1

# What does E=mc^2 mean?

1
Sun 5 Oct, 2008 06:04 am
@de Silentio,
Why is the 'c' squared?

The formula was derived from

m = m0/(Root[1-(v/c)^2])

This is the equation that shows that mass changes based on it's speed.

Here is the derivation

YouTube - Energy Mass Equation - E = MC^2 Step by step derivation
urangutan

1
Sun 5 Oct, 2008 06:18 am
Ogden, Archemedis pioneered the field of inertia, other than that please go on.
0 Replies

1
Sat 11 Oct, 2008 03:08 am
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
Is there such a thing as the speed of light?

If the speed of light is supposed to be constant and absolute I'd say it would have to be zero (which is actually what Russell claims). Anything above zero is relative and therefore neither constant nor absolute.

0 Replies

1
Sat 11 Oct, 2008 03:23 am
Why is the 'c' squared?

The formula was derived from

m = m0/(Root[1-(v/c)^2])

This is the equation that shows that mass changes based on it's speed.

"A good scientist can explain how something works using plain language, without needing math and formulas." - unknown 1
Sat 11 Oct, 2008 12:41 pm
"A good scientist can explain how something works using plain language, without needing math and formulas." - unknown But forulas are the proof for science and math. Without a formula you are like arostotle who just philosophised.

We are trying to explain the formula in this post.

The fact that the C is squared is a basic principle of kinetic energy.

But thanks for trying to insult me. Very productive.
Bracewell

1
Sat 11 Oct, 2008 04:57 pm
In an ideal scientific world philosophy and mathematics would agree but in fact, as I see it, one should play off the other much like the mutual development of a couple in a marriage.
I believe Maxwell had note books full of outrageous models and he knew they were outrageous but they obviously helped, perhaps as something to hang his mathematics on. This is typical behaviour for a scientist as there are many examples of it. So, outrageous as an idea might be it could still be useful to someone but perhaps not in a way expected.
It is not good scientific philosophy, however, to ignore hard won understanding but it is good to challenge and to suggest new ideas but to be really effective it is necessary to understand the mathematics or at least appreciate the work (you don't need to buy mathematicians flowers though-not all women appreciate them anyway).
I didn't post this thread to start a fight.
0 Replies

1
Sun 12 Oct, 2008 01:10 am
But forulas are the proof for science and math. Without a formula you are like arostotle who just philosophised.

We are trying to explain the formula in this post.

The fact that the C is squared is a basic principle of kinetic energy.

But thanks for trying to insult me. Very productive.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult anyone, I was just trying to make a point in a jokingly manner. Basically because I didn't understand what he was saying in the video through his math. Maybe because I generally shun complex explanations since truth to me is simple and whatever seems complex therefore is lesser than true and therefore you cannot learn anything useful from it. Which, I must emphasize, its not the same as saying that complex formula cannot be useful practically.

I believe it is possible to explain and understand all the basics of physics, i.e. all that which you can call "knowledge" and which is the foundation of all true science, without any complex formula, but through simple geometry and math that is as simple as 1+1=2. When you have that knowledge, you cannot learn anymore in terms of absolute universal knowledge.

You really only need complex formula for practical calculations, e.g. if you want to design a machine or produce a complex chemical substance for some specific purpose. You don't need them to understand the fundamentals of physics, i.e. that which you must know in order to be able to control and utilize physical processes 100%. That knowledge is very simple and it contains the foundation and understanding of all math and all other sciences, however complex, within itself.

Unfortunately, modern science do not understand much of these basic principles, this true logical foundation of reality, and that is why it is so caught up in extremely complex and abstract formula and theories trying to understand and explain reality. Like Georges Ohsawa says in "Book of Judgment":

"And the more deeply they study, the more intricate the question becomes. All kinds of analytical, mathematical, energetical and electronic means are used. They find, eventually, some provisional principles which they claim is law, but later they discover a great contradiction. Then they begin all over again. It is a roundabout way - like looking for the center by means of tearing down peripheries, or travelling in the darkness, blindly, without any compass and without knowing one's destination. Why not look first of all and with all our power for a universal compass? [Then] many research projects could be greatly simplified."

You may argue that M = mc^2 is fairly simple and maybe it is. I just used the opportunity to make a point which I think is very important in general. Whether the statement E = mc^2 is true at all is also a question. Since it originates from the current scientific paradigm it may be "true" within that context, but not necessarily true in an absolute context. So I'll leave that question open for now...

1
Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:45 am
If you actually did a few calculations and understood how to use the calculations and saw how experimentation exactly matches what you got through the math, you would understand that the world is far more complicated than you think.

Once you do several calculations you begin to understand the nature of the system in an abstract way.

And E=mc^2 has been proven true time and time again.

1
Sun 12 Oct, 2008 02:26 pm
If you actually did a few calculations and understood how to use the calculations and saw how experimentation exactly matches what you got through the math, you would understand that the world is far more complicated than you think.

It appears to be complicated because science hasn't understood the simple principle that lies behind it all.

If I may use an analogy: think of a modern computergame. The game itself may appear so real that you almost forget it's just a game, and the source code may look extremely complex also. And yet, it's all boils down to ones and zeros combined in different ways.

The same is true for physical reality, it's all just one simple principle repeated over and over again in different ways and combinations.

I highly recommend reading Walter Russells works, where he explains all about this. He actually defined the TOE which science has been looking for, already many years ago. Quote:

"So simple is this underlying Principle of Creation that I have been enabled, throughout these years, to state it in one paragraph and one octave-wave diagram so simply that every law or theory ever propounded in the past or future by man can be tested by that paragraph and diagram. If they will not fit into this unitary principle they are outside of Natural Law and must be discarded. It will be found that most of even the most fundamental laws and theories of the past and present do not come anywhere near fitting into this underlying principle. They will, therefore, have to be discarded in favor of immortal Truth."

Interview with Walter Russell

1
Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:29 pm
It appears to be complicated because science hasn't understood the simple principle that lies behind it all.

If I may use an analogy: think of a modern computergame. The game itself may appear so real that you almost forget it's just a game, and the source code may look extremely complex also. And yet, it's all boils down to ones and zeros combined in different ways.

The same is true for physical reality, it's all just one simple principle repeated over and over again in different ways and combinations.

I highly recommend reading Walter Russells works, where he explains all about this. He actually defined the TOE which science has been looking for, already many years ago. Quote:

"So simple is this underlying Principle of Creation that I have been enabled, throughout these years, to state it in one paragraph and one octave-wave diagram so simply that every law or theory ever propounded in the past or future by man can be tested by that paragraph and diagram. If they will not fit into this unitary principle they are outside of Natural Law and must be discarded. It will be found that most of even the most fundamental laws and theories of the past and present do not come anywhere near fitting into this underlying principle. They will, therefore, have to be discarded in favor of immortal Truth."

Interview with Walter Russell

It all boils down to ones and zeroes but within the ones and zeroes there are patterns, and paterns upon paterns. This is physics. Equations that explain the paterns in the universe.
0 Replies

Bracewell

1
Tue 14 Oct, 2008 04:33 pm
Rado, I did read the excerpt of Walter Russell you posted and he seems to be a fairly typically inspired prophet and he does use words that seem familiar. However, he uses a lot of words. There is an old adage that says those who interpret a prophet's words are usually a lot more rational than the prophet - they have to be. It is in the nature of us that we try to see sense in a jumble. You won't find the adage in any great book of wisdom but just ask a wife who has had a few years experience.
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Mon 27 Oct, 2008 12:35 pm
@astrotheological,
astrotheological wrote:
Why is the speed of light squared and why is it even in there?

Light is massless and constant!

Congratulations! Today is your lucky day.
Presented here is the answer you have been looking for.

My deduction:

Speed = Distance / Unit of Time (t)

Velocity is the speed an object travels and may also refer to its direction of travel: A wind velocity of 30 mile an hour, West.

Change of Velocity = Final Velocity (v2) - Initial Velocity (v1).

Acceleration (a) = Change in velocity / Unit of Time (t).
Therefore, Acceleration (a) = ((v2)-(v1)) / t .

Force = Mass (M) * Acceleration (a)
Therefore, Force = M * (((v2)-(v1)) / t)

Then let's continue.

Now!
Energy (E) = Force * Distance (d).
Hence, Energy (E) = Mass (M) * Acceleration (a) * Distance (d).

E = M * a * d ? You think Einstein sending a message here, where E equal Einstein and Einstein = Mad.

Nough respect to the late Einstein.

It follows that:
.
E = M * (((v2)-(v1)) / t) * d.

Got me?

Let's substitute some real figures here, where the Mass (M) equals 10 kilograms, the Final Velocity (v2) equals the Speed of light (30 000 000 meters per second or 3 * 10^8), the Initial Velocity (v1) equals 0 meters per second and the Distance (d) equals 1 meter.

Then,
E = 10 kilograms * (((3*10^8 meters/1 second)- (0 meters/1 second))/ 1 second) * 1 meter.

Step1:
E = 10 kilograms * (((3 * 10^8 meters/1 second))/ 1 second) * 1 meters.

Step2:
E = 10 kilograms * (((3 * 10^8 meters/1 second ^2))) * 1 meters.

Step3:
E = 10 kilograms * (((3 * 10^8 meters ^2/1 second ^2))).

Step4:
And Walla!
E = 10 kilograms * ((((3 * 10^8 meters/1 second) ^2))).
Energy (E) = Mass (M) * Speed of Light squared (C^2).

See it?
E = MC^2

Bear in mind that the Energy here is a special case, where the change in velocity (v2 - v1) equivalent to the speed of light and the Distance (d) are constants. Since C is constant and no other object travels faster than light, this equation must refer to the Energy of Light only. Where as, the equation Energy = Force * Distance refers to all objects.

Let me Explain. If the Initial speed of an object was greater than zero, then the Final velocity of the object will have to travel at a speed greater than that of light in order to Accelerate and achieve a Change of Velocity equivalent to the speed at which light travels.

Energy in this case could imply that it is a measure of the 'ease' by which an object with a Mass (M) will travel to a distance (d) of one meter when accelerated (a) at the speed of light from an initial speed of zero.

The force required in this case for an object to travel one meter, when accelerated to the speed of light, depends solely on its mass; it then follows that the measure of 'ease' for the object to travel one meter, when accelerated to the speed of light, depends solely on the required force.

Energy is a measurement (at an instance of time) of the 'ease' with which an action will occur for a duration of a time.

Any more questions?

1
Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:49 am
@Sir Neuron,
umm... I guess that was a funny post on some level
Thanks for that
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 08:31 pm
@Bracewell,
Well, interesting topic to say the least. I did have a post that is related to this discussion.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/2544-what-constant-e-mc-2-a.html#post30100

E=MC/2 is the simplification to a much larger equation.

As stated, mc2 is squared, say a number lets say number 2, 2 squared is more or less doubling itself. 2, 4, 16, 32, 64 , 128, 256, 512, 1024 to infinity. Another way of saying the same is, take any number and multiply it by itself, then by itself again, go for as long as you see fit In essence, it is saying that Energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is energy, mass is also based on the speed of the object.

Lets take the fastest know speed to our realities, somewhere around 50k miles an hour. It's mass continues to grow as it speeds increases, this is energy via mass.

If we would hit the speed of light c it/we would vanish right before your very eyes, since our time is no longer constant to you, the observer.

This theory is almost impossible to explain via Newtonian physics (reality).

The atomic (fission) bomb, or the hydrogen (fusion) bomb, well here is an obvious event of his equation(s).

Fission, is when atomic bonds are broken.
Fusion, is when atomic bonds are created.

Don't believe me, look at the sun(Fusion, Hydrogen into Helium) and tell me again..hehehe

Fusion represented in chemistry, (yes I know there is more to it)as follows:

First branch;

H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + ν
H2 + H1 → He3 + γ
He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1

Second and third;

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ
Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν
Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4

Third branch splits to;

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ
Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν
Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4

Creating beryllium-7 which combines with boron-8 (B8). boron-8 (B8)is very unstable and decays rapidly!

This turns into beryllium-8 (Be8), which decays as well into two hydrogen nuclei as such;

Be7 + H1 → B8 + γ
B8 → Be8 + e+ + ν
Be8 → 2 He4

Not to mention the CNO processes.

-BaC
BaCaRdi

1
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 09:05 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Nice I can sum up your post as;

For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Said in another way; For every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.

An another, the faster you travel the more the counter forces are pushing back. To break that you need to travel that much faster, x 2.

-BaC
I upped the bet above:P

Sir Neuron wrote:
Congratulations! Today is your lucky day.
Presented here is the answer you have been looking for.

**SNIP** -BaC
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 09:44 pm
@BaCaRdi,
What does all this chemical junk mean?

By nature that any element, any atom anything we know must become more stable, by any means necessary.

Why so much what seems to be off-topic mumbo jumbo. Well these are all related to each other. That simplified equation E=MC2 is much bigger than you can imagine, links within links.

Humm somewhat fractal like :brickwall:
(Light is massless and constant!)<--- That is totally another theory and another 1400 posts.

-BaC

BaCaRdi wrote:
Well, interesting topic to say the least. I did have a post that is related to this discussion.

Fusion represented in chemistry, (yes I know there is more to it)as follows:

First branch;

H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + ν
H2 + H1 → He3 + γ
He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1

Second and third;

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ
Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν
Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4

Third branch splits to;

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ
Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν
Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4

Creating beryllium-7 which combines with boron-8 (B8). boron-8 (B8)is very unstable and decays rapidly!

This turns into beryllium-8 (Be8), which decays as well into two hydrogen nuclei as such;

Be7 + H1 → B8 + γ
B8 → Be8 + e+ + ν
Be8 → 2 He4

Not to mention the CNO processes.

-BaC
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 10:25 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:

In essence, it is saying that Energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is energy, mass is also based on the speed of the object.

It's mass continues to grow as it speeds increases, this is energy via mass.

If we would hit the speed of light c it/we would vanish right before your very eyes, since our time is no longer constant to you, the observer.

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Funny signature. That's not all. Nothing here makes sense to me. Care to clarify?

Mass is Energy and is interchangable with it?

It's mass continues to grow as it speeds increases, this is energy via mass?

First, Mass is not energy, else we would not need to calculate it. As Einstein Stated, there are different manifestations of the same thing. There are not the same thing. That's my opinon. Mass is measured in kg. Energy is measured in kg(m/s)^2.

Secondly, mass remains generally constant as it's in motion. If speed increases at a constant rate, acceleration remains constant. Therefore the force remains constant and also the mass. If the rate of speed increase changes, then acceleration changes. Then, the force also changes in propotion, such that the mass will be constant when calculated.

Equations can be miss leading. Besides understanding the equation, one must understand how each element is dervived.

Thirdly, if there is one thing I do not perceive it is the idea that an object can travel in time.

I have a different perception of time travel. Say for example: You were running a race against light, and reached the finish line first, there is some time elapsed before you can preceive light which contained information of the race, where you will see yourself. It's like some stars in the sky which we know don't exist, but there appears to be there because they were so large and so bright that the light now reaches us.

That lead me to think also, that some sounds that space stations hear in the cosmos may have originated from non-exsiting sources.

BaCaRdi wrote:
The atomic (fission) bomb, or the hydrogen (fusion) bomb, well here is an obvious event of his equation(s).

Fission, is when atomic bonds are broken.
Fusion, is when atomic bonds are created.

Don't believe me, look at the sun(Fusion, Hydrogen into Helium) and tell me again..hehehe

-BaC

Can't comment on this quote. Know nothing about fission or fussion yet.

Maybe I need some evidence of experiments conducted to accept a different view of this topic.
BaCaRdi

1
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 10:41 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Hehe thanks on the signature:)

Well yes and no.

Hows is mass not energy? Mass is indeed stored energies.

Don't believe me, light a newspaper of fire. Then explain what happened to me please.

Mass and energy are one in the same my friend, its potential energy. And fission/fusion is just that, mass converted to energy.

-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Funny signature. That's not all. Nothing here makes sense to me. Care to clarify?

Mass is Energy and is interchangable with it?

It's mass continues to grow as it speeds increases, this is energy via mass?

First, Mass is not energy, else we would not need to calculate it. As Einstein Stated, there are different manifestations of the same thing. There are not the same thing. That's my opinon. Mass is measured in kg. Energy is measured in kg(m/s)^2.

Secondly, mass remains generally constant as it's in motion. If speed increases at a constant rate, acceleration remains constant. Therefore the force remains constant and also the mass. If the rate of speed increase changes, then acceleration changes. Then, the force also changes in propotion, such that the mass will be constant when calculated.

Equations can be miss leading. Besides understanding the equation, one must understand how each element is dervived.

Thirdly, if there is one thing I do not perceive it is the idea that an object can travel in time.

I have a different perception of time travel. Say for example: You were running a race against light, and reached the finish line first, there is some time elapsed before you can preceive light which contained information of the race, where you will see yourself. It's like some stars in the sky which we know don't exist, but there appears to be there because they were so large and so bright that the light now reaches us.

That lead me to think also, that some sounds that space stations hear in the cosmos may have originated from non-exsiting sources.

Can't comment on this quote. Know nothing about fission or fussion yet.

Maybe I need some evidence of experiments conducted to accept a different view of this topic.
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 10:56 pm
@Bracewell,
E=mc2

Lets look at this one more time.

Forget the constant, yes I know..what!...just amuse me please...

Energy = Mass x Acceleration

Light = c well then that would be 299,792,458 miles a second squared.

The c is only a constant after you plug-in the speed!

You don't need to make it the speed of light to work, again this is the special theory of relativity. The constant is that of reality, not the number itself.

You can use ANY speed as c as the equation states. When that number is applied, it is now a constant. This is known as a "type cast" in programing lingo.

Lets say 200 miles an hour, and 2.5kg.

M=2.5kg c=200miles an hour.

2.5kg * 200 = 500

E= 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000 64000, etc to infinity.<--Joules
M= 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000 64000, etc to infinity.<--kg

Notice the linear effect?
Mass and Energy are in fact equivalent.

-BaC
The above is to demonstrate the linear action, in order to calculate real numbers you do indeed need to input Light's c.
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 12:28 am
@Bracewell,
What seems to be ignored here is that there are two Theories here at play.

One of relativity the other Special Theory of Relativity.

Light is a constant however time is not, time is reality to that of the observer. What does that mean, well light is timeless.

As Eisenstein hypothesized, if you where able to travel at the speed of light, time would stop completely. However to you all thing would be normal, matter of fact you wouldn't be able to see the change. All your measurement devices would be altered as you are, oops, so how do we measure the speed of light.

The simple truth is you can't, when it's tried, either you get a particle or a wave. Never both at the same time. As I stated somewhere else, if you want a wave, you get a wave, you want a particle you get just that.

We are unable to get both, as we affected the very thing we are trying to measure.

Damn the paradoxical nature of science! :brickwall:

-BaC

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz