It was taught in school to me that every thing in Universes moves,hence zero momentum doesnt Exist?

Question

Is it possible to have energy without momentum?Or Momentum without energy?

Nordac post = very scholarly; but I just cannot accept that it was Einstein that came up with E= mc2. It was Henri Point Carre that came up with it. Einstein used it in his relativity Theory. Credit should be given to where credit is due.

Answer 1

The answer begins with the electron. The value comprising this mass is that of "c". Because this value forms all matter, what you have been told is correct. This value also causes all mass and forms of energy to move at the speed of "c".

Check the following;
THE PROBLEM AND REPAIR OF RELATIVITY (C) 2004, Duane Ertle


In order to introduce the problem, I am going to quote a few sentences from a book "The Universe and Dr. Einstein," by Lincoln Barnett, published in 1960 by Mentor Books. The quotes are from pages 61 and 63 respectively.


The first concept involves that of mass.

"In its popular sense, mass is just another word for weight. But used by the physicist, it denotes a rather different and more fundamental property of matter: namely, resistance to a change of motion. A greater force is necessary to move or stop a freight car than a velocipede; the freight car resists a change in its motion more stubbornly than the velocipede because it has greater mass. ... But Relativity asserts that the mass of a moving body is by no means constant, but increases with its velocity relative to an observer. In short, energy has mass!"


Next, we need to look at the reason for this belief.

"By further deduction from his principle of Relativity of mass, Einstein arrived at a conclusion of incalculable importance to the world. His train of reasoning ran somewhat as follows: since the mass of a moving body increases as its motion increases, and since motion is a form of energy (kinetic energy), then the increased mass of a moving body comes from its increased energy. ..."


Now I am going to quote a paragraph from "The Bones of Time," copyrighted in 1978 by Duane Ertle, it is from the chapter "Flexible Time."

"The reason a fast moving mass is so difficult to stop, or have a direction change in, is due to its becoming frozen in a linear manner so energy cannot pass through its total volume as happens when it is at rest. When a mass moves at one-hundred thousand miles a second, the energy existent and having potential movement at right angles to its direction of travel could be at most a distance of eighty-six thousand miles a second. When moving at the speed of light minus two feet persecond, the potential energy existent at right angles to its forward motion would only be two feet in one second. At the speed of light the mass would convert from being a three-dimensional object and would become a single beam of high energy photons streaking through space, all existing in only one dimension. Obviously there would be zero energy potential at right angles to the direction of travel."

Moving mass does not acquire additional mass as it moves. Atomic matter is composed of waveform. As electromagnetic energy (a wave) has differing energy values so, also, does mass at different speeds have an overall differing waveform. The waveform is derived from the moving mass itself, as energy at right angles to direction of travel decreases in line density with movement, and transfers a proportional amount of that frequency toward the direction of travel. In this sense greater mass is being added to the forward motion of the mass at the expense of the energy/mass at right angles to it.

There is an expression that deals with frequency density and an increase of energy as the lines of frequency increase. The expression in question says that E=hf. The energy of an electromagnetic wave is equal to that of a very small numerical constant times the frequency of the wave. The greater the frequency of the wave, the more energy the electromagnetic wave would have. Radio waves may have very long peak-to-peak distances of thousands of meters, while cosmic radiation is able to have its frequency so compressed that it acts as dimensional mass, and there may be trillions of frequencies, or waves within a single meter. Now consider how the frequency at right angles to direction of movement changes from having great potential in those directions, toward having less, thus giving up mass/energy potential. Energy, in form of greater frequency, converts to an overall change of mass, or as some would say, "... resistance to a change of motion."

The concept of E=hf is an equation that works for three different elements of nature:

1. E=hf, is an equation that describes why electromagnetic energy has greater and lesser energy values. Radio waves have very little energy value, while gamma and cosmic radiation have a great deal. And it all is dependent upon wave frequency and the density of that wave in a particular space.

2. mk=hf, (mass kinetic energy, equals hf) describes why mass shrinks to an observer as it moves. Because mass is composed of electromagnetic energy, it has the same wave values as electromagnetic energy, but in a very condensed manner. Electromagnetic energy remains in three-dimensional space in form of standing waves, yet having the same linear value of 186,000 mps all the while. Like a runner on a racetrack traveling all the while at that great speed. The same distance is traveled, just not in a straight line. As long as the velocity value within mass maintains the value of "c" it does not matter how small the "race track" becomes.

The, mk=hf, value demonstrates that the shrinkage of a moving mass is constant with frequency change. There are no sudden changes in mass/energy values. It also explains why the energy transfer takes place as frequency converts at right angles to that of forward motion. Just as sound waves have greater frequency with greater mass speed (thus the lines of frequency shrink, or become compressed) so, also, mass in the direction of travel shrinks in proportion to a greater or lesser internal frequency or energy values.

3. c=hf, is that for the relationship of a gravitational field and its frequency. It is possible that a "graviton," a single gravitational wave, has the same frequency as all other gravitational waves, no matter where they form; and what we consider as field of gravity has to do with quantity and not quality. Even though it might be either way, at present it appears that a gravitational field is formed of a quantity of waves (a greater multitude of waves all exactly the same no matter where in earth they formed) and not their frequency; although the c=hf concept would be valid in either sense.

Dr. Einstein understood moving mass from the perspective of how it related directly to that of energy - and it worked for him. He arrived at E=mc2! But the same result is able to be found by understanding that mass is composed of waves, and the moving mass undergoes a change from being greater in mass in three dimensions toward that of becoming greater in waveform in one direction and less in the other two dimensions.


In order that the reader may understand the thinking of today concerning the potential ramification of compounding mass, I am going to quote a paragraph found in a book entitled "Asimov's Guide to Science," (c) 1972; published by Basic Books Inc..

"... When Oppenheimer worked out the properties of the neutron star in 1939, he predicted also that it was possible for a star that was massive enough and cool enough, to collapse altogether to nothingness. When such collapse proceeded past the neutron star stage, the gravitational field would become so intense that no matter what, no light could escape from it. Nothing could be seen of it; it would simply be a "black hole" in space."

To which concept I would say; Oppenheimer did not realize that the force of gravity is a field of energy, c2=E/m, initiated by the heat energy within a solar mass. No heat - no energy.

Black holes today are an attempt to explain why so much mass is missing from creation - 90%. The galaxies have been stretched out, and there is not enough mass in empty space to account for distances outward and their being so far apart from each other. But, that condition is not really new news. In the book of Isaiah 45:12 God said 2700 years ago that the heavens had been stretched out. "I have made the earth, and created man upon it, I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." So, then, it is not 'black holes" that mankind needs to find, but God.

The conclusion is this. Because moving mass has increased frequency change in direction of movement until it reaches the speed of light, it then converts into radiation; there is no manner by which a black hole is able to form under any condition. There is no manner whereby the mass in question may be anything other than the original mass converted into what it already, intrinsically, was. This means, if it is impossible for a black hole to form, then it is just as impossible for the "big bang" to have happened. Neither of these events ever did exist nor shall they. They both soon shall disappear with a "little poof" into an obscure page somewhere in antiquity.




An Experiment You Can Help With


There is an interesting trilogy in physics relative to electromagnetic energy and its formation into mass. The first part of the trilogy you are sure to know, the other two parts you probably are not familiar with. The first part is E=mc2. All know this as the conversion of mass into energy. The second part of the trilogy is obvious though not popular. It is m=E/c2. The conversion of energy into mass. For a long while those who have an interest in these concepts have known about the equation for converting energy into mass but they cannot practically do anything about it. The concept is left largely alone by the public other than as an "Oh, hum" sort of a thing and it is then passed over. The third part of the trilogy is less obvious yet, in that the value of "c2" is not recognized for what it represents as a physical concept by itself. It is the "c2" representation that needs to be examined by empirical evidence - meaning an experiment needs to be performed to determine if it is a singular entity to itself as are energy and mass. The entire equation is c2=E/m. This value of velocity is that of a field of time, or that which accelerates one mass toward another through empty space, bonding planets to their orbits about the sun, and us to them. It is also the equation for earth's gravitational constant and is the basis of both mass and energy.

Newton first described the force of gravitation as to how the force acted instead of what it was. The force was described as, "F" (for the force of gravity) = "G" the gravitational constant, times "mass one," times "mass two," divided by the distance times itself. The result of this equation was in giving a numerical value to the attractive force between earth and its moon. That is all Newton wanted at the time. But this equation does not tell a person what the force of gravitation would be if all the mass of the universe were to be a single mass, as some project once happened in the "big bang" theory. As you are aware, according this theory there would have been no second mass to compare with the first, so there could have been no gravitational equation formulated. All that could be known would be F=m (the force of gravitation is equal to the mass), and that's it. The present equation for a gravitational field is not wrong, it's just incomplete. It's like a person describing a house by the postal address. It isn't that a particular house address is incorrect information, but if you want to know what the house looks like physically it takes more than an address in order to learn that. In order for Newton's equation to be able to describe the force of gravitation both by what it does, as well as what it is, the equation would have to read "F" (the force of gravitation) = "G" the gravitational constant, times "mass one, times its heat energy squared", times "mass two, times its heat energy squared", "divided by the distance multiplied times itself". (F = G x (m1 x Q2) x (m2 x Q2) / d2); "Q" here representing the heat energy within the mass. Using this concept, the equation for a single mass only would be (F = m x Q2). I'm sure you get the idea. Mass of itself is not capable of completing the equation for the force of gravitation, for mass is an entity to itself. There has to be something more. As things stand now, with the way the force of gravity has been represented, there must exist a perpetual creation of this force in all mass at all times in order for its presence to be explained. A continuous creation is the only manner the force of gravity can have perpetually existed through the supposed past eons of time and yet exist brand new at present. Those who seek to understand such things make no allowance for any natural energy source to form this force. They, by default, subscribe to the perpetual creation concept, even though they do not consciously state it. Consider, as we have seen in Appendix "B", that it takes the consumption of 0.00444 kg. per second, or 31.8 tons of mass, or its equivalent energy, converted into gravitational frequencies per year to maintain the energy level required for earth's gravitational field to remain standing. Our sun requires the continual breakdown of 10,485,720 tons of matter, or its equivalent energy, per year into gravitational frequencies in order to maintain orbiting planets in their positions. Does it not seem a wise act to be looking for the energy source that propagates this force?

The reason for going through all this is that I wish to show that the force of gravitation is part of a basic equation that is able to stand by itself (c2=E/m). The force of gravitational acceleration is in reality a physical field of what we loosely call time. Mankind does not think of time as being a physical reality, but it obviously must be just that in some fashion or the concept would not exist at all - i.e. the continual linear flow of past, present and future events, these always having the same unchangeable physical value. I wish to present a manner whereby the existence of physical time forming the force of gravitation may be conclusively examined, but it requires the assistance of others to do so.

There are three primary manners whereby we use energy in our physical world (discounting plasma, the fourth state of matter). Whenever any form of energy associates with a mass, then that energy must evidence itself in some manner. This will be either in linear movement of a mass, by angular movement, or as heat energy existing within a mass. There is a singular instance where an obvious energy expenditure does not appear, in what we would think of as being a "normal" manner. It is when there is a great deal of potential heat energy contained within a large mass, as found in our solar systems sun and planets. The heat energy contained within our planet does not obviously evidence itself to our senses in any manner other than by the occasional action of a volcano or thermo-spring. Why not?

The internal heat energy within our planet causes its mass to form into the shape of a sphere, compacting the mass of earth. It is the heat energy within our planet, forcing the mass to become compacted, that causes our gravitational field to form to the intense factor it does. Were there no internal heat energy within our planet then there could be no gravitational field. Were the internal heat energy within our planet to decrease in value, our planet's gravitational field would also decrease in intensity. The value velocity of "c" (c2=E/m) within earth's mass evidences itself apart from the mass containing it. In the past, the value of the time wave (c) has been ignored as having an existence at all when considering electromagnetic energy. Yet this velocity is the basis for the explanation of electromagnetic radiation (speed), and is itself formed of electromagnetic energy. The value of "c" is the common velocity that all clocks measure in some physical manner as being time, and we, ourselves, are composed of this value as is all else having physical existence. It is also this velocity that we relate with as being real time.

Having explained the basis for gravitation, take a look at how it may be proven whether the gravitational field of earth might have as its origin the internal heat energy within or not. The location in which the experiment needs to be performed is in outer space, where it would be free from earth's gravitational influence and surrounding, small gravitational fields are able to be well isolated. This, obviously, is the part others need to perform. The experiment would consist of three pairs of lead spheres, each set of two spheres being distant enough from any other surrounding mass that they could only influence and be influenced by each other.

The first set of spheres would each be heated to near six hundred degrees f. and placed a fixed distance apart in such manner they would be perfectly motionless relative to each other before the experiment began. Once the restraint on them was removed and they were free to move, each sphere would begin moving toward the other and they would meet at a midway point.

In the second set of spheres, one sphere would be heated to the same temperature as those of the first set while the second sphere would be frozen to as near absolute zero Kelvin as possible, then the spheres would be distanced as were the first set. What would be observed once the spheres were released to freely move, is that the heated sphere would remain motionless while the frozen sphere would begin moving toward the heated one until they met. They then would begin sharing the heat energy and both would have a reduced gravitational field.

The third set of spheres would consist to two lead spheres set the same distance apart as the first and second set, but each sphere would be frozen to as near absolute zero Kelvin as possible. That which would be observed once they were released to move freely, is that neither sphere would begin moving toward the other as in the first two sets. If each sphere had a temperature of absolute zero Kelvin, they would never move toward each other.

This simple experiment would demonstrate the force of gravitation to be or not to be a field of time (c2=E/m), whose origin is that of a particular form of energy and not of a continual creation. What do you think? Is it possible? Will it ever be known if it is not examined? It might be something to consider.


timebones.blogspot.com

Answer 2

Saying that everything in the universe moves would not be the ideal way to phrase such a statement, or even, stricktly speaking, correct.
There is no absolute coordinate system in the universe, all measurements are taking with respect to something else.
If we here on the Earth looked out upon the universe and saw everything in motion, that would mean that everything is in motion with respect to Earth....BUT...Earth itself is not in motion within our own frame of reference, it is stationary.
If we did the samething on another body, like the moon, another star, ....whatever, we could look out on the universe and see everything moving...except the object's in our own reference frame.

Momentum is a function of velocity (mass being held constant).
P = m*v
Momentum (P), mass (m), and velocity (v).
But remember, velocity can only be measured with respect to something else.

Just because "everything" (loosely speaking) in the universe moves does not mean that zero momentum does not exist in the universe, it all depends on what you are considering your "system". With respect to the Earth (and the Earth being our system), the Earth has zero momentum. Or we might decide to define our system as the entire universe and also define that our universe is at rest with respect to some imaginary coordinate system (which does not exist), then the universe would have zero momentum, but this does not necearily mean that any/all objects inside our system are motionless or moving.

Yes, it is possible to have energy without momentum. Potential energy can exist without motion, and thus woul have zero momentum.
It is not possible to have momentum without energy since a change in momentum (going from 0 to some non zero value) in and of itself requires energy.
A force applied to an object causes a change in momentum. A force causes the object to accelerate. Acceleration is a change in velocity with respect to time. Thus as the object accelerates, its velocity changes (and thus its position changes) causing the force to be applied over a distance. A force applied over a distance is doing work. Work requries energy.
One could also think of it in terms of changing the objects momentum (holding mass constant) requires a change in velocity and thus a change in kinetic energy. Causing a change in KE requries work to be done, requiring energy input in order to cause the object to gain energy.

Answer 3

The reasoning at the back of the universe requiring a reason is the normal legislation of Causality. Everything have to come from anything. I argue regardless that, that utilising natural common sense, God does no longer want a author. Consider the next: Inherent within the idea of "god" (and in distinctive, the Abrahamic God), is the view that God created the whole lot in our universe. Before God, there was once simply chaos, till God spoke and taken order to it. He created all that's in it, and governs each and every particle, each and every legislation, and each and every clinical precept. Thus, via its very definition, God exists independently of its production. Since Causality is a normal rule, and we've now headquartered that God (if it exists) exists independently of the ones normal laws, then Causality does no longer practice to him. The identical can't be mentioned for the universe. The universe is certain via its legislation and normal procedures, in order that implies that the whole lot within the universe has to come back from anything. The handiest solution to preclude that is to advocate that at a few factor within the old beyond of the universe, the normal laws at one factor didn't exist or paintings the identical as they do now. This is not Special Pleading, it is natural common sense. Under the hypothetical situation that God does exist, inherent in God's features it does no longer require him to be a slave to the normal legislation of the universe. If there's Special Pleading going down, it is via people who are arguing that the universe did come from not anything, that at a few factor ago the universe didn't obey its possess laws (or probably the principles handiest got here in later).

Answer 4

Momentum is calculated with reference to something. Zero momentum can exist, but only if the object is stationary with reference to another object. Otherwise, it is a fact that everything is in constant motion.
And you can have energy w/o momentum, but momentum exists only with energy.

Answer 5

The first is possible, the second is not.