4. E=mc² should be replaced by the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv² (no paywall)
Physics Breakthrough in Ghosts, UFOs, Ultraterrestrial Technology, and Interdimensional Worlds (4 of 14)
There is a shorter version of this article at section 2.15.
Article table of content
4. E=mc² should be replaced by the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv²
4.1 Particle interactions and energy in Atomic Expansion Theory
4.2 Einstein’s equation E=mc² is a kinetic energy equation for the momentum of light
4.3 How both E=mc² and Eₖ=½mv² are for non-reflective surfaces, and must be multiplied by 2 when the light is fully reflected
4.4 Problems with Einstein’s famous equation E=mc²
4.5 The square in Einstein’s equation E=mc² is related to an acceleration inconsistent with a constant speed of light
4.6 The half in the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv² is related to an acceleration
4.7 What difference does it make, to use the velocity instead of the constant speed of light, while measuring kinetic energy?
4.8 Why the kinetic energy equation should replace Einstein’s famous equation
4. E=mc² should be replaced by the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv²
4.1 Particle interactions and energy in Atomic Expansion Theory
In Atomic Expansion Theory, just like in our current science, molecules are made of atoms, while atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.
However, the protons and neutrons, are now solely made of electrons, while electrons are made of neutrinos.
Ultimately, everything is made of neutrinos. But even neutrinos, can still be smashed into smaller pieces.
We can have as many kinds of particles as we want, it just depends on how many neutrinos and electrons they contain, and how they bond together.
But only particles which are stable in nature, for more than a fraction of a second, are of any importance in physics.
Light, heat and radiant forms of energy, are made of clusters of electrons, instead of photons, while magnetic fields are clouds of electrons.
How it is possible to know this for sure, will become clearer in the next section.
But for now, we can tell what the very small is composed of, by observing the very large, and vice versa.
Particle physics is exactly the same as astrophysics, they are just at different scales.
What we see in a telescope, should be the same as what we see in a microscope, except for the difference in speed — from our point of view — between the particles and the astronomical bodies.
This is obvious to any inquisitive child, when first encountering the similarities, between the two scales.
We just did not have the physics before, to explain how it could all work out in practice.
And it begins with, eliminating energy phenomena made of nothing, caused by ghost particles made of nothing, while still having a concrete impact on our reality.
Most types of energy are now simply defined, as growing and shrinking matter in motion, due to the varying speed of the particles, which affect the size of their orbits, and consequently, the size of the larger particles they compose.
This process of growing and shrinking particles, also affects the distance between them, which is density.
The motion of particles and astronomical bodies, is mostly driven by gravity, because of the constant inner expansion of matter, which reduces the distance, between all the particles and objects.
But this motion, is equally driven by the natural orbit effect, of the geometry of expansion, which keeps the particles and objects apart, while counteracting gravity.
Both gravity and the natural orbit effect, are consequences of what is happening behind the scenes, where we can see the expansion, causing relative motion in our resulting reality, once we can no longer see the expansion, while still witnessing the resulting effects.
After that, it is all interactions of smaller particles, orbiting between larger ones, attracting or repelling other particles and even objects, to form larger particles or objects.
Just like orbiting electrons between the atoms, can attract and repel other atoms to form molecules, orbiting neutrinos between electrons, can attract and repel other electrons to form protons, neutrons, clusters of electrons (photons), and clouds of electrons (magnetic fields).
Simply put, energy is matter in motion, in various interactions between expanding, growing and shrinking particles and/or objects, moving according to gravity and the natural orbit effect, while observing the geometry of expansion.
One example is electricity, which is electrons pushing against each other in their expansion, on a cable around an electrical circuit, moving from where there is a surplus of electrons (the source), to where there is a depletion (the ground), powering appliances connected to the circuit.
Another example is a magnet, a cloud of growing and shrinking electrons, pushing against each other, changing size as the speed and the orbital rings of their neutrinos increase or decrease, and equalising in size as they come in contact with each other.
The electrons are then moving around a bar of metal, from where there is a surplus of electrons (positive pole), to where there is a depletion (negative pole), then travelling inside the bar from one pole to the other, and then repeating the circuit.
4.2 Einstein’s equation E=mc² is a kinetic energy equation for the momentum of light
In a nuclear explosion, some of the particles composing the atoms, fly out at the speed of light, in all radiant forms of energy, which are made of clusters of electrons, and have a mass.
Of course, neutrinos and electrons on their own, or in clouds as magnetic fields, which also have a mass, are being ejected out of the atoms as well.
We can see right there, that energy in Einstein’s famous equation, is in fact kinetic energy, or in other words, the momentum of light.
It is the force of impact, of the mass or matter, from the clusters of electrons of the light, when they hit something, based on how fast they travel.
E=mc², which is energy equals a mass, multiplied by the constant speed of light squared, is very similar to the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv², where the kinetic energy equals, half of a mass multiplied by the velocity of that mass squared.
At speeds well below the speed of light, it is well known, that we must defer to the kinetic energy equation, instead of Einstein’s famous equation.
But, if both equations, measure the kinetic energy of moving objects and particles, including the clusters of electrons within the light, then why are they different? And which one is correct?
What is clear, is that Einstein’s equation, can be derived from the equations for the momentum of light, and as such, it is an equation measuring the kinetic energy of a mass.
As Mark McCutcheon demonstrated, in his book The Final Theory, using simple classical equations of motion about momentum (p), we can easily derive Einstein’s equation.
Since p=E/c and p=mc, then E/c=mc.
Rearranged, it gives Einstein’s famous equation E=mc².
Therefore, Einstein’s equation, is a kinetic energy equation, for the momentum of light.
4.3 How both E=mc² and Eₖ=½mv² are for non-reflective surfaces, and must be multiplied by 2 when the light is fully reflected
The equation for the momentum of light p=E/c, is for non-reflective surfaces.
For fully reflective surfaces, the momentum doubles, and it becomes p=2 E/c.
Since Einstein’s equation can be derived from the momentum equations, it means that Einstein’s equation, should be between a range of E=2mc² and E=2mc², depending on the reflectiveness of what the light hits, or depending on the bounciness of what hits the surfaces.
This is equally true of the kinetic energy equation, when it comes to the momentum of light, which should be a range between Eₖ=½mv² and Eₖ=mv².
This is because, ½ multiplied by 2 equals 1. And we can get rid of a multiplication by 1, since it changes nothing.
When particles or objects are being fully reflected, or fully bounce back any surface, the kinetic energy doubles.
This is the force of impact a nuclear bomb could have on anything it hits.
So, this is rather important, to avoid building bombs, more destructive than intended.
4.4 Problems with Einstein’s famous equation E=mc²
E=mc² can no longer be used in Atomic Expansion Theory, or any other theory claiming to replace Einstein.
Because it is an equation, related to all the relativistic effects, of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity.
And especially, his theory about relative motion, called Special Relativity.
Motion is relative, this is not the issue. It is just not relative, in the way that Einstein saw it.
As mentioned in the previous section, according to Einstein, the photons within the light have no mass.
But mass is interchangeable with energy.
In Einstein’ theories, mass and energy are the same thing.
Where, strangely enough, something does not need to have a mass, in order to have momentum and kinetic energy.
No matter how this could be justified, it defies common sense.
And whatever the mass is referring to, in that equation, it is supposed to be at rest, relative to an observer.
Moreover, it is a relativistic mass increasing with speed, as more energy is added, while the speed of light remains constant.
As it approaches the speed of light, this observed mass becomes infinitely large.
This can only be from an observer’s point of view, and cannot reflect the reality of different observers, in different locations.
Therefore, it can only be an optical illusion, of what the reality of the observed event, truly is.
Plus, the speed of light is constant. Which means there is never any acceleration, or change in the speed of light.
So, when adding or subtracting energy, only the mass can be affected.
Plus, measuring the speed at the end, minus the speed at the beginning, as it is often done in physics, the result is zero.
On top of this, Einstein’s equation as it is known today, is apparently only half of it.
The full version is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)².
The second term considers motion, or p, the momentum of light.
Somehow that term disappears, because a mass at rest has no momentum, so it is never mentioned.
Trying to calculate anything in these circumstances, using Einstein’s equations, is very difficult.
But we are told that, Einstein’s famous equation is incomplete.
There is more to it, and it involves elaborate relativistic physics, such as calculus, to circumvent all the values which become zero, which bring about meaningless results.
Also, clearly, this equation can only be, for when the speed of light is constant.
But Einstein stated that, the speed of light is only constant, in a vacuum.
Even empty space is not a vacuum, it is filled with all sorts of particles.
What equation should we use then, when measuring something not in a vacuum, which in practice, is most of the time?
4.5 The square in Einstein’s equation E=mc² is related to an acceleration inconsistent with a constant speed of light
Often, when something is squared in physics, it means an acceleration.
When a value doubles in certain equations, such as when there is an acceleration, and the velocity doubles, another value quadruples instead, such as the kinetic energy.
Hence, the first value, the velocity in this case, needs to be squared.
If the velocity triples, then the kinetic energy increases by a factor of nine.
And if it quadruples, the kinetic energy increases by a factor of sixteen.
This is where we can clearly see, that the kinetic energy increases as an acceleration, as the velocity increases.
And despite not having any acceleration in E=mc², since the speed of light is constant, there is still a square in that equation, which represents an acceleration.
Some people tell us, that it represents instead, a conversion factor of mass into energy.
No matter how they want to put it, this conversion still reflects an acceleration.
Equations are equivalence between different values in certain circumstances. If there is an acceleration/deceleration factor anywhere in an equation, then both sides are affected.
If the energy inputted or withdrawn changes on one side, then the other side of the equivalence, the mass and the speed of light, should change accordingly, in an acceleration or deceleration.
But here is the problem. Since the speed of light must remain constant, only the value of the relative mass can change.
Can the mass of an object really change depending on the location of different observers? It seems counterintuitive.
The mass of an object never changes, and certainly not because of where someone looks at it from. A mass always contains the same amount of matter, no matter what. The rest is just optical illusion.
And how could mass or energy change as an optical illusion, when they are not visual values, which could be seen differently by different observers, with different viewpoints?
Energy and mass could not change for different observers, they must always remain the same for everyone anywhere.
So, changing the amount of energy in Einstein’s equation, can only affect the speed of light, instead of the relativistic mass. And this must be the case for any theory claiming to replace Einstein’s theories.
This explains why Einstein’s equation is inconsistent with a constant speed of light, because something must change when the amount of energy changes, and that something must change in an acceleration or deceleration.
In Einstein’s world, what changes is the mass, but is it not more likely that it is the speed of that mass that changes instead, the speed of light?
It is difficult to visualise or explain exactly, what is happening in this so-called conversion of matter into energy, or what is actually accelerating.
Is it that whenever the relativistic mass increases, or is turned into energy instead, the relativistic energy increases as an acceleration?
Not likely, since only a change in speed, could affect the relativistic mass or energy.
In the kinetic energy equation, this is not an issue, because there is no constancy of the speed of light.
What increases is the velocity of the light, or translated to Einstein’s equation, it is the speed of light, while the mass remains constant.
In Atomic Expansion Theory, since the speed of light is no longer constant, then the mass can remain constant.
While due to gravity, the speed of light is in fact accelerating, whether it is in a vacuum or not.
Consequently, the kinetic energy equation, is the correct equation to use in all cases.
4.6 The half in the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv² is related to an acceleration
There are several explanations as to why there should be a half in the kinetic energy equation, some quite elaborate.
But the simplest explanation, is because the speed is not constant, for the whole duration of the event.
Because the velocity started at zero before increasing, we need to divide by two, to obtain an average velocity.
For example, if an object is at rest, then reaches 10 miles an hour on a straight line, the average velocity is 5 miles an hour, which is half of the final velocity.
The equation would not bring an accurate result, if we were to use the final speed of 10 miles an hour, or the initial speed of zero, since the mass never truly went at these specific speeds, for the entire duration of the measured event.
Therefore, we need to use the average, to obtain the correct speed for the entire displacement.
And this is achieved by dividing by two, or adding a half, to the kinetic energy equation.
Einstein’s equation is not divided by two, because the speed of light is constant, so there is no acceleration.
And so, both the square and the half in the kinetic energy equation, represent an acceleration.
And that acceleration, when it comes to the momentum of light, is the acceleration of the speed of light, due to gravity.
And since light is no longer composed of intangible and massless photons, the mass in this equation, is the mass of the clusters of electrons, composing the light itself, which were freed from the atoms, or from the subatomic realm.
While in Einstein’s equation, where the mass is at rest relative to an observer, the mass can only refer to the electrons, while still within the atoms, or the subatomic realm.
Those are the electrons, which could potentially be freed through some process, such as when we detonate a bomb, or turn on a lightbulb.
Thus, the mass in Einstein’s equation, must refer to the mass of the atoms, before the electrons are freed.
But when we turn on the light, we are hardly freeing all the electrons, from these atoms.
Even detonating a nuclear bomb, does not free all the electrons from all the atoms. Therefore, it cannot be entirely accurate.
Somehow, Einstein had the square correct in his equation, despite stating that the speed of light is constant.
But the speed of light is no longer constant, and the half is missing.
4.7 What difference does it make, to use the velocity instead of the constant speed of light, while measuring kinetic energy?
In Atomic Expansion Theory, most of Einstein’s relativistic assumptions are gone.
Nothing weird happens, when we get closer to the speed of light, or even beyond the speed of light, as it is now possible.
And since the speed of light is now relative, and even accelerating, then both the division by two and the square, in the kinetic energy equation, which are related to an acceleration, are required.
And just like in the kinetic energy equation, Einstein’s equation should be multiplied by v, the velocity of the mass composing the light beam, instead of c, the constant speed of light.
Because the speed of light is no longer constant, it varies.
And it varies, according to the motion of the mass involved, in these very equations.
Also, in the kinetic energy equation, we use the velocity of the light, instead of its speed. There is a massive difference between the two.
The velocity is the displacement, or the overall distance covered in a straight line, divided by time.
And remember, time is no longer relative in Expansion Theory, it is constant.
Time ticks at the same rate everywhere, no matter the speed, or any strong gravitational field around.
A speed is just a speed, it cannot be negative, it has no direction of motion.
We could measure the various changes in the speed, during the entire distance covered by the light, including many zigzags.
But the velocity takes into consideration, the direction of motion, and the total displacement instead.
The displacement being, the shortest path between the initial and final position, of the moving mass, ignoring all the zigzags.
A velocity can be zero, positive or negative, depending on the direction of motion, and the various accelerations and decelerations.
The direction of motion, can change greatly before reaching destination.
Perhaps even going in the opposite direction, for a while, here and there.
Although with light, this is unlikely.
Light, even at a constant speed, travels in a curved path, especially when being deflected, by massive astronomical bodies, such as planets and suns.
But light is not moving in curves, because spacetime is curved, as Einstein said.
Light is just like anything orbiting other bodies.
The clusters of electrons within the light, behave exactly like clusters of asteroids travelling in space.
Light follows the natural orbit effect, discussed in the previous section called Gravity and orbits finally explained in physics breakthrough.
Although, of course, light is travelling so fast, that it only ever enters into partial orbits, before continuing on its way.
Within Einstein’s equation, the kinetic energy would not change, despite these elongations, to the path of the light.
But it does, within the kinetic energy equation.
And so it should, because the speed of light now accelerates, in slingshot effects around large bodies, and decelerates and dissipates, as it encounters all sorts of particles in space.
Most of the time, even within Einstein, the speed of light is never constant anyway.
The speed of light is only meant to be constant in a vacuum.
Hence, this is another issue, while using Einstein’s equation.
So, what difference does it make, to use the velocity, instead of the constant speed of light?
To calculate the force of impact, that light will have on something it hits — in other words its momentum — logic dictates that only the mass, and the final speed of that mass, matter.
And the kinetic energy equation does just that.
It calculates the final speed of that mass — not an average — based on the overall distance covered, and the overall accelerations and decelerations along the way.
This is why using the velocity of the light is better, and why the kinetic energy equation, is the one to use, when the speed of light is not constant.
Which is most of the time, even within Einstein’s physics.
4.8 Why the kinetic energy equation should replace Einstein’s famous equation
From now on, while measuring the kinetic energy of light, we must make sure, that we are truly measuring the final velocity, of the particular mass composing the light itself.
We should no longer take instead, the mass of the atoms, and our incorrect official measurement, of the constant speed of light.
And if you still wonder, why exactly that velocity needs to be squared, or multiplied by itself, it is because gravity is an acceleration.
As stated in the previous section, light, and any other radiant forms of energy, including heat, are like bullets being fired from a gun.
There is an initial speed boost, when the bullets are fired, or the clusters of electrons are expelled from the atoms, and then gravity takes over.
It is always nice to know, where an acceleration comes from.
And now we know, because the speed of light, is the speed of an expanding mass or matter in motion, it is affected by gravity, and so it accelerates.
And now we also know, what E=mc² really means: the kinetic energy, or potential force of impact, of moving particles, depending on their speed squared.
Despite all the problems related to Einstein’s equation, the real important conclusion here, is that energy and mass are no longer interchangeable, and they are no longer different forms of the same thing.
Energy cannot become mass, and mass cannot become energy. And they are no longer relative, in the way that Einstein described it.
Also, something must have a mass, to have any momentum, in order to be able to push back anything, when it hits something.
Otherwise, we have ghost particles, acting like if they were real and tangible, when they are not. Again, it defies common sense.
All that Einstein’s equation does, like many other equations in physics, is compare unrelated things or quantities together, when there is an equivalence between them, while something else occurs.
And this is why so many equations equal other equations, which seem totally unrelated.
It is just that there is an equivalence here, which is useful for our calculations, measurements, and comparisons.
And thus, E=mc² simply indicates a correlation or equivalence, between how much kinetic energy particles will have, depending on their mass and speed.
In our equation for kinetic energy, we should also ignore, any relativistic effect due to Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, especially from Special Relativity.
And from now on, even in cases close to, or even beyond the speed of light, we should use the correct equation instead: the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv², which was known prior to Einstein.
However, we should get rid of the half, by multiplying it by two, if our nuclear bomb falls into a city, made entirely of reflecting glass mirrors.
Because then, the force of impact would indeed double.
Table of content (no paywall)
1. An entirely new science is required to explain any paranormal phenomenon
2. Gravity and orbits finally explained in physics breakthrough
3. Is time truly relative and the speed of light constant?
4. E=mc² should be replaced by the kinetic energy equation Eₖ=½mv²
5. Unifying the physics of the very small and the very large in a theory of everything
6. The physics explaining interdimensional worlds
7. How can UFOs defy gravity and travel so fast?
8. Moving in fast forward or slow motion, interdimensional time is relative
9. The true nature of our flimsy and changing psychological reality
10. Are we living in a computer simulation?
11. Why only certain people see ghosts or UFOs?
12. How to see and record ghosts, interdimensional beings, and UFOs
13. In time all particles orbit slightly faster, as we continually move into higher dimensions
14. Why time and space are an illusion, and how to instantaneously travel anywhere in time
Download New Age Physics Free Chapters:
Book PDF, Docx PDF, DOCX, Kindle ePub, Kindle Mobi, Apple Books, Nook, Google Play, Kobo, Generic ePub
