Isn't it true that scientists determined through red shifting that the equation Energy = (Mass)(speed of light)² is false?
2007-02-11 03:10:54 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
It all depends what you assign as the value of"C". If the final speed of light is twice its average velocity;Then the formula would read as follows; Eo =4 M Vo^2. Where Vo is the average velocity of light at a particular location of the Universe which is variable.
Presently there is no experiment that proves that the velocity as measured on the earth is the Universal truth.
Note the mass in the equation is an unchanging constant mass.
The Einstein equation for masss indicates that mass is not constant.So the equation does need more than refinement . It cannot stand alone as it is, Unless Einstein mass increase with velocity concept as it approaches C^2 is not real but an imaginary quantity.
2007-02-11 03:19:21 · answer #1 · answered by goring 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The only situations where I have heard of scientists saying E=MC² no longer holds true are extreme scenarios, like inside a black hole. This is similar to how Newtonian physics break down when an object approaches the speed of light.
In the general case, you won't get much dispute from scientists about E=MC². The fact that atom bombs work is pretty conclusive proof of the equation.
2007-02-11 03:37:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. E=mc² is still quite valid. There is nothing in the red shifting that indicates otherwise.
There are indeed people who start with the premise that the universe is NOT billions of years old, and then work backwards to recognize that this would require that the speed of light (c in that equation) is not constant ... besides that being one of the fundamental results of Einstein's theory of relativity. But rather than accept this as further evidence that the universe is indeed billions of years old, they instead invent "evidence" that the speed of light is not constant.
This is what happens when you start with a desired conclusion, and have to adjust your data to suit it.
2007-02-11 05:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isnt the red shift an extension of the doppler effect? since planets, stars , and entire galaxies are supposed to be moving away from each other because of the big B, the apparent wavelength of a light wave is reduced and shifted towards the red region of the visible light spestrum. how does this disprove Einstein's mass-energy relationship?
2007-02-11 03:24:57 · answer #4 · answered by pro man 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
E = mc^2 is universally true.
However, both mass and energy are frame dependent quantities.
When you view a receding star, the light it emits is already red in your frame of reference and has corresponding energy. If you transform to the star's frame of reference then the light may well be blue and have higher energy.
There is no kystery here - just be careful about reference frames.
2007-02-11 03:53:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. There are some ''scientists'' bound to the negation of big bang, to creationism and the so-called intelligent design that hawe worked out theoris about the reddening of light and/or some fatigue of light in order to try to negate the expansion of the universe. No serious support exists for these theories . E=mc^2
remains valid unless someone brings sound proof of the contrary.
2007-02-11 03:22:02 · answer #6 · answered by giorgio s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By manipulating light matter, you can thus send for example a Array of data faster then the speed of light travel itself...This was proven by me years ago..( Multiple Laser pulse communications ) Faster then the speed of light itself...
Most most people would still rather live in a imaginary realm of space that is pressure and aliens.( It's a wrong Relativity physics thing )
2007-02-11 04:56:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no it is nottrue that scientists determined through red shifting that the equation Energy = (Mass)(speed of light)² is false.IT IS A UNIVERSAL TRUTH
2007-02-11 03:15:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
your question is going back to the large bang. what occurred earlier it, no man or woman knows. yet after the large bang, the enrgy that became produced were given switched over into count which verifies the regulation of conservation of potential. interior the best of the universe too possibly the count may get switched over into potential. so count exists yet in potential type. get my element? if count had to exist continuously, then the large bang ought to not have taken position that is pretend because all the information we've factors in the route of a large bang
2016-11-27 00:47:59 · answer #9 · answered by treat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not that I've heard of.
2007-02-11 03:51:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋