Really? Because the last time I looked C was expressed in units of velocity, which is distance/time. So even if you choose to throw away the "space" part of "space-time", you would still have "Energy = Mass / Time**2". But with your formulation, are you saying that the energy equivalent of a mass increases with time?
"C" is C, forget about your units of velocity which are time based, and only work with your weight and speed with regards to C.
"But with your formulation, are you saying that the energy equivalent of a mass increases with time?"
What do you define as time?
I view "C" as the unit of time, they are one in the same. If I could travel C, time would stand still.
Just goggle it.
The internet needs to be a balanced division of corporations, a separation of six or twelve corporations for instance, like the 12 constellations we refer to in the sky.
If the internet is a single umbrella corporation hosting all services we use, or likewise a single corporation hosting a single service such as video feed or internet search, that runs all kinds of socioeconomic and statistical risks with fatal implications.
Likewise the internet is supposed to be a vast platform of free information and free communication, that's it! The services of the internet should be clean platforms, like this forum. Not economic assets the size of Monaco or services with dreams of totalitarianism.
The fate of the internet, is solely in the hands of those who use it.
It's a bit like buying fruit, if everyone were to suddenly buy fruit from let's say Venezuela and refused to buy fruit from anywhere else, within a few years Venezuela would suddenly be fifty times richer, so to speak.
Say no to "google it". Say "internet search it" or "duckduckgo, baidu, bing, yandex it" or something like that, to balance the scales.
Ok now back to the universe.
Last edited:
Energy = Mass x Time
When you exchange meters/second at one side of the equation for seconds, that will mess up the units. How can this be correct then?
jan
I was asked by nezbleu "when you look at the equation E=mC**2, what do you see."
I see Energy = Mass x Time²
The units are of little concern, they are simply a language to express something.
Time² is C², C is the unit of time (or fraction of) that allows the math to work.
C= time zero, but theoretically infinite mass.
To say that light travels 299 792 458 m/s, actually means that we are traveling less then "C", therefore we have a finite mass which can be calculated.
Energy exists in the form of mass or time, or E=mc²
I see Energy = Mass x Time²
The units are of little concern, they are simply a language to express something.
Time² is C², C is the unit of time (or fraction of) that allows the math to work.
C= time zero, but theoretically infinite mass.
To say that light travels 299 792 458 m/s, actually means that we are traveling less then "C", therefore we have a finite mass which can be calculated.
Energy exists in the form of mass or time, or E=mc²
When you exchange meters/second at one side of the equation for seconds, that will mess up the units. How can this be correct then?
jan
Yes, the first thing that physics students are taught is to always ensure that all the units balance on both sides of the equation. If not, it is just nonsense, like saying that cat = spoon.
I was asked by nezbleu "when you look at the equation E=mC**2, what do you see."
I see Energy = Mass x Time²
The units are of little concern, they are simply a language to express something.
Time² is C², C is the unit of time (or fraction of) that allows the math to work.
C= time zero, but theoretically infinite mass.
To say that light travels 299 792 458 m/s, actually means that we are traveling less then "C", therefore we have a finite mass which can be calculated.
Energy exists in the form of mass or time, or E=mc²
I must say, you have it backwards. Units are the primary concern. However, the particular system of units. mks, cgs, etc, doesn't matter. That just introduces a conversion constant.
When you exchange meters/second at one side of the equation for seconds, that will mess up the units. How can this be correct then?
What gets lay people confused is that, when dealing with relativistic physics, scientists like to use normalized units where c = 1. Makes the equations neater, and the scientist knows already that mass has units of energy. In my former area of specialization, the electron mass, charge, average radius in hydrogen ground state, and hydrogen ground state energy were also normalized to unity.
Say no to "google it".
His suggestion was to goggle, not google.
I must say, you have it backwards. Units are the primary concern. However, the particular system of units. mks, cgs, etc, doesn't matter. That just introduces a conversion constant.
Perhaps this would have be a better way to communicate my point.
I view "C" as the unit of time, they are one in the same.
Then we're done here if you don't understand the difference between time and velocity. You are casually throwing away physics to support your beliefs.
Then we're done here if you don't understand the difference between time and velocity. You are casually throwing away physics to support your beliefs.
I was done with you quite some time ago, I was just being polite.
Please entertain us with the disconnection between time and velocity.
First explain how you can have velocity without time. DERP
Please entertain us with the disconnection between time and velocity.
First one starts by noting that time is a scalar and velocity is a vector.
Please entertain us with the disconnection between time and velocity.
It's not very entertaining, and of course there is no "disconnection" per se, but they are still different things. Velocity is dL/dT where L=distance and T=time. Time is time. See the difference now?
First explain how you can have velocity without time. DERP
How about first you explain how you can have velocity without space?
First explain how you can have velocity without time. DERP
Why? Did anybody say that you can have velocity without time?
jan
Why? Did anybody say that you can have velocity without time?
jan
Then we're done here if you don't understand the difference between time and velocity. You are casually throwing away physics to support your beliefs.
How about first you explain how you can have velocity without space?
I don't recall saying that..., but what do you define as "space". The verb? The noun?
The universe fails to fulfill the obligations of a noun, " a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied."
First one starts by noting that time is a scalar and velocity is a vector.
You are incorrect.
A time interval is very much a vector.
You must be confused with "Lorentz scalar".
I view "C" as the unit of time, they are one in the same.
I don't recall saying that...,
You also said that E=MC**2 means "energy equals mass times time*, but since C is a velocity, you left out space.
but what do you define as "space".
Really?
Yes really, unless you are basing science on verbs now?
"C" in this equation has no velocity, it is C.
"C" in this equation has no velocity, it is C.
You are not viewing light moving, you are observing time turning into mass or mass turning into time.
Infinite mass with no time, or infinite time with no mass are the two extremes. Einsteins equation calculates energy equivalents of mixtures in between these two states.
Infinite mass with no time, or infinite time with no mass are the two extremes. Einsteins equation calculates energy equivalents of mixtures in between these two states.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- What is the Universe expanding into..