It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

E=MC^4^2...A thought experiment regarding Energy and the Speed of Light.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
E=MC^4^2. We need to be able to measure and quantify Dark Energy/Dark Matter for this equation to have any meaning whatsoever(and it's not even close to being right anyway). We might even have to scrap the concept of linear time to explain how Light behaves as both a particle and a wave; A particle of Light could exist in every location that it's going to simultaneously. The standard theory is that you can't accelerate an object that has Mass to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy; But Light itself must have Mass because it can be affected by Gravity- The more Mass an object has the greater the effects of gravity..........Please feel free to go cross-eyed at any time(I already have). Enjoy!




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheWetCoast

I never quite understood posts like this and I am not trying to discredit or otherwise, but....why wouldn't you do the math and prove to the world rather than post on a dark corner of the Internet that is ATS? I mean, most people here are armchair theorist, mathematicians, astronomers, etc; and that doesn't diminish from their expertise -- but if you have world changing theories, it is time to publish and go to the world with them.


Good luck either way I suppose. On to your post; explain your math. Anyone can put a carrot into E=MC^2 and say "look!"...just saying.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
would it be rude of me to say that all of that is really obvious? ....

....well, except for the part where you took the fourth power of lightspeed.

why did you do that, again?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tgidkp
To the fourth power then squared. Because we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of. Feel free to prove or disprove it. It could be close but we might need a few thousand years to figure that out.

edit on 29-4-2014 by TheWetCoast because: add



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: tgidkp
To the fourth power then squared. Because we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of. Feel free to prove or disprove it.


dont you have to prove it first?
its your hypothesis??

show us the math!



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: tgidkp
To the fourth power then squared. Because we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of. Feel free to prove or disprove it. It could be close but we might need a few thousand years to figure that out.


Explain that then. What does raising MC by 4, before squaring it do? How does it affect mass? Theory or not, you must have some sort of backing to at least convey an understanding of your idea. Again, I am not knocking your idea, just can't say "forth power then squared"; I am sure we can all read basic math annotation.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: okamitengu
Hypothesis for sure. The equation is part of a thought experiment. Please read more before you start typing.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheWetCoast

the squared power in Einstein's formula is a very specific description... it can even be given a geometric interpretation. it is not just some willy-nilly number that just happened to work cause he was lucky.

you've already admitted that it is likely incorrect. but what I would like to know is, what was the descriptive motivation you were trying to achieve?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: tgidkp
would it be rude of me to say that all of that is really obvious? ....

....well, except for the part where you took the fourth power of lightspeed.

why did you do that, again?
I read it as the sixteenth power since four squared is sixteen, not that it makes any more sense, plus if it means sixteenth power why not just write that, instead of writing it as four squared?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

True I guess the equation should read: E=(MC^4)^2; if we are to understand what the OP is trying to present.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

True I guess the equation should read: E=(MC^4)^2; if we are to understand what the OP is trying to present.
Didn't think I needed the brackets but I guess they do make things simpler. A simple keyboard is not very exponent friendly.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur You never do the exponents in an equation first. You solve from left to right not right to left.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tgidkp
a reply to: TheWetCoast

the squared power in Einstein's formula is a very specific description... it can even be given a geometric interpretation. it is not just some willy-nilly number that just happened to work cause he was lucky.

you've already admitted that it is likely incorrect. but what I would like to know is, what was the descriptive motivation you were trying to achieve?
I didn't just add some random numbers to the equation. Welcome to confusion 101.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: Arbitrageur You never do the exponents in an equation first. You solve from left to right not right to left.
You not only do exponents before most other operations including all those in your equation, you do them "top down" which means essentially right to left as standard practice.

Order of operations


The order of operations used throughout mathematics, science, technology and many computer programming languages is expressed here:

-exponents and roots
-multiplication and division
-addition and subtraction



Didn't think I needed the brackets but I guess they do make things simpler.
At issue is not the simplicity or complexity. Adding brackets changes the equation from E=MC^4^2 to E=(MC^4)^2 where among other things, in the first equation, mass is not raised to any power, while with the brackets added, mass is squared. It's not the same equation.

You should probably learn the fundamentals of mathematics, like order of operations, before trying to become an amateur theoretical physicist. The world needs more people with basic math skills. The need for zany formulae in theoretical physics which contradict experiment and observation is nil.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: Arbitrageur You never do the exponents in an equation first. You solve from left to right not right to left.
You not only do exponents before most other operations including all those in your equation, you do them "top down" which means essentially right to left as standard practice.

Order of operations


The order of operations used throughout mathematics, science, technology and many computer programming languages is expressed here:

-exponents and roots
-multiplication and division
-addition and subtraction



Didn't think I needed the brackets but I guess they do make things simpler.
At issue is not the simplicity or complexity. Adding brackets changes the equation from E=MC^4^2 to E=(MC^4)^2 where among other things, in the first equation, mass is not raised to any power, while with the brackets added, mass is squared. It's not the same equation.

You should probably learn the fundamentals of mathematics, like order of operations, before trying to become an amateur theoretical physicist. The world needs more people with basic math skills. The need for zany formulae in theoretical physics which contradict experiment and observation is nil.
Looks like I need to read more carefully. The equation should be E=(M(C^4))^2.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur Believe it or not I can do math just fine.I just forgot to add the brackets. In my haste I also used the order of operations for a much simpler equation.Welcome to Confusion 101. Maybe our benevolent MODS will see fit to edit my title and OP so things are less confusing.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Well something else I have to point out is that gravity does not bend light, gravity bends 'space-time' that then we see the effects of. How do you know the math if you don't even know that?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Light doesn't have mass. But it is what creates mass. You won't read that in any textbook.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWetCoast

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: Arbitrageur You never do the exponents in an equation first. You solve from left to right not right to left.
You not only do exponents before most other operations including all those in your equation, you do them "top down" which means essentially right to left as standard practice.

Order of operations


The order of operations used throughout mathematics, science, technology and many computer programming languages is expressed here:

-exponents and roots
-multiplication and division
-addition and subtraction



Didn't think I needed the brackets but I guess they do make things simpler.
At issue is not the simplicity or complexity. Adding brackets changes the equation from E=MC^4^2 to E=(MC^4)^2 where among other things, in the first equation, mass is not raised to any power, while with the brackets added, mass is squared. It's not the same equation.

You should probably learn the fundamentals of mathematics, like order of operations, before trying to become an amateur theoretical physicist. The world needs more people with basic math skills. The need for zany formulae in theoretical physics which contradict experiment and observation is nil.
Looks like I need to read more carefully. The equation should be E=(M(C^4))^2.


Nope, that doesn't work out: E != m^2*c^8 - wrong units, it doesn't sum up to E.

Anyway, light as a massless particle CAN be touched by gravity, and that is one of the core points of Einsteins SRT. The space itself is bent by gravity, so that light can't move in a linear way while coming close to a mass.

Sorry. You had an idea and I respect that, but this idea is a miss, to say it politely.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
Light doesn't have mass. But it is what creates mass. You won't read that in any textbook.


Yeah, because it simply doesn't make sense - care to elaborate?
The Higgs-Boson is "creating" the semblence of mass.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join