion and bang my head on it and it is still there. If I made myself smaller, it could be argued that I can pass through the material?

I cannot say what happened in the beginning

To put It simply yes he was wrong. Energy is only there to set something into motion. "Energy" only describes how something gets to motion.

Perhaps someone as knowledgeable as yourself ought to use maths to better describe yourself?
After all...Einstein did not have the essence compared to some.
'Moving the goalposts' and to say that the ball don't fit, the pitch is on planet Earth means little and unless someone can 'fit the ball into' his formula...it stands...as far a I am concerned.

What happens on planet Stylus6594393210 twenty billion light years from here I don't really care unless it lands on my head.

Just my thoughts

That is a good question, I don't know much about physics, but for sure he may have gotten a few things wrong. People sometimes go crazy about science and summon it to back up their arguments even though they don't know why.

I think there is always an argument that planet Earth is calling.

So we have to fall back down and greet it.
If Einstein had not had his theories on relativity, I think that I would have discovered it instead?

I am not joking here because as a mechanical engineer I had learnt mechanical science
The involvement of mathematics tells us that certain rules must be obeyed .

Talking about hyper space and enlarging our limitations to a wider universe is unfair.

The reality of our universe is again incorrect. We cannot apply incorrectness to incorrectness.

There are certain rules that must be obeyed. I remember having this discussion with my lecturer about Newton. Both are correct in their limitations.

The rule book says that if something can be proven every single time then it is recorded as fact. This is one thing that cannot be done with the supernatural and UFOs because nothing is consistent. Consistency contributes to acceptance and the only time.....(listen) that this can be broken is when someone else comes along to prove otherwise. No one can prove Einstein incorrect because the goal posts keep moving depending on who is kicking the ball!

Einstein said that light bends. Think about this one as to what is light?

Light is radiation of a combination of different colour frequencies that when put together produce white light. The spectrum is such that the violet is faster than the red.

In effect I would say that given enough distance to travel, light would bend and alter it's colour as one colour lags behind the other . Which is not really colour but frequency being 1/f wavelength ??? (cannot remember?)


Theories mean nothing unless proven.

Reading something on YouTube does not constitute proof nor am I bothered what they think rather than discussing this with those who are using their own thoughts.

Saying that:- "I like this person's persuasive abilities", constitutes nothing.
Not by saying:- "I believe this and that"?

Why does a person believe this and that...then we have a discussion on how the person thinks and not how YouTube thinks or what money they may be raking in?

George.