# Relativity and Energy Transfer via Radiation

Relativity [seems] to tell me that no object, no matter how small, can be considered individually–it must be considered in its relation to the universe as a whole.

The energy that appears between objects separated by space would therefore [seem] to be the manifestation of this connection.

If this energy between objects conforms to "energy = mass times speed of light squared", where is the "mass times speed of light squared component"? If such component exists is it exclusive to one object or the other or shared between them?

Related Special and General Relativity News on Phys.org
russ_watters
Mentor
None of that makes any sense. You really need to start learning som real physics. Making it up as you go along is not going to help you any.

Russ,

I have most sincerely studied. The more I study, the more it seems that conventional physics conveniently ignores relativity.

Does energy not transfer between all bodies separated by space?

If this energy is not related to energy = mass times the speed of light squared, what causes it?

Can you provide any real example of "absolute zero"?

Someone here closes with a quote saying that fish cannot comprehend water because they are immersed in such. If I view this energy that flows between bodies as our "water", suddenly the relativity of space and time make sense!

ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Swampeast Mike said:
Russ,

I have most sincerely studied. The more I study, the more it seems that conventional physics conveniently ignores relativity.
Let's see... We use relativistic corrections in making sure we understand how the semiconductors band structure in your electronics work.

I have to make sure I make sure I include relativistic effects to measure the energy of the electrons in a linear accelerator in a mass spectrometer - if I don't do that, things to nuts. The same with every high energy physics experiments.

The GPS system has to continually make relativistic corrections, or else, within a few minutes, it will be off by miles!

So where is this that conventional physics "conveniently ignores relativity"?

Someone here closes with a quote saying that fish cannot comprehend water because they are immersed in such. If I view this energy that flows between bodies as our "water", suddenly the relativity of space and time make sense!
And you think that analogy so valid that it makes sense? Honestly? Find. Let's examine that, shall we?

Water has both laminar and turbulent flow. Can you show me where these are in your "energy flow", what caused them, and how are they detected?

Water has a degree of viscosity due to the intermolecular forces - it what causes water to be a cohesive liquid. This creates boundary conditions between the non-moving body and the center of the fluid. Any chemical engineer can tell you this. So what cause the viscosity in your energy flow and how are the boundary conditions determined?

Large velocity of water flow creates Bernoulli effects. Can you show me the analogous effect due to your energy flow, especially in relations to variation with speed as seen in the typical water flow.

Etc.

Zz.

russ_watters
Mentor
This is what I mean, Mike:
Swampeast Mike said:
Does energy not transfer between all bodies separated by space?
That question has no meaning unless you specify what kind of energy you are talking about. About the only kind that is constantly being transferred back and forth by all objects is via blackbody radiation. But I doubt that's what you mean when you use the word.

Then this....
If this energy between objects conforms to "energy = mass times speed of light squared", where is the "mass times speed of light squared component"?
...seems to indicate that you haven't even read/comprehended a 1-paragraph, layman's explanation of what that equation means*. And maybe we should start there: explain in your own words what you think that equations means and we'll help you understand it better if it is incorrect.

*This problem may go even deeper though: it may be that you don't understand the very concept of a mathematical equation. Ie, can you explain how that equation is related to the Newtonian kinetic energy equation or just what the Newtonian kinetic energy equation means when you apply that question you just asked?

russ_watters said:
explain in your own words what you think that (E=MC2) equations means and we'll help you understand it better if it is incorrect.

Energy is mass that cannot currently be contained in the space it occupies.

Water has both laminar and turbulent flow. Can you show me where these are in your "energy flow"
"Radiation" has both amplitude and frequency.

"Gravity" has both attraction and repulsion.

"Light" has both color and intensity.

"Heat" has both acceptance and reflectance.

Electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak. All defined and measured in terms of their own duality.

what caused them
Bodies separated by space both conduct and resist.

pervect
Staff Emeritus
Anyone got a bucket? It's getting deep in here.

Janus
Staff Emeritus