E(c2)=M additional formula for hyperspeed

[mvd]

Is your hereby mentioned hyperspeed concept based 100% on moving something or someone together with its mass as known so far consisted of matter? Regarding the concept of time, is your hyperspeed related to a decrease of time as known by now?

I am extremely interested in reading a detailed explanation concerning your formula mixed in this way. Of course, mathematically speaking it makes no sense, but maybe as literature. There must be a path you followed even if it is only yours.

[mvd]

Listen up, try to think abstraction regarding the topic. We are not talking here full newtonian mechanics, but partly.

After all the mass is energy. The heavier the object is, the more we deal with large amounts of energy. Of course, it is hard to move a heavy object from its motionless state, but once you have, stand clear! Further on, imagine that you multiply the mass by a factor, you will need more energy to carry on moving it. On the other hand, do the same multiplication by the same factor upon the energy and as a result the object will seem to be lighter and you could somehow talk about accelerating to hyperspeed. Think of this multiplication within two separate stages. Let the factor be the numerical value of the speed of light. By doing so, you might end up with two different phenomena. It is like considering the initial equation consisted only of two terms and than one tries to insert the third.

We could attempt not to consider the sign “=” as strictly an equality of quantities, but rather like the concept of—doing something together.

The formula has revealed itself from the realm of relativity. The use of classical knowledge about math and physics is not fully applicable. The theory on paper proved several times not to be the same with the theory in practice.

So let’s not be like the bloody and dark so-called preasts of the inquisition.

[Boerseun]

Listen up, try to think abstraction regarding the topic. We are not talking here full newtonian mechanics, but partly.

We're not talking Newtonian anything, here. This thread is a brilliant display of a complete and utter misunderstanding of relativity.

We could attempt not to consider the sign “=” as strictly an equality of quantities, but rather like the concept of—doing something together.

No. The "Equal" sign is the "Equal" sign. It does one thing, and one thing only. It states that the value as stated on the left of the sign is identical to the value as stated on the right of the sign. It doesn't say that the two sides are "doing something together". The left side isn't taking the right side on a date, to a restaurant, feeling it up or anything - the left side and right side's values are identical. That's the purpose of the sign.

The formula has revealed itself from the realm of relativity. The use of classical knowledge about math and physics is not fully applicable. The theory on paper proved several times not to be the same with the theory in practice.

Where? Provide me with some links. Very few theories have such a solid base of evidence as relativity has. The OP has illustrated a severe lack of knowledge and insight regarding relativity and incredibly basic primary school math. Please don't add to it.

So let’s not be like the bloody and dark so-called preasts of the inquisition.

Okay. we'll be the Teletubbies of Ignorance, then. How's that float your boat?

[mvd]

Math is only one direction. The human kind has two main directions: physical and methaphysical.

The sign "=" is not as rigid as it seems regarding the step from physics to methaphysics.

Relativity means multidirections, otherwise you are not far from the classical principles stated so far within this world's developement.

But it is hard to give a formula which intertwines the both of them, the entire human complex. It is indeed a unification, never yet declared and modelled mathematically. Good luck. I would be glad to hear of such an accoumplishment.

It is a nice site. It is great to have someone to talk to, someone smart.

[Qfwfq]

Math is only one direction. The human kind has two main directions: physical and methaphysical.

The sign "=" is not as rigid as it seems regarding the step from physics to methaphysics.

Alright. Define your notation, choose your postulates, procede to demonstrate theorems that follow of consequence and take great effort to make it interesting.

[ryan2006]

"Space and time are the heart, the intuition of what we can measure with our imagination which is ultimately the unknown" [name removed]

 

Scientific observation: Light divides mass.

 

For example: We as people are divided because of light just like the planets in our solar system have space inbetween them they also have light inbetween them.

 

Example two: magma from inside the earth radiates light when we observe it with our sense of sight but it is breaking the earths tectonic plates.

 

Do these scientific observations make sense so that e divided by c2=m

mass which sits alone like a desolate planet like mars?

 

Example: translucent gem stones

 

 

 

I truly believe that e(c2)=m because of these observations.

[Illiad]

"Space and time are the heart, the intuition of what we can measure with our imagination which is ultimately the unknown" [name removed]

 

Scientific observation: Light divides mass.

 

For example: We as people are divided because of light just like the planets in our solar system have space inbetween them they also have light inbetween them.

 

Example two: magma from inside the earth radiates light when we observe it with our sense of sight but it is breaking the earths tectonic plates.

 

Do these scientific observations make sense so that e divided by c2=m

mass which sits alone like a desolate planet like mars?

 

Example: translucent gem stones

 

 

 

I truly believe that e(c2)=m because of these observations.

 

you need to come up with something stronger than that.

[ryan2006]

The reason I say e(c2)=m is from scientific observation and 10 1/2 years of thought.

Radiation x C2=mass or weight. Photosynthesis ring a bell. How do crops grow? From exposure to the sunlight and the radiation. Otherwise this is not so much about science hypography forums making money off every dialouge I have had and the advertisements which they have made money off of things we say and then criticize us for not being right because things are beyond our explanation. So I ask myself why do I even prescribe to this sight when I feel I am being used. They know I have had a mental illness yet they continue to post my name and my illness all over the internet. I come up with things that are original but built on people who have I have inspired to be like Sir Isaac Newton, Leonardo Di Vinci, Tesla, and Albert Einstien. You people have been my worst critics pushing me for answers that I have no education in you tell me to go to school because everything I say is wrong. You tell me not to preach but the last time I checked this was a free country that I reside in. You make me feel bad everytime I check onto this sight and criticize and poke and prod so that you'll ellicit a response. Listen, I am who I am if you want to continue to exploit my mental illness all over the internet then let me ask you are you moral scientist or just people that don't have an education because I do and I don't respect the fact that you sit there behind your computers and call me crazy, wrong and god knows what else.

You people are the kind of people that could care less if I died tommorrow as long as you profited from it, am I right? With that said, perhaps you all can figure out the mathematical proof for e(c2)=m because you know what all I have is scientific obeservation M/E and E/M both = C2 ect... ect...ect... why do I bother with this you say it is wrong but when I went to school you had to prove me or disprove my hypothesis and if you can prove it than we can share the Nobel Peace Prize and you'll all be happy that you once claimed I was wrong so far I haven't seen anyone writing physics I have only seen myself doing it and What if your wrong and I am right? Will you go away with your tail between your legs or will you be happy that the human race actually has something---Universal Equations. END

[Qfwfq]

You tell me not to preach but the last time I checked this was a free country that I reside in.

Well I suppose that your house is quite likely in the same free country that you reside in (whether or not this is the same one as the server Hypography is hosted on). If somebody walks into your house, they are presumably in that same free country. Does this mean they can do just as they please, in your house, even if it doesn't suit you?

 

C'mon Ryan, if you walk into Hypography Forums, abide by the rules of it and don't complain. Your name is on the internet because you put it there. :beer:

[ryan2006]

You people are probably wondering how scientific this equation really is? Well, I am here to say that it is a hypothesis. You are free to prove or disprove it to eachother and call it dumb all you want but at least I am doing science where you people bash the hypothesis all you want and scrutinize it all you want BUT... you either have to prove or disprove it because it is a hypothesis. A GOAL we can all work towards and together in achieving instead of using unscientific and rude comments such as it is "crazy" or "Dumb" so here is the challenge of your lifetime either prove or disprove it or keep your rude and uncalled comments to yourself. Science hypography is sponsoring this attempt to achieve this great wonder but I have faith in how smart you all are. Who cares if you can't prove it you can't disprove it either unless you have the time and of course have a PH.D in physics so good luck all of you and make sure you submit your claims to the National Academy of sciences because you can't copyright or patent universal equations or formulas you may even get world attention and possibly even a share in possibly the Nobel peace prize. I have carried this torch for ten years now you can come up with the mathematical proofs since you all claim that is is wrong than now you have the chance to prove it. And for those who believe it is right you also have the chance to prove the hypothesis. So... Good luck to you all I am done putting up with it all. Like I said, "Good Luck" in this endeavor. Hopefully we can write history together. Bye Bye now.

[CraigD]

You are free to prove or disprove it to eachother and call it dumb all you want but at least I am doing science where you people bash the hypothesis all you want and scrutinize it all you want BUT... you either have to prove or disprove it because it is a hypothesis.

Ryan, what I and many others in this thread have been trying to impress upon you is that you’ve is that your equation,

[math]E c^2 = M[/math], (which, in simple English, says “E time c times c equals M”),

assuming [math]E[/math] means energy, [math]c[/math] means the speed of light, and [math]M[/math] means mass,

isn’t a scientific hypothesis, but simply false, as false, but in a different way, as the equation

[math]2 \times 3 = 2[/math].

 

The proof that it’s false (which I explained several months ago in post #3, as have many others in this thread), is showing that it contradicts what it assumes when it uses the concepts of energy, speed, and mass.

 

In physics, speed must refer to [math]\frac{\mbox{change in position}}{\mbox{change in time}}[/math], and energy must refer to [math]\mbox{mass} \times \frac{\mbox{change in speed}}{\mbox{change in time}} \times \mbox{change in position}[/math]. This is simply what these words mean when writing or talking about physics – if you use them to mean something different, you’re not writing or talking about physics.

 

Any equation of the form [math]\mbox{energy} \times \mbox{speed} \times{speed} = \mbox{mass}[/math], which yours is, is false, because it states “mass times distance times distance time distance times distance divided by time divided by time divided by time divided by time equals mass”. This could only be true is time and distance were words referring to the same thing, which, in physics, they are not.

 

Ryan, if you want to write and talk about physics, you must learn at least its most basic concepts. Your claims in this thread show no evidence that you yet have. The only thing served by continuing to allow you to make these claims is to invite ridicule upon yourself from people who have, and annoy those polite enough to refrain.

Please stop.

[Qfwfq]

you either have to prove or disprove it

Nobody is under any obligation but I think I said long ago what I think.

 

If by any chance you happen to agree with [imath]E=mc^2[/imath] then let's compare it with [imath]Ec^2=m[/imath]. If by any chance you happen to agree with the methods for manipulating equations, we can agree upon the replacement:

 

[math]E=(Ec^2)c^2[/math] equivalent to [math]E=Ec^4[/math] and (unless [math]E[/math] and [math]m[/math] are 0) it also implies [math]c^4=1[/math]

 

No known physical unit of measure is such that some power of it equals 1 so the above confines [imath]c[/imath] to being adimensional and, furthermore, to having one of four possible values, which are:

 

[math]1,\,-1,\,i,\,-i[/math]

 

Which of these do you find most reasonable? The first option coincides with the long standing convention of choosing natural units which simply means units of length and units of time that correspond to each other (such as measuring time in years and length in light-years). Under this choice, your equation is not wrong but, under any choice other than the above four, your equation is wrong.

[ryan2006]

Suppose this post is my house and you come in and say you open yourself up to the first thing that comes out of everyones house that marched in and claimed "this is wrong or you are wrong" "This is dumb" and this is "crazy" I did not invite your ridicule if you don't agree with me then why don't you please stop and get out of my house I am only interested in those willing to try and prove or disprove. Oh yeah and scientific observation is the basis for science and I believe I have tried to do that along with stating a hypothesis.

My last observation is that the sun emitts light or C2, C2=M/E and E/M because mass and energy are trying to fuse together or something close to it they melt. Does anyone here possess the credentials to write the mathematical proofs that is all I am interested in if you do not like it take it up with the National Academy of Sciences or your countries own Academy of Sciences. Thank you and again stay out of my post if you do not agree and go on your merry way so yes... PLEASE STOP. I don't have the time for your ridicule.

[alexander]

Ryan, since the beginning of this thread you have failed to support any of your claims with anything other then "well this is what i think, i observed it". This post is not your house, nor is this forum, and as such, at the time of you signing up for an account here, you were asked to abide by a set of rules, rules that you have broken more then a few of, even in just this thread alone. You have failed to provide any scientific proof or any viable evidence to your claim, and to repeat, you stated

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

 

You have shown anything but an understanding of the subject, claims like

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.

show a clear misunderstanding of modern day physics, and you say that you don't know physics

For lack of an education in physics I can only tell you that if you think I can not prove

 

you then asked for us to prove you wrong

it then you should show me how you can disprove it before sending it too strange claims.

So, even disregarding the simple rules of debate, the nice people on this form, myself, qfwfq, craig, have all done just that in very clear form, showing you that your equation does not work mathematically, your equation does not work from the units perspective, and if i recall, showing you what would happen at a simple elastic collision, assuming your equation is correct.

 

you then proceed to insult people that spent their time doing something in an attempt to show you that you were wrong

You people are probably wondering how scientific this equation really is? Well, I am here to say that it is a hypothesis. You are free to prove or disprove it to eachother and call it dumb all you want but at least I am doing science where you people bash the hypothesis all you want and scrutinize it all you want BUT...

You can not claim to be doing science if you both admit for your hypothesis to be purely observation-based and you don't know the science behind your claim. Your equation is not derived, you have shown no math for it, and on the proving you wrong side i see a lot of actual math, equations, based on actually proven scientific principals and actual derivations, proven by decades of experimentation in various labs, checked and cross-checked by many scientists. You insult their work by making a claim that you can not back up with anything but a nearly religious revelation from observing two trees. On what basis do you call yourself a scientist if you do not follow the scientific method?

 

To prevent further frustration, and thus you from offending people who feel passionate about physics, and people that are passionate about physics from tearing you apart for statements like

My last observation is that the sun emitts light or C2

I am closing this thread to further discussion. You have failed to support your claim in any way, and this is just not worth anyone's frustration anymore...

 

If you have and issue with this, rather if you have a legitimate issue or concern with this, feel free to PM me.

 

 

 

 

- Alex

[ryan2006]

A year ago I posted that E(C2)=M I received the response that the mathematics was flawed. A member said 2x3=2 and 2=3x2 meaning that he or she claimed that there were only two variables.

E=1, M=2, C2=3 now... 1x2=3 1=2x3 2=1x3 there my mathematics is not incorrect and since we are working with energy mass and light let me explain the observation. Energy is emitted from the sun. The sun makes the plants grow. And the plants put into our bodies gives us mass so energy that is carried from the sun to the plants is e X c2 and the energy we consume allows us to have mass. So... E x C2=M just as E=M x C2. There you have it with grade school math of 3 variables instead of two like the other member had claimed and a strong observation that makes it true. Thank you [name removed]

[JMJones0424]

Generally we use letters instead of numbers for variables, as it avoids confusion.

So you are claiming that if a*b=c then a=b*c and b=a*c.

This is easy to show as false.

Let a=2, b=3, and c=6.

What you are claiming is that since 2*3=6, then 2=3*6 and 3=2*6, which is false.

 

In fact, if a*b=c, then a=c/b. As you say, grade school math. Divide both sides by b to get a alone on one side of the equation. If you divide one side by b and multiply the other side by b to end up with a=b*c, then you've destroyed the equality relationship.

 

The rest of your post is word salad, as you combine natural language meanings with specific scientific meanings of words in such a way as to make your statements meaningless.

[Aethelwulf]

A year ago I posted that E(C2)=M I received the response that the mathematics was flawed. A member said 2x3=2 and 2=3x2 meaning that he or she claimed that there were only two variables.

E=1, M=2, C2=3 now... 1x2=3 1=2x3 2=1x3 there my mathematics is not incorrect and since we are working with energy mass and light let me explain the observation. Energy is emitted from the sun. The sun makes the plants grow. And the plants put into our bodies gives us mass so energy that is carried from the sun to the plants is e X c2 and the energy we consume allows us to have mass. So... E x C2=M just as E=M x C2. There you have it with grade school math of 3 variables instead of two like the other member had claimed and a strong observation that makes it true. Thank you [name removed]

 

[math]E=Mc^2[/math] is true because it is dimensionally consistent. [math]\frac{E}{c^2} = M[/math] is true because it is also dimensionally consistent, but [math]Ec^2 = M[/math] is not true because the units are wrong.

 

You can arrange equations by using high school algebra.

 

[math]ab = c[/math]

 

[math]\frac{a}{c} = b[/math]

 

but you can't rearrange [math]ab = c[/math] to get [math]ac = b[/math].