Difference between pages "Conversion of mass into energy" and "Main Page"

From Absolute Theory
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Sketches)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Introduction ==
+
Welcome to my theory page.  Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics.  The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]].  Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based.  English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.
−
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist.  Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.
 
  
−
== History and nuclear fission ==
+
Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here.  It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]].  If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]].  The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this.  All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references.  The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here.  There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics.  I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment.  How to combine [[quantum theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]].  Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]].  Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]].  It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].
−
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect.  But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]].  Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of Mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost.  The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c².  This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1.  Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.
 
  
−
== Refutation ==
+
Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory.  In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[structure of the universe]].  Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected.  All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments.  I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]].  In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson  .  The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.
−
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const.  rather correctly, of course in a closed system.  This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[energy conservation law]] and according to the [[mass conservation law]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system.  + const. = const.  So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa.  Let's look carefully at the equation.  Here again, complete induction helps:
 
  
−
== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
+
My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined.  Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]].  From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]].  Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created.  The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given.  From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]].  From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[division by zero]].  Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas.  Finally, note my [[dedication]].  If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg
−
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system.  Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2.  Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c².  And see that should apply:
 
  
−
2 = 0 * 1 = 0
+
== Book recommendations ==
  
−
But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.
+
Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission.  All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.
−
 
 
−
== Conclusion ==
 
−
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa.  Rather, they are two images of a fact.  The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.
 
−
 
 
−
== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
 
−
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong.  As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations.  Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant.  Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment.  In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa?  No!  At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1.  It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage.  A conversion does not take place here either.  This applies to all physical equations.  Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.
 
−
 
 
−
== More detailed analysis ==
 
−
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[mass conservation law]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law.  Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university.  Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const.  As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const.  reducible and then to m = const., the [[mass conservation law]].  All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong.  The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const.  - mc².  Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same.  That would be E + mc² = const.  and not just in a closed system.  And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa.  As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above.  Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me.  Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same.  Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion.  Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality.  Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.
 
−
 
 
−
== Sketches ==
 
−
 
 
−
<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
 
−
<htmltag tagname = "script">
 
−
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas");  var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120});  var context = canvas.getContext ("2d");  myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.  font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175);  context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60);  context.beginPath ();  context.lineWidth = 7;  context.moveTo (0,0);  context.lineTo (700, 400);  context.moveTo (700, 0);  context.lineTo (0, 400);  context.stroke ();  var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2");  var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120});  var context = canvas.getContext ("2d");  myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3);  myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3);  context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman";  context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60);  context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
 
−
<div>
 
−
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
 
−
</htmltag>
 
−
</div>
 
−
Sketch1 <br />
 
−
<br /> <br />
 
−
<div>
 
−
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
 
−
</htmltag>
 
−
</div>
 
−
Sketch 2 <br />
 
−
 
 
−
Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c².  If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease.  The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong.  Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has.  So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.
 

Revision as of 16:04, 18 September 2020

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are Structure of the Universe, Weltformel, and Division by Zero. Newcomers should first read the Introduction for Newbies, which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a Donation please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently The Ultimate Proof of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in Physics, even after Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the Equivalence of space and time, an important part of the Equivalences, and Conservation laws, including the Conservation of mass. The refutation of the conversion of mass into energy, the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on energy and mass are stored under the respective references. The article on E = mc², the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on Weltformel, the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on Quantum Mechanics, a part of Quantum Theory, with a thought experiment. How to combine quantum theory and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: space-time continuum. Mathematically, here is a little essay on Division by Zero and on Complex numbers. Google also gave me the idea to say something about Planck space, Planck time, about mass and momentum of a photon and the elemental mass. It is important to have a basic understanding of quantization.

Furthermore there are chapters about the structure of matter, about the metrics, and in the section experiments I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on time flow and an essay on structure of the universe. Please also note my Essay together with Bernhard Hagen and an Abstract , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, Yang-Mill's theory, which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on String Theory. In addition, I also refer to current topics: Hawking radiation, radioactive radiation, EPR theorem, faster than light of neutrinos and the Higgs boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the Coriolis force on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the Division by Zero is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined mass. From this she concludes that there is no Conservation of mass. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the Conservation of mass as given. From this it follows mass and momentum of a photon. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the division by zero. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my dedication. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

Book recommendations

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

Retrieved from "https://absolutetheory.com/index.php?title=Conversion_of_mass_into_energy&oldid=51"