1

# What does E=mc^2 mean?

xris

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 10:42 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Phase-shift is not altering speed my friend:)

Modulation is also know as frequency in this form..

Let play with light bugs..... There are two types here..one of Red(pick your shade)on of blue. The c is valid..again where talking reality.

The Red type moves up and down at a particular modulation say 7000nm
The Blue type moves at 4500nm

Which gets there first? Now remember they are vibrating, oscillating modulating.

Whats the shortest path?

-BaC
get there the same time..but thats my question why are you altering the speed of light..when you cant.. its the constant necessary to give us answers..
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 11:16 am
@Bracewell,
Where did I alter it? FSL <--I don't believe the way they sated it. Was just to show everyone has their own theories.

In real life..yep here on Mother Earth it is a constant to you....

I don't live(per se) in the same world that you do...I just connect the dots.

-BaC
xris

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 01:00 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Where did I alter it? FSL <--I don't believe the way they sated it. Was just to show everyone has their own theories.

In real life..yep here on Mother Earth it is a constant to you....

I don't live(per se) in the same world that you do...I just connect the dots.

-BaC
So the speed of light is a constant to which we measure the relative....connect the dots by all means but are the dots numbered?
BaCaRdi

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 01:12 pm
@xris,
If you need them to be my son....

-Marc
xris wrote:
So the speed of light is a constant to which we measure the relative....connect the dots by all means but are the dots numbered?
xris

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 01:26 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
If you need them to be my son....

-Marc
Well it helps...
0 Replies

Bracewell

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 05:18 pm
@Steerpike,
I don't believe you are from Earth.
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 07:04 pm
@Bracewell,
:detective:OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bracewell

1
Wed 5 Nov, 2008 07:45 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCardi - you should not thank me for losing patience.

By the way, are you in the pay of an alcoholic drinks company?
xris

1
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 08:51 am
@Bracewell,
i thought we might debate this alot more than we have but its being sabotage too often for any serious debate...i had so many interseting question i would have loved answered..
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 11:52 am
@Bracewell,
If you could see my tattoo you would realize their is a profound meaning to it...

-BaC <--Bat in Chains.......
-Ricciardi <-BaCaRdi

Any questions?

-TRoN
Did you see the Eye that Sees?
-Di Vinci
To the Bone my Lord...
-Marc
Bracewell wrote:
BaCardi - you should not thank me for losing patience.

By the way, are you in the pay of an alcoholic drinks company?
Bracewell

1
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:07 pm
@BaCaRdi,
Xris - Yep, me too and we have a couple of good questions still outstanding. However, one of your questions was about how light can be slowed. This is my version and it won't matter too much if my memory is a bit faulty on the facts.
Long ago a machine was made using a beam of light and rotating mirrors to measure the speed of light and after many adjustments it gave consistent results but the scientists noticed a very strange thing about the results as it did not seem to matter in what direction or in what circumstances the measurements were done, the result was always the same. The machine was so accurate it should have detected the rotational surface speed of the planet and, or the orbital speed of the planet around the sun. At first this was explained as some kind of experimental aberration but slowly it dawned that the results were real.
All hell broke out in the scientific world because these results were rocking the very foundation of physics. After all, this meant that time based calculations of speed were not additional or whatever in all circumstances. As mathematics did not work any more learned people were ready to tear out the foundations. If this forum had existed then it would have attracted the attention of everyone from scientists to mystics (maybe as it does now you might say).
Some got close but along came our hero of this story, Einstein, who bravely suggested that the only explanation was that fundamentally time must be different in each circumstance of each experiment and he gave pretty good mathematical directions on how to correct time for each experiment. As you can imagine it went down like a lead balloon. However, it began to dawn that maybe this fellow was correct because he also made some stunning mathematical predictions about the bending of light and the precession of the planet Mercury. All of a sudden mathematics worked again and most scientists breathed easy. But Einstein did not just introduce new mathematics, oh no, he also introduced a new concept that the very presence of a large mass, or gravity , is the reason that these corrections need to be made and similarly so with speed. So, it wasn't then just a bit of mathematical hocus-pocus that made him great but the introduction into physics of a fundamental and fantastic new concept supported by mathematics. Since then science has progressed at a blistering pace and without these advances I would not be able to communicate on a machine like this ('B' thing).
However, there is an ironic postscript to this story because it turns out the experiments to measure the speed of light did not determine the speed correctly as it was not strictly speaking light at all that was being measured. It just shows you can start with a bunkum model and still get it correct, which was something I think James Clerk Maxwell knew all along.

I hope this helps
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:12 pm
@Bracewell,
Lets go over Taylor's Series standard again for the last time:P

As taught by my professor..My step-father PHd
____________________________________________________________

Taylor's series is standard mathematical method of rewriting functions in infinite series form. Typical example of a infinite series is :
Y= 1+ 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... infinite terms.
If you sum this it will be equal to 2.0.
If all the terms are summed then Y=2 if you only sum say first 10 terms itwill be approximately 2. The symbol ~ means approximately.
I have used Taylor series many times to rewrite complex functions in simplified series form. If the second term is <<1 then the contributions from higher terms (meaning say 3rd, 4th, 5th .. terms in the infiniteseries) is very negligible and we can say that approximate the function by
using only 1st term. It is however, approximate only.
________________________________________________________________
This is the same as say taking CISC or RISC..You don't think it is possible..

Your using that platform as we speak.Intel..

Welcome to more ways to skin a cat"<--has to be a cat all the time! I love Cats by-the-way

-Marc
Bracewell wrote:
Xris - Yep, me too and we have a couple of good questions still outstanding. However, one of your questions was about how light can be slowed. This is my version and it won't matter too much if my memory is a bit faulty on the facts.
Long ago a machine was made using a beam of light and rotating mirrors to measure the speed of light and after many adjustments it gave consistent results but the scientists noticed a very strange thing about the results as it did not seem to matter in what direction or in what circumstances the measurements were done, the result was always the same. The machine was so accurate it should have detected the rotational surface speed of the planet and, or the orbital speed of the planet around the sun. At first this was explained as some kind of experimental aberration but slowly it dawned that the results were real.
All hell broke out in the scientific world because these results were rocking the very foundation of physics. After all, this meant that time based calculations of speed were not additional or whatever in all circumstances. As mathematics did not work any more learned people were ready to tear out the foundations. If this forum had existed then it would have attracted the attention of everyone from scientists to mystics (maybe as it does now you might say).
Some got close but along came our hero of this story, Einstein, who bravely suggested that the only explanation was that fundamentally time must be different in each circumstance of each experiment and he gave pretty good mathematical directions on how to correct time for each experiment. As you can imagine it went down like a lead balloon. However, it began to dawn that maybe this fellow was correct because he also made some stunning mathematical predictions about the bending of light and the precession of the planet Mercury. All of a sudden mathematics worked again and most scientists breathed easy. But Einstein did not just introduce new mathematics, oh no, he also introduced a new concept that the very presence of a large mass, or gravity , is the reason that these corrections need to be made and similarly so with speed. So, it wasn't then just a bit of mathematical hocus-pocus that made him great but the introduction into physics of a fundamental and fantastic new concept supported by mathematics. Since then science has progressed at a blistering pace and without these advances I would not be able to communicate on a machine like this ('B' thing).
However, there is an ironic postscript to this story because it turns out the experiments to measure the speed of light did not determine the speed correctly as it was not strictly speaking light at all that was being measured. It just shows you can start with a bunkum model and still get it correct, which was something I think James Clerk Maxwell knew all along.

I hope this helps
xris

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 05:32 am
@BaCaRdi,
Your input on this is vague to put it lightly..can you explain the relevance of your last post...pepsi..
0 Replies

xris

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 05:40 am
@Bracewell,
Bracewell wrote:
Xris - Yep, me too and we have a couple of good questions still outstanding. However, one of your questions was about how light can be slowed. This is my version and it won't matter too much if my memory is a bit faulty on the facts.
Long ago a machine was made using a beam of light and rotating mirrors to measure the speed of light and after many adjustments it gave consistent results but the scientists noticed a very strange thing about the results as it did not seem to matter in what direction or in what circumstances the measurements were done, the result was always the same. The machine was so accurate it should have detected the rotational surface speed of the planet and, or the orbital speed of the planet around the sun. At first this was explained as some kind of experimental aberration but slowly it dawned that the results were real.
All hell broke out in the scientific world because these results were rocking the very foundation of physics. After all, this meant that time based calculations of speed were not additional or whatever in all circumstances. As mathematics did not work any more learned people were ready to tear out the foundations. If this forum had existed then it would have attracted the attention of everyone from scientists to mystics (maybe as it does now you might say).
Some got close but along came our hero of this story, Einstein, who bravely suggested that the only explanation was that fundamentally time must be different in each circumstance of each experiment and he gave pretty good mathematical directions on how to correct time for each experiment. As you can imagine it went down like a lead balloon. However, it began to dawn that maybe this fellow was correct because he also made some stunning mathematical predictions about the bending of light and the precession of the planet Mercury. All of a sudden mathematics worked again and most scientists breathed easy. But Einstein did not just introduce new mathematics, oh no, he also introduced a new concept that the very presence of a large mass, or gravity , is the reason that these corrections need to be made and similarly so with speed. So, it wasn't then just a bit of mathematical hocus-pocus that made him great but the introduction into physics of a fundamental and fantastic new concept supported by mathematics. Since then science has progressed at a blistering pace and without these advances I would not be able to communicate on a machine like this ('B' thing).
However, there is an ironic postscript to this story because it turns out the experiments to measure the speed of light did not determine the speed correctly as it was not strictly speaking light at all that was being measured. It just shows you can start with a bunkum model and still get it correct, which was something I think James Clerk Maxwell knew all along.

I hope this helps
The question of mass and energy being related to time for me is the most interesting..I am told the greater the mass the slower the time...from this can we assume the BB was infinitly slower than the model that we are told? if time slows in relation to the mass or energy..in my humble opinion the big bang in relative terms could be an event that was virtually stagnant...The observer ..us..would only see time passing at our rate but in fact it could have been occuring for infinity at a relative time to the actual occurence...do i make myself clear?
Bracewell

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:22 am
@xris,
Xris - Yep, that's the question I had in mind but don't expect me to even guess at an answer. There is plenty of real talent on this forum but maybe it is the wrong question to ask.
xris

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:56 am
@Bracewell,
Certain poster might know but he is so far up the valley or is it the pass he will never make sense to me or you..
Steerpike

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 09:11 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
The question of mass and energy being related to time for me is the most interesting..I am told the greater the mass the slower the time...from this can we assume the BB was infinitly slower than the model that we are told? if time slows in relation to the mass or energy..in my humble opinion the big bang in relative terms could be an event that was virtually stagnant...The observer ..us..would only see time passing at our rate but in fact it could have been occuring for infinity at a relative time to the actual occurence...do i make myself clear?

Not exactly. As speed of an object (say a sub-atomic particle) approaches the speed of light it gains mass. It also experiences time-dilation. At the Big Bang, matter didn't necessarily exist yet. So that expansion is not necessarily directly tied to matter. Spacetime (the three extended spatial and one extended non-spatial dimension) expanded and the energy (and mass once it existed) would have then expanded within spacetime with energy moving at the speed of light and matter moving at sub-light speed.

xris wrote:
Certain poster might know but he is so far up the valley or is it the pass he will never make sense to me or you..

Who?
Bracewell

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 04:15 pm
@Bracewell,
Steerpike - well that seems straightforward. So at what point in the process did the nucleus of atoms form?
0 Replies

Whoever

1
Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:45 am
@Bracewell,
Quote:
Steerpike -As speed of an object (say a sub-atomic particle) approaches the speed of light it gains mass. It also experiences time-dilation. At the Big Bang, matter didn't necessarily exist yet. So that expansion is not necessarily directly tied to matter. Spacetime (the three extended spatial and one extended non-spatial dimension) expanded and the energy (and mass once it existed) would have then expanded within spacetime with energy moving at the speed of light and matter moving at sub-light speed.

I find it hard to believe that time expanded with space. Did it expand at the speed of time?
0 Replies

xris

1
Sun 9 Nov, 2008 08:06 am
@Steerpike,
Steerpike wrote:
Not exactly. As speed of an object (say a sub-atomic particle) approaches the speed of light it gains mass. It also experiences time-dilation. At the Big Bang, matter didn't necessarily exist yet. So that expansion is not necessarily directly tied to matter. Spacetime (the three extended spatial and one extended non-spatial dimension) expanded and the energy (and mass once it existed) would have then expanded within spacetime with energy moving at the speed of light and matter moving at sub-light speed.

Who?
Not you.....I think can understand what you are saying..matter did not necessarily exist? so what was there to have created so much matter pure energy? is not energy matter in flux? The question i ask is did time always exist but in relative terms to our concept? has the universe or was it infinitely pre existed but in ever diminishing amounts of time? Thanks again for your 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