E(c2)=M additional formula for hyperspeed

[maddog]

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....

Mathematics and Logic are a rigorous foundation upon which Physics and other fields stand. However, Metaphysics has NO such foundation and one can SAY whatever they "believe" to be so, without concern for rigor.

 

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

Metaphysics is a different paradigm and one he/she would probably not understand.

 

CraigD said it best earlier in this thread. If the quest is to understand something in physics or a related field that is not understand currently, one needs an understanding in the mathematics (and Logic) that define basis for concept or that field of study. So please do so, or ask a question that can be answered or pose some statement that can be analyzed or cogitated upon. Otherwise the threats to move this thread will stand. This is only a prediction, not any form of admonishment.

 

One can not use any notions within metaphysics to deduce any part of a hard science and get meaningful results.

 

maddog

[Aethelwulf]

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.

 

 

What is this rubbish? I don't know where to start!

 

If you have

 

[math]E=Mc^2[/math]

 

and you multiply the right by [math]c^2[/math] you must also multiply the right by such a factor

 

[math]Ec^2 = Mc^4 = \frac{P}{c}c^4 = \frac{E}{M}Mc^2[/math]

 

are all dimensionally consistent. Even if you set c=1 you can't ignore the dimensions of an equation. If anything such things are done because of dimensional analysis.

[JMJones0424]

read the text you quoted. Qfwfw started with E=mc² and replaced m with Ec²

 

The intent was to show the absurdity of the OP.

[Aethelwulf]

read the text you quoted. Qfwfw started with E=mc² and replaced m with Ec²

 

The intent was to show the absurdity of the OP.

 

Well no, he was justifying the OP. The OP was simply wrong, even in natural units

 

Qfwfw said

 

''Under this choice, your equation is not wrong but, under any choice other than the above four, your equation is wrong. ''

 

 

No, under no choice of units is the OP right. He is wrong and so is this poster!

Edited August 15, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[JMJones0424]

I can't fathom why this is an issue.

 

If E=mc² and

If m=Ec² as the OP asserts, then

Q's analysis that c must be adimensional and equal to 1,-1,i,or -i is correct.

 

None of those are of course correct, showing that the OP's assertion must be false.

Edited August 15, 2012 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

Or, to revert back to ryan2006's notation.

 

assume:

a_units=b_units*c_units²

if b_units=a_units*c_units² as well, then

a_units=a_units*c_units²*c_units²

 

and then

 

c_units⁴=1_adimensional

 

Therefore, c must be adimensional and either 1,-1,i, or -i

EDIT: or 0

Edited August 15, 2012 by JMJones0424

[Aethelwulf]

I can't fathom why this is an issue.

 

If E=mc² and

If m=Ec² as the OP asserts, then

Q's analysis that c must be adimensional and equal to 1,-1,i,or -i is correct.

 

None of those are of course correct, showing that the OP's assertion must be false.

 

 

Because he is talking rubbish.

 

You can't have

 

[math]E=Mc^4[/math] then set c=1 so that it's all dimensionally consistent. That is not how it works.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

I can't fathom why this is an issue.

 

If E=mc² and

If m=Ec² as the OP asserts, then

Q's analysis that c must be adimensional and equal to 1,-1,i,or -i is correct.

 

None of those are of course correct, showing that the OP's assertion must be false.

 

and even setting it equal to 1, -1 or even i wherever that came from, is a load of crap. The speed of light, a conversion factor multiplied by mass in this form [math]Mc^2[/math] gives you energy, mass cannot be converted in such a form that [math]M = Ec^2[/math]. This is simply rubbish and trying to justify it under natural units is almost worse than the OP.

[JMJones0424]

You seem to have entirely missed the point of Q's post. He was attempting to show that the OP's assertion, that m=Ec², must be false. Because if it were true, then the speed of light would be adimensional and equal to 1,-1,i,-i, or 0.

 

Yes, you can make the units work so that c=1. This is not at all what Q was attempting to do, nor is it what the OP was proposing. Neither is it useful in disproving the OP's assertion.

 

I agree, Q's approach does not seem to me to be the most straightforward approach to correcting ryan2006's misunderstanding of basic mathematics. However indirect it may have been, it was neither rubbish nor invalid.

Edited August 15, 2012 by JMJones0424

[Aethelwulf]

You seem to have entirely missed the point of Q's post. He was attempting to show that the OP's assertion, that m=Ec², must be false. Because if it were true, then the speed of light would be adimensional and equal to 1,-1,i,-i, or 0.

 

Yes, you can make the units work so that c=1. This is not at all what Q was attempting to do, nor is it what the OP was proposing. Neither is it useful in disproving the OP's assertion.

 

I agree, Q's approach does not seem to me to be the most straightforward approach to correcting ryan2006's misunderstanding of basic mathematics. However indirect it may have been, it was neither rubbish nor invalid.

 

 

Maybe you have a problem reading his material?

 

''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 .''

 

He is saying putting units into any old equation is right. He is justifying the OP's equation using natural units.

[ryan2006]

E + 1 / Pie = a(m /E2) x b(m + 2)(C2) Charting mass, energy, and light on quadrant charts using Trig., Calculus, geometry, and statistics already ahead of you. Please don't insult my intelligence.

[CraigD]

For me, this thread, began silly and wrong, and has now become silly and weird: a bunch of people who agree the original, claim is clearly, sillily wrong, are at arms over how to say it’s clearly, sillily wrong.

 

I can’t resist jumping in.

 

As nearly everyone has said (but, alas, apparently failed to impress on ryan2006, who’s back after almost 2 years repeating it :() the assertion that M = E c² is false because, by the usual shorthand convention, M has dimension of mass, c dimension of distance time^-1, and E dimension of mass distance² time^-2. The assertion therefore is that mass = mass distance⁴, which is false.

 

Now, if we assume some of the asserted equation’s terms are dimensionless, or its symbols are terribly unconventional (ie. “E” means “mass” and “M” means energy), we can make it true. I don’t think anyone is really suggesting we should do this.

 

The concept of dimensionless quantities is one that we can, and have, discusses to great and esoteric lengths. I think these concepts are deep and thought-provoking. However, I respectfully submit that this is not the thread to renew this discussion.

[Aethelwulf]

For me, this thread, began silly and wrong, and has now become silly and weird: a bunch of people who agree the original, claim is clearly, sillily wrong, are at arms over how to say it’s clearly, sillily wrong.

 

I can’t resist jumping in.

 

As nearly everyone has said (but, alas, apparently failed to impress on ryan2006, who’s back after almost 2 years repeating it :() the assertion that M = E c² is false because, by the usual shorthand convention, M has dimension of mass, c dimension of distance time^-1, and E dimension of mass distance² time^-2. The assertion therefore is that mass = mass distance⁴, which is false.

 

Now, if we assume some of the asserted equation’s terms are dimensionless, or its symbols are terribly unconventional (ie. “E” means “mass” and “M” means energy), we can make it true. I don’t think anyone is really suggesting we should do this.

 

The concept of dimensionless quantities is one that we can, and have, discusses to great and esoteric lengths. I think these concepts are deep and thought-provoking. However, I respectfully submit that this is not the thread to renew this discussion.

 

I disagree with the bolded part, as I have been trying to explain to Ryan, you can't use natural units by starting off with a faulty equation. The dimensions of the equation, as faulty as they clearly are, cannot be justifiable in any sense of the word by using natural units.

[maddog]

I disagree with the bolded part, as I have been trying to explain to Ryan, you can't use natural units by starting off with a faulty equation. The dimensions of the equation, as faulty as they clearly are, cannot be justifiable in any sense of the word by using natural units.

I second that emotion of CraigD, this thread has gone from silly to Weird to going beyond Bizarre?!?

 

This past exchange between Aethelwulf' (A) and Q have left me a little baffled. I will agree with A that if an equation is wrong there are no choice of units to make it right. What baffles me is this what Q had said in an earlier post in this thread (I'm not sure of the number). Like Q I back solved Ryan's equation for [math]c[/math] (not thinking of it as the speed of light for the moment), I also got as possible solutions of {1, -1, i, -i}. In particular only {1, -i} preserved the sign of [math]c[/math]. To arbitrarily use the convention c = 1 just to get an equation that wrong to work out wrong is still wrong (even though this is Not what Q was doing). My sense of what Q was driving at as A had said. This equation of Ryan's cannot stand.

 

Now for a bit on Ryan's earlier statement (paraphrased) ".. You can attack my hypothesis, you can not say I am not doing science" ?? Making a hypothesis alone (wrong/right) is not science (yes, I can say your not doing it). This thread has been saying all along (sometimes better than others) that Ryan's equation is bogus, misdefined, misunderstood, etc. I think some form of "move along now" is in order....

 

maddog

[maddog]

E + 1 / Pie = a(m /E2) x b(m + 2)(C2) Charting mass, energy, and light on quadrant charts using Trig., Calculus, geometry, and statistics already ahead of you. Please don't insult my intelligence.

I am not actually. Yet with your above jumble of an equation and (some-else said) "word salad" your are insulting ours.

 

Alexander, I thought you were going close this thread?!?!? What's it gonna' take? Build a dam? Do we need a Black Hole to suck up all the garbage, huh?

 

Please close this thread -- it has become agony.... :doh: :Crunk:

 

maddog

[Aethelwulf]

Oh yes indeed, I don't want my previous post to belittle craig in any way, Craig is one of more... brighter posters here.

 

My argument was and still is, what you have just nailed. You cannot justify a faulty equation by setting things equal to 1, the fact of the matter is, is that you still have to bring back these factors which still makes the equation wrong.

 

In fact, it makes it doubly wrong, if there was such a thing.

[LaurieAG]

Poor old Craig, I agree too. Why would anybody ever consider using a field equation (of one cycle) as a basis for a universal model?

 

You cannot justify a faulty equation by setting things equal to 1, the fact of the matter is, is

that you still have to bring back these factors which still makes the equation wrong.