Recent Videos

271 views - 0 comments
1361 views - 0 comments
1562 views - 0 comments

Newest Members

The "Big Bang" and E=mc2

 In an attempt to prove the theory that the material universe began as a “big bang”, modern science has appealed to Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity, expressed in the formula E=mc2.  According to secular science, this theory explains how the “big bang” occurred.  The prevailing secular scientific assumption is that our universe once existed as an untold amount of energy and then in an instant converted from energy to mass as expressed in E=mc2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Sombrero_Galaxy_in_infrared_light_(Hubble_Space_Telescope_and_Spitzer_Space_Telescope).jpg

The purpose of this article is not to treat this subject with great depth.  Instead, it is to relate the modern scientific perspective on the origins of the universe with Einstein’s theory.  This article will also uncover flaws in the “big bang” theory from a rational perspective and will also look at a fundamental problem with the theory of relativity itself.

A Basic Understanding of E=mc2

The Jewish physicist Albert Einstein hypothesized that there is a relationship between mass, energy and the speed of light.  This led him to develop the formula E=mc2.  In simplest terms, this formula states that energy(E) is equal to the product of mass(m) and the speed of light (c/celestias) squared.  To illustrate this equation, imagine a balloon filled with water.  Now squeeze the balloon in the middle so that there are two equal water-filled halves with a small funnel in the pinch point so water can travel between the two halves.  As water is squeezed from one half, it moves to the other, and vice versa.  One half of the balloon will increase with the same amount that the other decreases.  Now imagine that one side of the balloon is mass, the other side is energy and the pinch point is the speed of light, a constant that does not change.  According to the theory, mass can be changed to energy and energy can be changed to mass, with the conversion occurring equally in either direction.  In fact, Einstein penned the formula as an educated guess and then sought to prove it.  It has been universally accepted as fact.

In order to better understand Einstein’s theory, certain known facts must first be understood about physics.  First, the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.  We know this because we know the average distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles and it takes the light from the sun an average of 8 seconds to get to Earth.  The speed of light(c) is the constant in the equation.  It is also given that every object has a certain amount of energy and a certain mass, and the product of the two does not change.  The individual mass and energy of an object can change, but the product of the two must always remain the same.  In similar fashion, the product 12 can be expressed as 12x1, 6x2, or 4x3.  These are all different expressions of the same unchanging result.

 Practically speaking, the formula E=mc2 asserts that as any given object increases in speed, some of the energy used to accelerate the object is converted to mass.  This conversion of energy to mass is so small that it is almost non-existent until the object approaches the speed of light.  At that speed nearly all the energy being used to accelerate the object is converted to mass, causing the object to become infinitely massive.  In theory, an object can never actually reach the speed of light.  Inversely, as an object decelerates from the speed of light, its mass is converted back to energy.  The object becomes smaller.

Property of Light

 We must also take a look at one of the most fundamental properties of quantum physics, or of the properties of light.  Let’s assume that a space ship was to somehow travel at the speed of light, although the theory of relativity states this is not possible, and it was going away from the source of light.  It would be assumed that the spacecraft has “caught up” with the light rays.  In fact, even if the space ship were traveling at 186,000 miles per second, light would still be moving away from and toward the space ship at 186,000 miles per second.  In this regard, light is immune from the rational physical nature of the material universe.

 A second fundamental property of light is that light does not need a known reference point to measure is velocity as is the case for all other material things.  That is why an object, no matter how fast or slow it is traveling, will experience light moving in all directions at 186,000 miles per second.

 

Property of Materials

http://blogs.agu.org/martianchronicles/files/2010/11/rocket-launch.jpg

Now let’s compare that with material physics.  Any tangible object must have a known reference point in order to measure its velocity.  For example, we could say that a rocket, 23 seconds after lift-off, is travelling at 741 miles per hour, which is also the speed of sound at sea level, or Mach 1.  What we are actually saying is that the space ship is traveling away from the earth at Mach 1.  We have the earth as the reference point.  If we used the moon as a reference point and the moon was moving away from the rocket in its orbit around the earth, then the speed of the rocket would be a much greater number.

Let’s now suppose that same rocket was in an orbit around the earth.  We would accept the fact that the rocket was traveling at Mach 25, or 18,500 miles per hour in its orbital path.  Once again our point of reference is the surface of the earth.  But from the moon, the velocity of the rocket would constantly change since both objects are in different orbits around the earth.

Taking this even a step further, our rocket has now left orbit and is now traveling away from the earth toward the outer reaches of the solar system.  It is now traveling at 43,000 miles per hour with the earth as the reference point.  However, after a certain distance, it no longer makes sense to use the earth as a reference point.  Assume it approaches very near the planet Neptune as it continues its exit from the solar system.  Would it not make more sense to use Neptune as the point of reference?  Or should we use the asteroid belt beyond Pluto?  Maybe we use Pluto as the reference point to determine the rocket’s velocity.  No matter what reference point we use, we will have a very different velocity.  What if, in the void of outer space, the rocket finds itself thousands, or even millions of light years from the nearest object?  After all, this would be most probable.  What would we use for a reference point?  In fact we could even say the rocket is the point of reference and is not moving at all, but all other objects are actually moving away from or toward the rocket.

The Conflict

The point is this: any material object in our material universe is dependent upon some other object to determine its velocity.  With so many objects in the universe, there are billions, even zillions of possible reference points.  It would be neither right nor wrong to use any of them.  Even the object we use as the subject for determining its velocity could become the point of reference for determining the velocity of all other objects.  With this in mind, we come to a critical conclusion regarding E=mc2.  Speed or velocity cannot be defined in the void of space for any given object apart from a known reference point.  Einstein’s formula assumes an object can approach the speed of light.  However, even if we say the object has approached the speed of light, we would be making an incorrect statement because it may only be traveling at half, or one-quarter the speed of light, depending upon what reference point we use to measure its velocity.  We simply cannot use the speed of light as a constant in the equation.  E=mc2 makes the incorrect assumption that the speed of light can be applied to the velocities of material objects.  This is the fundamental problem with Einstein’s theory.  A person would not reasonably try to measure distance with a bathroom scale or mete out a bushel of wheat with a stopwatch.  Such measurements do not belong together.  In the same manner, quantum physics and material physics do not follow the same sets of rules.

Conclusion

Now, back to the statement that was previously made: The prevailing secular scientific assumption is that our universe once existed as an untold amount of energy and then in an instant converted from energy to mass as expressed in E=mc2. The latest theory suggests that the entire universe once existed as a single point of energy. This untold amount of energy was so massive that it accounts for all material matter in space. In an instant, this energy “exploded” moving outward in all directions from a common center. The explosion, or “big bang” approached the speed of light causing energy to transform into matter. Due to the fact that quantum physics and material physics are completely separate in substance, as previously discussed, this is impossible.

Science has attempted to prove a hypothesis on the basis of an unproven theory. A basic tenet of proper science is to generate a hypothesis, gather data, test the data to a satisfactory degree, then draw a conclusion based on data gathered and tests performed. However in an effort to appeal to the masses, the rules have been thrown out the window and an unproven and unproveable hypothesis is presented as fact.

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.