E=mc^2

I've seen E=mc^2 used a lot around here to explain various things. One thing that has really annoyed me however, is that E=mc^2 is taken to be true while gravity is not. If E=mc^2 is assumed to be true then all mathematics behind e=mc^2 are correct. If e=mc^2 and its supporting math is correct then the standard model of the universe must also be correct, thus gravity as the mainstream knows it should exist.

Something else that has bugged me is a sunburn. How does the "hot light" given off by the FET sun cause sunburns and cancer?

If you look at the moon through a telescope its quite obvious its a sphere. You do not need to rely on a picture from NASA to see the spherical nature of the moon.

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 10:46:57 AM

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

What exactly is this "shadow object"? You can't simply make some random BS up to cover a massive hole in your "theory"(which this is not; there is little, if any real evidence to support a flat Earth). What is the object made of? Why can't it be detected? Does it have mass? If it absorbs light, how does it do so?

I've seen E=mc^2 used a lot around here to explain various things. One thing that has really annoyed me however, is that E=mc^2 is taken to be true while gravity is not. If E=mc^2 is assumed to be true then all mathematics behind e=mc^2 are correct. If e=mc^2 and its supporting math is correct then the standard model of the universe must also be correct, thus gravity as the mainstream knows it should exist.

...Shit follows his deduction...

Error in deduction.

Quote from: Henrythecamel on May 18, 2009, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 10:46:57 AM

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

What exactly is this "shadow object"? You can't simply make some random BS up to cover a massive hole in your "theory"(which this is not; there is little, if any real evidence to support a flat Earth). What is the object made of? Why can't it be detected? Does it have mass? If it absorbs light, how does it do so?

Get used to made up shit to answer your questions. 

Quote from: Henrythecamel on May 18, 2009, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 10:46:57 AM

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

What exactly is this "shadow object"? You can't simply make some random BS up to cover a massive hole in your "theory"(which this is not; there is little, if any real evidence to support a flat Earth). What is the object made of? Why can't it be detected? Does it have mass? If it absorbs light, how does it do so?

 
i think uv mistakin me for some1 else

but as im here ill give it a go..
what is the object made of? shadow
why cant it be detected? its a shadow
does it have mass? no its a shadow
if it absorbs light, how does it do so? erm it doesnt its a shadow ()

its not called the "magical" shadow object for nothin u know, the laws of physics r for the losers and old women

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 10:46:57 AM

I've seen E=mc^2 used a lot around here to explain various things. One thing that has really annoyed me however, is that E=mc^2 is taken to be true while gravity is not. If E=mc^2 is assumed to be true then all mathematics behind e=mc^2 are correct. If e=mc^2 and its supporting math is correct then the standard model of the universe must also be correct, thus gravity as the mainstream knows it should exist.

...Shit follows his deduction...

Error in deduction.

You're both right... E = mc^2 is a term that appears in the expansion of the lorentz transformation applied to energy.  It is a result of special relativity, not general relativity, and that is the source of error in your deduction.  However, it is unreasonable to assume that special relativity is correct but general relativity is flawed.  They are both based on the same principles, but applied to inertial and accelerating frames, respectively.  The only way to decouple the two is to assert that gravity (gravity, gravitation, mass attraction, space-time warping, newtonian, einsteinian...call it what you want) does not exist in any form. 

Quote from: bridget on May 18, 2009, 05:35:01 PM

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 10:46:57 AM

I've seen E=mc^2 used a lot around here to explain various things. One thing that has really annoyed me however, is that E=mc^2 is taken to be true while gravity is not. If E=mc^2 is assumed to be true then all mathematics behind e=mc^2 are correct. If e=mc^2 and its supporting math is correct then the standard model of the universe must also be correct, thus gravity as the mainstream knows it should exist.

...Shit follows his deduction...

Error in deduction.

You're both right... E = mc^2 is a term that appears in the expansion of the lorentz transformation applied to energy.  It is a result of special relativity, not general relativity, and that is the source of error in your deduction.  However, it is unreasonable to assume that special relativity is correct but general relativity is flawed.  They are both based on the same principles, but applied to inertial and accelerating frames, respectively.  The only way to decouple the two is to assert that gravity (gravity, gravitation, mass attraction, space-time warping, newtonian, einsteinian...call it what you want) does not exist in any form. 

If your going to apply E=mc^2 to special relativity then you you need to put gamma in there so E=gamma mc^2. 

The expansion comes from the application of the lorentz transformation (gamma coefficient) to kinetic energy to begin with.

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 05:05:09 PM

Quote from: Henrythecamel on May 18, 2009, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: echa on May 18, 2009, 10:46:57 AM

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

What exactly is this "shadow object"? You can't simply make some random BS up to cover a massive hole in your "theory"(which this is not; there is little, if any real evidence to support a flat Earth). What is the object made of? Why can't it be detected? Does it have mass? If it absorbs light, how does it do so?

 
i think uv mistakin me for some1 else

but as im here ill give it a go..
what is the object made of? shadow
why cant it be detected? its a shadow
does it have mass? no its a shadow
if it absorbs light, how does it do so? erm it doesnt its a shadow ()

its not called the "magical" shadow object for nothin u know, the laws of physics r for the losers and old women

I meant for one of the FET's to answer those questions  . I seem to have shot myself in the foot on the e=mc^2 idea but the rest of my points still remain...

I meant for one of the FET's to answer those questions  . I seem to have shot myself in the foot on the e=mc^2 idea but the rest of my points still remain...

ah lol.. its just u quoted me and with the "you" and "your" i got confused 

o and if they have already argued against that 1 point u made, that automatically makes all ur other points void in their mind..
ull probably have to repost