F.T.L. Morse, the Forgotten Descendant

I can do simple math(providing it is this simple) and arrive at the same figures you have posted. So, how do you know a kilogram of mass will produce that amount of energy? I have studied many kinds of transformations from mass to energy and energy to mass and never found any data to show the exact ratio or constant is as noted-c2.

I read this thread over and over and I am troubled by one thing, gravitational shielding. In other threads the same few of us have talked about screening on very massive bodies right? Well, what if Earth's sphere of influence prevents us from noticing shielding in smaller bodies. What if the kilogram used in our experiments actually consists of more mass than we detect? Can this be experimentally shown? When matter is destroyed in an accelerator more energy is detected than can be accounted for. When matter is divided into atoms, then the most surface area is exposed to collision with gravitons. It follows that then and only then can accurate masses be taken. Since e=mc^2's experimentally derived proofs all follow along the lines of the calculations shown in this thread, then it follows that approximation of c (and then c^2) would be off by the difference in mass calculated in whole and in part. Does any data support this hypothesis.
MV

Mark, can you please restate your question more clearly?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What if the kilogram used in our experiments actually consists of more mass than we detect?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Perhaps they are not taking into account the mass of the gravity itself. Are you saying when they use a kilogram it may be a kilogram of mass not taking into account the additional mass of the gravity?

What I am saying is that grav screening may throw off all of our emperical data that we base EVERYTHING in chemistry by. The equations are wrong if the mass is wrong. The amount of matter is calculated by careful mass measurement. If there is actually more particles, then there is more energy possible...

c^2 does not represent a velocity. c has dimensions of L/T, c^2 has dimensions of L^2/T^2. Conventional science believes gravitation propagates at c not c^2. Tom has already used stellar bodies to lock down the speed and is way ahead on the game.

(quoting Jeremy)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
c^2 does not represent a velocity. c has dimensions of L/T, c^2 has dimensions of L^2/T^2. Conventional science believes gravitation propagates at c not c^2. Tom has already used stellar bodies to lock down the speed and is way ahead on the game.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

At last, a cogent thought! To amplify Jeremy's post of nearly a month ago (wow, did this thread die, or what?), that speed is not less than 20 billion times FTL. Now for a question which is nearly as philosophical as physical: What sort of apparatus would we need to build to slow (or absorb) FTL energy transmitted from elsewhere in the galaxy (or universe) in order to measure its speed?

We should also adjust for the time it takes light to reach us from astronomical bodies, and map accordingly. One set of charts should be snapshots of space, not as we see it, but adjusted for the distortions caused by what Thornhill terms "The Remarkable Slowness of Light." That is, galaxy A, which is 100,000 light-years distant from Earth, should be charted as it is, rather than as and where it was 100,000 years ago. Therefore, its real position in space relative to Earth must be calculated and located accordingly on a chart. We would, in effect, have then a real-time picture of space, organized into our versions of star charts.

Another set of charts should be in moving picture form, a movie version of the universe, not only showing the past, present, and future form of the universe, but individual galaxies and stellar systems (not just the binary; what can we learn of the interaction between Saturn and Neptune, e.g., based on understanding their instantaneous mutual modification?) as well, through a more sophisticated lens, that of FTL phenomenal study, and application of the Van Flandern model of observation of FTL effects in the binary system to the wider range of astronomical systems, i.e., galaxies, quasars, etc.