keep an open mind

[paradoxed21]

Please help, whats the answer if you take E=MC squared and mulitply it by any number less than 1? (E=mc2)*0.05

 

[Deleted member 4993]

Please help, whats the answer if you take E=MC squared and mulitply it by any number less than 1?

As posted, this question does not make sense - at least to me.

Please post the EXACT problem - verbatim.

 

[paradoxed21]

how about now?

(E=mc2)*0.05

As posted, this question does not make sense - at least to me.

Please post the EXACT problem - verbatim.

 

[soroban]

Helolo, paradoxed21!

What's the answer if you take E=mc²and mulitply it by any number less than 1?

Think about it . . . it's a rather silly question.


Take \(\displaystyle E = mc^2\) and multiply by \(\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\)

We get: .\(\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}E \:=\:\frac{1}{2}mc^2\) . . . duh!


What do you get when you multiply the Pythagorean Theorem by \(\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}\) ?

How about: .\(\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}a^2 + \frac{1}{3}b^2 \:=\:\frac{1}{3}c^2\)


What do you get when you multiply the Quadratic Formula by \(\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}\) ?

We get: .\(\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}x \;=\;\frac{4}{5}\left(\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}\right)\)


Wasn't that exciting?

 

[lookagain]

(E=mc2)*0.05

paradoxed21,

I still don't think you posted a correct complete exercise.

 

[paradoxed21]

I think I found my answer...

soroban's second example indicates with the use of the above equation you can link the Theory of Relativity to the Pythagorean Theorem which in a sense is a basis for quantum Physics. I.E. A squared + B squared = C squared! Thus being relative to B squared - A squared= C squared which I believe is the equation of Proper Time being In terms of four-dimensional space-time, proper time is analogous to arc length in three-dimensional (Euclideann) space. My hypotheses = Light Speed = 0! This would open a multitude of possibilities. Thank you Soroban, although with a hint of sarcasm you indeed assisted. If anyone can find I hole in my deduction please feel free to point out.

 

[paradoxed21]

Canadian club not included

You sure you didn't post that after consuming a 40ouncer of Canadian Club, Paradoxed?

(speed = distance / time) * 1/2 ; what's the answer to this similar one?

Time & Space are up for interpretation by the observer proven through the Silt experiment, If Light speed remains 0 because the equation remains relative and Probability is measured by a numeral between 1 & 0 and Possibility is measured by + & - Wave forms if you square everything It becomes Positive and thus controlling slightly in a sense the cause of Probability vs. Possibility! simply put Time & Space are possibly controllable through Scared geometry just not in the way the Multi Media has presented it.... ok, I know, I know but before the Theory of relativity was proven by Nasa two years ago someone declaring the gravitational pull literally distorts time and space would have looked about a 40oz deep as well, right?

 

[paradoxed21]

you were right.

paradoxed21,

I still don't think you posted a correct complete exercise.

The original equation was supposed to take a quantity less than 1 and substitute it for mass to observe its effect on Energy. E=.05C SQUARED

 

[HallsofIvy]

So replacing m by (1/2)m changes the energy to \(\displaystyle E= ((1/2)m)c^2= (1/2)mc^2\). Replacing m by (1/3)m changes the energy to \(\displaystyle E= ((1/3)m)c^2= (1/3)mc^2\). Do you see the point?

 

[paradoxed21]

HallsofIvy

So replacing m by (1/2)m changes the energy to \(\displaystyle E= ((1/2)m)c^2= (1/2)mc^2\). Replacing m by (1/3)m changes the energy to \(\displaystyle E= ((1/3)m)c^2= (1/3)mc^2\). Do you see the point?

Energy increases, right?

 

[DrPhil]

soroban's second example indicates with the use of the above equation you can link the Theory of Relativity to the Pythagorean Theorem which in a sense is a basis for quantum Physics. I.E. A squared + B squared = C squared! Thus being relative to B squared - A squared= C squared which I believe is the equation of Proper Time being In terms of four-dimensional space-time, proper time is analogous to arc length in three-dimensional (Euclideann) space. My hypotheses = Light Speed = 0! This would open a multitude of possibilities. Thank you Soroban, although with a hint of sarcasm you indeed assisted. If anyone can find I hole in my deduction please feel free to point out.

E = mc^2 is a part of a bigger picture, in which space-time is four dimensional. The actual dimensions are

{x, y, z, ict}

that is. t is multiplied by c to have dimensions of length, and also multiplied by the imaginary number i to be orthogonal to the other three directions. The extension of the Pythagorean theorem to four dimensions (instead of 2) becomes

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2

The significance of this is that the "distance" between two points in space-time has to include the travel time for light between them. You can imagine a cone of light emanating from an event, and all points on the cone are simultaneous. Inside the cone is "later" and outside is "earlier" - but you can't get there from here.

I think it is still safe to recommend George Gamov's "Mr. Tompkins..." books. The latest edition is called "Mr. Tompkins in Paperback," Cambridge University Press, 1993. A step up from that, including a lot about dimensionality, would be Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

 

[HallsofIvy]

Energy increases, right?

I now have to ponder whether you really don't know how to do arithmetic or this whole thread is a joke. Just in case you are serious, no, going from "E" to "(1/2)E" is NOT increasing E. Technically, we would say that, in "\(\displaystyle E= mc^2\)", "E is proportional to m". Whatever m is multiplied by, 1/2 or 1/3 or 2, E is also multiplied by.

Dr. Phil, I don't see this as really a question about "relativity", just a question about "proportionality".

 

[paradoxed21]

I cannot express the equation the way I want...

I now have to ponder whether you really don't know how to do arithmetic or this whole thread is a joke. Just in case you are serious, no, going from "E" to "(1/2)E" is NOT increasing E. Technically, we would say that, in "\(\displaystyle E= mc^2\)", "E is proportional to m". Whatever m is multiplied by, 1/2 or 1/3 or 2, E is also multiplied by.

Dr. Phil, I don't see this as really a question about "relativity", just a question about "proportionality".

To answer your question yes, serious question and the arithmetic is very rusty. I will explain in full:

There is an equation that when E of E=mc² is less than 1 but more than 0 and M=2 when inverting (again Im going by what ive heard.) would show 1/2/2 =2/1C² to get the equation taking a particle less than 1 and inducing an increase in energy! Which has been thrown out due to Thermodynamic Laws of Conservation of energy as a glitch or an infinite... 1/2=E 1/2=M so 1/2=1/2C² would show (I think)when multiplied you get an increase right? my apologies for my processing time Soto speak.

 

[paradoxed21]

Ok, this is my last attempt to get this right...IVY

I now have to ponder whether you really don't know how to do arithmetic or this whole thread is a joke. Just in case you are serious, no, going from "E" to "(1/2)E" is NOT increasing E. Technically, we would say that, in "\(\displaystyle E= mc^2\)", "E is proportional to m". Whatever m is multiplied by, 1/2 or 1/3 or 2, E is also multiplied by.

Dr. Phil, I don't see this as really a question about "relativity", just a question about "proportionality".

E=MC² converted to E/M=C² is the equation that will confirm an increase in Energy...

 

[DrPhil]

To answer your question yes, serious question and the arithmetic is very rusty. I will explain in full:

There is an equation that when E of E=mc² is less than 1 but more than 0 and M=2 when inverting (again Im going by what ive heard.) would show 1/2/2 =2/1C² to get the equation taking a particle less than 1 and inducing an increase in energy! Which has been thrown out due to Thermodynamic Laws of Conservation of energy as a glitch or an infinite... 1/2=E 1/2=M so 1/2=1/2C² would show (I think)when multiplied you get an increase right? my apologies for my processing time Soto speak.

The equaton \(\displaystyle E = mc^2\) is not a mathematical abstraction, but rather a description of the physical universe. As with all physical quantities, each symbol represents specific units.
E = Energy in (kg·m/s^2), a unit also known as a Joule
m = mass in (kg)
c = velocity of light in (m/s) = 299,792,458 m/s (exact)

The equation is true for any mass: if you double the mass you double the energy. The constant of proportionality, c^2, is taken to be a universal constant. Are you proposing studying an alternate universe with a different value of c^2 ?

Your statement E = 1/2 in nonsense unless you write the units: a correct statement would be E = 1/2 J.
Likewise m = 1/2 means nothing unless you include units: m = 1/2 kg.
Then substituting those values in the equation, (1/2 J) = (1/2 kg)×c^2 is true.

 

[DrPhil]

E=MC² converted to E/M=C² is the equation that will confirm an increase in Energy...

Yes, \(\displaystyle E/m = c^2\) expresses the fact that energy is proportional to mass. More mass is equivalent to more energy. If you start with twice as much mass and convert it to energy, you will get twice as much energy. Doesn't that make sense?

2 kg of sugar has twice the calories of 1 kg of sugar.

2 cu.ft. of natural gas gives you twice the heat of 1 cu.ft.

 

[paradoxed21]

sucess!

The equaton \(\displaystyle E = mc^2\) is not a mathematical abstraction, but rather a description of the physical universe. As with all physical quantities, each symbol represents specific units.
E = Energy in (kg·m/s^2), a unit also known as a Joule
m = mass in (kg)
c = velocity of light in (m/s) = 299,792,458 m/s (exact)

The equation is true for any mass: if you double the mass you double the energy. The constant of proportionality, c^2, is taken to be a universal constant. Are you proposing studying an alternate universe with a different value of c^2 ?

Your statement E = 1/2 in nonsense unless you write the units: a correct statement would be E = 1/2 J.
Likewise m = 1/2 means nothing unless you include units: m = 1/2 kg.
Then substituting those values in the equation, (1/2 J) = (1/2 kg)×c^2 is true.

yes! this is it! the unit what made my problem not make any sense? I have been on an alchemical physics mind crunch!

 

[paradoxed21]

gains through less then 1 but more than 0

Yes, \(\displaystyle E/m = c^2\) expresses the fact that energy is proportional to mass. More mass is equivalent to more energy. If you start with twice as much mass and convert it to energy, you will get twice as much energy. Doesn't that make sense?

2 kg of sugar has twice the calories of 1 kg of sugar.

2 cu.ft. of natural gas gives you twice the heat of 1 cu.ft.

the purpose is to mathematically explore the possibility of the universes divine equation of making multiple particles and more Energy from less than 1 particle.

 

[mmm4444bot]

I have received three complaints about the tone in this thread. This thread is now closed.

If anybody would like to continue a discussion about the original topic, please begin a new thread. If anybody would like to express personal opinions regarding the thoughts of others, please do that on the Math Odds & Ends Board.

Thank you.

 

[paradoxed21]

if E: Engery M: Mass C: Light speed So we are familiar with E=MC^2 , correct? The Speed of light can be measured in both Particles and Wave that being said imagine C^2= Particle speed and Wave Speed; changing the equation to:
E=M(Particle speed + Wave speed)^2 the combination cannot exceed 1c.
Because Wave speed is not what traditional scientific mathamatics accoutns for I will now suggest and introduce a new equation by substituting out (c) in E=MC^2 for:
A=Alpha
QM(t)=Qp1+AeffQp2
To explain: Quantity of Measurement in being viewed in Time and is represented by QM(t). The wo constituent parts of matter, that of the particle and of the wave are represented respectively as the Quantity of Possition 1 (particle) and possition 2 (wave) the wave represented by the AeffQp2 and include what is called the Alpha effective.
accounting for variability we add to the equation i.e. The theory of Relativity.
Now, is the wave is close to 1 then we are to say that we have quantified the speed of a wave in Time.
0 } Aeff { 1
This is what I have been studying in an attempt to mathematically describe whether someone is experiencing Particle Reality that is what we assume to be physical reality and is close to 0 then to describe what is called Reciprocal reality.