E=MC2 and THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ARE WRONG!

clone9 · Joined: 26 Sep 2002 Posts: 70

First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can NOT be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = MC2

In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

So the 'first law of thermodynamics' would be true if one considers the universe and the entirety of existence to be within ONE physical plane or realm.....But 90% of the humans on the planet express a belief in some form of "GOD" and/or spiritual realm (alternate plane) and so evolution would favor the idea that such a belief must be BENEFICIAL for the human species as a whole......so if these other realms do exist then the first law of thermodynamics is WRONG bc it is based on the assumption that there is only ONE physical realm. Since we believe collectively as a vast majority that alternate realms do exist then we can consider the principle of conservation of energy to be applicable between realms i.e. what is DESTROYED in one realm IS CREATED in another thus in the transition obeying the principle of the conservation of energy between realms but appearing to disobey within an individual realm.....

and so Einstein was correct in his belief that energy and matter are interchangeable but wrong in the idea that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed because that does not allow for alternate realms. And so E does NOT =MC2

.of course i could be wrong perhaps alternate realms don't exist?

FORUMEARTH.COM

Infamous Eric · Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Posts: 11

You're making the assumption that the separate realms are not part of the same existance.

Wouldn't each plane be a separate system, with in the "whole" existance, Allowing energy/mass to pass from one system to another ?

Just theorizing here, but we in this plane have may no idea of the depths of interdependence between planes, can differing realms exist independently, or are the dependent upon each other for some level of existential stablity...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Nutcity - Project Infamy - Cybertarium - The Indie Search Engine

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Random Song - 192 kb - 24 kb

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

Clone, the "C" in E=MC2 is scientific notation for "the speed of light in a vacuum" (approx 186,000 miles per sec / 3 million metres per sec), not "Constant". (Although the speed of light in a vacuum is believed to be a physics constant.)

Here's an interesting page at the Einstein Exhibit that deals with the formula. It even has a short mp3 of Einstein explaining it, which is pretty cool.

Einstein Exhibit - E-MC2

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

Quote:
we in this plane have may no idea of the depths of interdependence between planes, can differing realms exist independently, or are the dependent upon each other for some level of existential stablity

Yiiii! GUTS, strings, TOES and existence - it's way too early to tackle it all...overload...overload...Danger, Will Robertson!!!

I'll pass the mic to my man Hugh Everett da 3rd instead:

Everett - "Many Worlds"

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

clone...you are making the assumption that God and spirit are composed of either matter or energy. On what basis do you make such an assumption?

clone9 · Joined: 26 Sep 2002 Posts: 70

Ron it says "the square of A constant (C)." of course we all know that constant is the speed of light...

now as for this "You're making the assumption that the separate realms are not part of the same existance"

well of course i am...Has anyone seen "God" lately?

has anyone seen a deceased relative lately?

the answer is NO bc if their energy is to be conserved it must have been transferred to a separate PHYSICAL plane or realm or whatever u want to call it...the point being that the law of conservation would be obeyed BETWEEN the seperate realms but not necessarily within an individual realm........

for ex. when a nuclear bomb goes off way more energy is CREATED than was put into the bomb so we know energy can be CREATED so where did it come from if Newton and Einstein's ideas of conservation are correct? the answer that both supports and at the same time contradicts their ideas is that the energy must have came from an alternate realm which is somehow accessed in this example via a nuclear reaction....

yes it isn't everyday that u prove the first law of thermodynamics AND e=mc2 wrong :gl

FORUMEARTH.COM

Edited by: clone9 at: 10/27/04 12:37

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

LOL....OK clone....

clone9 · Joined: 26 Sep 2002 Posts: 70

FORUMEARTH.COM

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

Quote:
Ron it says "the square of A constant (C)." of course we all know that constant is the speed of light

Ah, I sit corrected, Clone9! I took it that they used the "(C)" as the symbol for a "contant" - my bad! DOH!!

I don't know that you've done much damage to the theories of relativity and thermodynamics, Clone9, but it's all interesting stuff to ponder until the head bursts!!!

clone9 · Joined: 26 Sep 2002 Posts: 70

yes as it is only a THEORY that can't easily be verified

FORUMEARTH.COM

Sir Reel · Joined: 26 Oct 2004 Posts: 237

Quote:
for ex. when a nuclear bomb goes off way more energy is CREATED than was put into the bomb so we know energy can be CREATED so where did it come from if Newton and Einstein's ideas of conservation are correct? the answer that both supports and at the same time contradicts their ideas is that the energy must have came from an alternate realm which is somehow accessed in this example via a nuclear reaction.... yes it isn't everyday that u prove the first law of thermodynamics AND e=mc2 wrong

Er, no.

Read a little more.

Reminds me of the tale my old Boss used to tell about his doctor brother. My old Boss, Jay, was a former air conditioning repairman. One day his brother the doctor called him out to see why the air conditioner he'd self-installed in his garage wasn't cooling the garage. When Jay got to his brother's house and looked at the situation, he fell over laughing. His brother had the air conditioner sitting in the garage, blowing cold air like crazy, so it was working fine. Unfortunatey, he'd neglected to exhaust the hot air coming out of the back of unit to the outdoors. There was more hot air coming out of the back of the thing than there was cold air coming out of the front, so unless you were standing with your face in the cool air vent, it was sweaty hot in the garage.

It's sort of selective knowledge doctors have, isn't it?

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Nah, Sir Reel...clone just didn't dig deep enough...or shallow enough, depending on your point of view. The answer is in the equation e=mc2. Assuming for a moment that "c" is a constant, energy is directly proportional to mass. If you weighed all the components prior to the explosion, and then weighed them again after, you would find that some mass was missing. It is this mass that has been converted into the energy released in the explosion. It is really very little mass because, if you do the math (e=mc2), you will see that a great amount of energy is released for relatively little mass. There is enough mass in a matchstick to raise a mountain.

Sir Reel · Joined: 26 Oct 2004 Posts: 237

Well, jeepers, yes, that's exactly what e=mc2 means.