1

# What does E=mc^2 mean?

BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:15 pm
@Sir Neuron,
lol....Do you want to "know" "what" it is?

-BaC
Careful now you may never be able to go back to what you once "thought" was the world...

**Dare thy to trespass into the known...unknown realm...*
**It must be by means of "pure" will to those who dare.

Sir Neuron wrote:
Hey, No ones perfect.

A miss sight on my part O.K..
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:18 pm
@Bracewell,
Pick a door any door...

-Montie
It's by "pure" will I set my mind in motion....It's by "pure" thought I set my body in motion.........

-Tron
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:33 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Bacardi,

Got ya!
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:37 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Welcome to TRON.....

-Tron
Sir Neuron wrote:
Bacardi,

Got ya!
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:38 pm
@Bracewell,
Hey Guys,

Nice having this disscussion.

Got to go.

Be back later.
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:40 pm
@Bracewell,

-BaC
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:44 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Like wise Sir Neuron;)

Humm funny if there could be such a thing..as a "Neuron Star"..part of which is the family of "pulsars"...

Crap.................

My"Brain" hurts;)
-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
Hey Guys,

Nice having this disscussion.

Got to go.

Be back later.
BaCaRdi

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:27 pm
@BaCaRdi,
OK here we go;) The real Equation not the "simplified" version;

E = m * gamma * c^2

When v = 0, it is just E = m * c^2, which is called the rest mass energy because the object is at resting state (v = 0).

However, if v is small in comparison to that of c, then E - m*c^2 = 1/2 * m * v^2. The energy minus the rest mass energy is equal to the old familiar kinetic energy. In the approximation that v/c << 1.

Standard Theory of Relativity <--didn't know there was such a monster did you;)

Taylor Series approximation states:

1/Sqrt(1+v^2/c^2) ~ 1 + 1/2 * v^2/c^2 if v/c << 1

Again math is a tool, not a full reality.

Get What I am saying?
-BaC
Don't think it's true..do some research..You will see that that is the Real Equation..
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:45 pm
@Bracewell,
To much BaCardi intoxicates.
BaCaRdi

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 01:44 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Sorry don't drink...It's simply a play on my sir name.

believe it or not..... That is not a thought..it's that of a reality of math a FACT.

-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
To much BaCardi intoxicates.
Sir Neuron

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:26 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Sorry don't drink...It's simply a play on my sir name.

believe it or not..... That is not a thought..it's that of a reality of math a FACT.

-BaC

I am sure one of your multiple personallities would say different.
BaCaRdi

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:33 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Hehe Very true;) And well said...

You walk-the-walk my friend..a much different sort of person than say average.

-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
I am sure one of your multiple personallities would say different.
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 01:30 pm
@Bracewell,

Objects possses no predictable energy. I other words, Can one say how much energy an object posseses? - TRON ?
BaCaRdi

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 01:55 pm
@Sir Neuron,
"Tron" my son is of dark mater.

Think of it as stateless materless...pure energy...
-Tron
Sir Neuron wrote:

Objects possses no predictable energy. I other words, Can one say how much energy an object posseses? - TRON ?
Sir Neuron

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:43 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
"Tron" my son is of dark mater.

Think of it as stateless materless...pure energy...
-Tron

:brickwall:

O.kkk...! Let us consider this for a little while.

On what does the energy of energy depends? -Ron.
BaCaRdi

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 01:28 am
@Sir Neuron,
It is of pure anything....

Called the "Ground State" Theory.

Is allot like electronics...More like electonics thought:)

-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
:brickwall:

O.kkk...! Let us consider this for a little while.

On what does the energy of energy depends? -Ron.
0 Replies

Bracewell

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 04:52 pm
@Whoever,
Whoever - Sorry for the delay but I missed your page due to the amount this thread has collected. In answer to your question about the super atom I can only think that this is the concept of the atom that is beyond even my granny's understanding. The answer is no, I would not like to even go there. My starting point is waves because no other explanation is tenable for all the energy in the universe and I mean all energy.
I liked your concept of the atom pulsing in and out of existence, however, the test for any model of the atom must be that it works with all experimental results and it must work for gravity, which is the final test.
I was encouraged by your post.
0 Replies

Bracewell

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 05:40 pm
@Icon,
Icon - Sorry for the delay but I missed your page due to the amount this thread has collected.
I understand completely your point that the originator of an idea is unlikely to understand the full implications of it and in my case that would be so very true.
Matter not moving seems pretty wild but as you rightly point out there is no way of knowing but if it were true then the problem with inertia would be solved.
This is interesting. If you examine a range of golf balls from different manufacturers you will see many designs for dimples, which is a constraint for performance. It seems there is a mini 'periodic table' for golf balls, which as analogies go is pretty creepy.
BaCaRdi

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 07:24 pm
@Bracewell,
Creepy indeed!

Fight or Flight?

-TRoN
Bracewell wrote:
Icon - Sorry for the delay but I missed your page due to the amount this thread has collected.
I understand completely your point that the originator of an idea is unlikely to understand the full implications of it and in my case that would be so very true.
Matter not moving seems pretty wild but as you rightly point out there is no way of knowing but if it were true then the problem with inertia would be solved.
This is interesting. If you examine a range of golf balls from different manufacturers you will see many designs for dimples, which is a constraint for performance. It seems there is a mini 'periodic table' for golf balls, which as analogies go is pretty creepy.
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 07:56 pm
@Bracewell,
When it comes down to it.... In Newtonian physics there is no absolute or non-"absolute" motion..

This is why Einstein's theory of relativity was "Thought"

-BaC
0 Replies

### 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