E(c2)=M additional formula for hyperspeed

[ryan2006]

Einstien said E=M(c2), I say additionally to that that E(C2)=M

[alexander]

oh great...

 

please use the [math][/math] tags to show pretty math [math]E=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{{c^2}}}}[/math] (if you are not sure how to use them, there is a tutorial that is stickied in this section).

 

More importantly, as i can recall that's not how math works, that is to say that [math]E=mc^{2} [/math] is not the same equivalence principal as [math] M=Ec^{2}[/math] so please show mathematically, how you have arrived at this formula...

[CraigD]

Before considering mass energy equivalence, I think people should consider, and feel a passing sense of wonder, that any quantity of energy can equal a quantity of mass multiplied by a quantity of speed multiplied by a quantity of speed.

 

This coincidence is not esoteric. It follows directly from the classical unit definitions:

 

Speed = distance / time

Acceleration = speed / time = distance / time / time

Force = mass * acceleration = mass * distance / time / time

and

Energy = force * distance = mass * (distance / time) *(distance / time)

 

If you appreciate this simple consequence, you’ll never make statements such as

... I say additionally to that that E(C2)=M

because, assuming “E(C2)” means [imath]E \cdot c^2[/imath], which can be spoken “energy time the speed of light squared” or “a quantity of energy multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light”,

 

Energy * speed * speed = mass * (distance / time) *(distance / time) *(distance / time) *(distance / time)

or, more compactly [math]\frac{\mbox{mass}\cdot \mbox{distance}^4}{\mbox{time}^4}[/math].

 

Whatever this unusual quantity is, it’s clearly not of mass, so saying it is doesn't make sense.

 

This “does it make sense” checking technique is known as unit, or dimensional, analysis. It’s one of the first things a physics student should learn to do, because it allows him to catch mistakes in long, complicated calculations (or short, simple ones), and avoid not making sense.

 

For example, look what happens when I apply the technique to [math]\frac{E}{c^2}=M[/math]:

 

Energy / speed / speed = mass * (distance / time)/ (distance / time) *(distance / time)/ (distance / time) = mass.

 

So, while I don't know if the equation is true for specific values of E, c, and M - they might simply be the wrong values - provided I know E is a quantity of energy, c one of speed, and M one of mass, I know the equation could be right.

 

Notice that I didn’t need to know anything about Einstein, or the speed of light, or mass-energy equivalence, to know that [math]\frac{E}{c^2}=M[/math] makes sense, and [imath]E \cdot c^2=M[/imath] doesn’t. This would be true even if the speed of light was infinite, mass and energy were not equivalent, or none of Einstein’s predictions had proven correct. I don’t even have to know what is meant by speed, mass, and energy, only some fundamental definitions relating these terms, and how to multiply and divide.

 

Does this make sense to you, Ryan?

[alexander]

Too much work, you dont need to even know what unit analysis is (its a scientific concept), you just need to know some elementary algebra

[math]

\begin{split}E&=mc^2\\

\frac{E}{c^{2}}&=m\end{split}

[/math]

Thus the equation [math]M=Ec^{2}[/math] is not derived from the previous formula, because the equation would not hold true, a 7 year old can tell you that, so i wanted to see how he derived the other equation... maybe he meant some other mass by denoting it capital M :shrug: ? Maybe M is the inverse of the relativistic mass?

[sanctus]

LOl, Alexander a 7 yaer old! He/she must very bright then...and have studied s lot (instead of playing)

[Ben]

Except that physics jocks, bless them, have this rather deplorable habit of using what they call "God's units". Here, they use [math]c = \hbar =1[/math], for example.

 

This is legitimate, since [math]c,\,h,\,\pi[/math] are constants, either mathematical or physical, but it is, in my opinion, extremely unhygienic.

 

Specifically, in the present case, it leads to the apparent absurdity that

 

[math]E=mc^2 \equiv \dfrac{E}{c^2}[/math] AND [math]E=mc^2 \equiv m = Ec^2[/math]. In other words, without further qualification, one has that [math]E=m[/math], when one (or at least I), would prefer to say they are equivalent

[ryan2006]

You see Engery and mass have to be imbalanced to be balanced once again. If you plug in the equations. E=MC2 and EC2=M it would then be EC2xC2 or light times itself then EC2xC2=MC2xC2 to balance a prolusion system that emits lightning bolts would then reach the speed of light by multiplying the force of a lightning bolt times 2. So a propulsion sysem that goes instantaneously back from balance to imbalance. E=M, EC2=M, E=MC2, EC2xC2=mxC2xC2 ect... to infinity.

 

Light bounces off EM thus to travel the speed of light or even instead of a plane being 1x1x1x1 now it travels CxC or 186,000m/sec2 x 186,000m/sec2 or 10x10x10x10 so the plane grows exponentially.

 

Rember MC2=E=MC2 ect...such as the universerse would go through a wormhole or E=MC2=E or EC2=M=EC2 or M=EC2=M

 

you derive the the rest of the universal formula's I worked on this stuff for ten long years so take it as is or leave it alone.

[alexander]

whaaa? [math]E=mc^{2}=E[/math] is not the same formula as [math]EC^{2}=M=EC^{2}[/math] following your lack of logic [math]c^2=Em[/math]

you derive the the rest of the universal formula's I worked on this stuff for ten long years so take it as is or leave it alone.

Here's how it goes, you make a claim, you back it up with some proof, then we cross examine the claim and the proof. Science is not a belief-based system, it's not take it or leave it, it's here is what i came up with, and here is how. And seeing as you had 10 years to work on it, and write it down, and the burden of proof being on you, maybe you should post the math that defines the logic in your claim. That's 10 years i'm not willing to spend on figuring out where your idea went wrong. Because i think that if you had 10 years to come up with proof, it would be the first thing you would post, because proofs are hard work that people eagerly share, look at how Einstein published his theories, so i am thinking you don't have any proof, just some obscure concepts that somehow make sense to you, so i'd rather spend 3 clicks and move the discussion the section where proof isn't mandatory, and where people may just believe you, then try to figure out how you came up with the formula, so unless you provide proof, mathematical proof, strange claims awaits you...

[Boerseun]

I also suck with math tags. Never fear.

 

However...

 

E = mc². That we know.

 

In order to get rid of the c² on the right hand of the equation, you have to divide both sides with c². That is basic primary school maths. In other words, to get m alone on the right hand side, you have to do the following:

 

mc²/c²

 

...which, to keep everything shipshape, you will have to do on the left as well.

 

In other words, E/c² on the left.

 

So... in order to get m by itself, your equation will have to be:

 

E/c² = m

[Illiad]

I don't think he derived m=ec² from e=mc². But I guess we've seen crazier stuff before. Can you explain how did you arrive at that formula? I don't get your earlier explanation

[alexander]

Illiad, he hasn't given an earlier explanation, he has yet to present anything resembling a logical chain...

 

Tempers are wearing thin, lets hope some admin doesn't go crazy and move this to strange claims...

[modest]

Light bounces off EM thus to travel the speed of light or even instead of a plane being 1x1x1x1 now it travels CxC or 186,000m/sec2 x 186,000m/sec2 or 10x10x10x10 so the plane grows exponentially.

 

Multiply:

 

(1 light-year / year) x (1 light-year / year)

 

Is the answer still "one"? What units does the result have? If you multiply a velocity by itself is the answer still a velocity?

 

~modest

[Ben]

If you multiply a velocity by itself is the answer still a velocity?

Nobody knows (*wink*), since multiplication is not defined for vectors

[ryan2006]

I derived this equation from looking at two trees. Light bounces off the tree which is both energy and mass put together. At E=mc2 mass at the speed of light would combust into flames or your spacecraft the mass the speed of light would burn up. The two trees represent the two wings as a bird has just as there are two wings to a bird in order to fly there takes two engines for a jet to fly. E=mc2 is one engine and E(c2)=m is another. For lack of an education in physics I can only tell you that if you think I can not prove it then you should show me how you can disprove it before sending it too strange claims.

Explain how this equation effects special and general relativity and then explain blackholes in relation as well as my idea that the universe went through a wormhole. Because if you can prove the equation works through a proof you can change the landscape of gravitational waves. First, you try to prove it then we can be co-authors.

 

You see static electricity is a vehicle to create a lightning bolt that travels half the speed of light by multiplying the force by two you can travel the speed of light perhaps I may not hold a PH.D. but perhaps you do and instead of saying it's a strange claim why don't you come up with the proof yourself before you condemn science which is sometimes accidental. To remove the accident part I challenge all of you to prove the equation if you think your up to the challenge!!!

[Boerseun]

I derived this equation from looking at two trees. Light bounces off the tree which is both energy and mass put together. At E=mc2 mass at the speed of light would combust into flames or your spacecraft the mass the speed of light would burn up. The two trees represent the two wings as a bird has just as there are two wings to a bird in order to fly there takes two engines for a jet to fly. E=mc2 is one engine and E(c2)=m is another. For lack of an education in physics I can only tell you that if you think I can not prove it then you should show me how you can disprove it before sending it too strange claims.

Explain how this equation effects special and general relativity and then explain blackholes in relation as well as my idea that the universe went through a wormhole. Because if you can prove the equation works through a proof you can change the landscape of gravitational waves. First, you try to prove it then we can be co-authors.

 

You see static electricity is a vehicle to create a lightning bolt that travels half the speed of light by multiplying the force by two you can travel the speed of light perhaps I may not hold a PH.D. but perhaps you do and instead of saying it's a strange claim why don't you come up with the proof yourself before you condemn science which is sometimes accidental. To remove the accident part I challenge all of you to prove the equation if you think your up to the challenge!!!

 

Ryan, that's not how it works.

 

You make the claim, you prove it. I have already shown you that from E=mc², you're wrong - because with basic math we can derive that m=E/c², and not what you claim it to be. You're wrong.

 

And "thought experiments" are not imaginary flaming trees, they are actually rigorous exercises in logic. Your flaming trees are not.

[alexander]

Apparently my warning was not enough, so there, moved this thread to where it belongs....

 

First, you try to prove it then we can be co-authors.

First you show the slightest hint of understanding the scientific principal, and basic rules of a debate, then we'll see...

 

Basically, to show you how ridiculous your logic has been so far, i will explain it to you with an analogy. I propose that we can not possibly determine if the universe exists, because we could not possibly show if the tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, how long it will take a monkey with a wooden leg to sing the US national anthem backwards in Kaanaic...

[Illiad]

1. how did you figure mass moving at the speed of light would combust?

2. why 'two wings as a bird has just as there are two wings to a bird in order to fly' and not 'one hand as only one hand is needed to write'?

3.aeroplanes( not a jet, maybe, i duno) can fly with one engine.

4.so how does this equation affects special and general relativity and explain black holes ?

5. I watched a program on discovery that said adding two velocities does not give it's exact sum but a slightly lesser one. So similarly, multiplying 'half c' by 2 will not give you the speed of light, correct?

6. the monkey

a)traumatized from losing it's leg

b)recently learn that his home somewhere in the forest has been felled

c)happens to know how to sing the US anthem backwards, and is fluent in Kaanaic

Noting all the factors above,a shrink working together with a logician can then figure how long would the monkey take to sing the US anthem backwards in Kaanaic. If it can be proven, then the universe must exist, and it's not an illusion