|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:20 pm
an is equation only an equation when its interchangeable.
for example, is 2+2=4 verifiable becasue 2=4-2, as in you can rearange the equation and do the inverse, much like solving for a variable?
EX: X=A+B; solve for B
B=X-A.
EDIT: this leads me to the conclusion:
WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLe WONDER HOW THE UNIVERSE SUDDENLY CAME INTO EXISTANCE???
if energy equals mass multiplied by light squared, then mass equals energy divided by light squared... meaning that the first atoms that just kinda blew everything into existance came from energy, likely static.
no god involved.
opinions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Hey I failed horribly in math classes.
I'd say yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:08 pm
a**l Jesus Hey I failed horribly in math classes. I'd say yeah. math is my forte and i figured it was right too. that being said, i will now edit the topic..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Where did the energy come from? Perhaps the energy was/is God?
The biggest hole in the Big Bang Theory is that we don't know, and likely can't know, what happened before the mythical Singularity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:45 pm
Yeah, I mean, energy just can't randomly be created because the universe wants to do some cosmic mathematics. The energy and light had to be somewhere, which would make it seem as if there was something there already. But if there was something there, then what came before that something?
Frankly, I hate it when people argue about the origins of the earth and the universe and s**t like that. It's frustrating, and they're never going to get anywhere. I mean, it's one thing to prove with an argument that "the good" is legitimate and can be represented in mathematical structure. Because, I mean, you can prove it's legitimate by refuting the objections. But it's another to debate bitterly about which came first--the chicken or the egg? It's just stupid. You're never going to get anywhere. Anything you think you know can't hold up in the real world.
Bah, it's after 2am and I just got off work. I need sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:28 pm
mad dammit i knew i didn't think something threw when i posted this...
never mind people, false alarm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:31 am
Apparently, you fail in science.
If those atoms did do a static thing, then they still needed activation energy to start the spark and also a medium in which to transfer that energy to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:28 pm
Dark_of_Niwa Apparently, you fail in science. If those atoms did do a static thing, then they still needed activation energy to start the spark and also a medium in which to transfer that energy to. static or kinetic or whatever... and im not filing its just that chemistry's more appreciated by me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:51 pm
Good concept... but the "c" in the equation isn't light... it is the speed of light.
Specifically c is defined to be 1 divided by the square root of the permittivity of empty space multiplied by the permeability of empty space.
c= 1 * ((8.854*10^-12)*(1.257*10^-6))^(-1/2)
'c' is just a constant in the equation. It's that whole "E" and "m" thing we're supposed to pay attention to.
EDIT: totally forgot to mention this... but Physics as we know it can not be applied at the Planck scale. The Planck Time is the first instant at the beginning of the universe where the "laws of physics" can be applied. They do not exist/function before then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:29 pm
Hmm...I think this might help:
I have a book called How to Build a Time Machine. In the book, it explains this equation a lot differently than the OP.
That is, energy and mass are NOT equal, they're just closely related, otherwise you would have the extra two things tagged on.
For you to switch energy and mass, you'd have to account for those extra numbers. You can't just switch 'em out. You would need to divide "e" by "c" and then square root it or something to that effect. that is, if you're going to treat it like a math equation.
But hell I don't know, I haven't had to take math in a semester or two. Any physics/math students in here? mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:06 pm
Asherah Delphinia Hmm...I think this might help:
I have a book called How to Build a Time Machine. In the book, it explains this equation a lot differently than the OP.
That is, energy and mass are NOT equal, they're just closely related, otherwise you would have the extra two things tagged on.
For you to switch energy and mass, you'd have to account for those extra numbers. You can't just switch 'em out. You would need to divide "e" by "c" and then square root it or something to that effect. that is, if you're going to treat it like a math equation.
But hell I don't know, I haven't had to take math in a semester or two. Any physics/math students in here? mrgreen Does engineering count? ^_~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:45 pm
They make you take a lot of math, right? you'd probably know better than me. It's been so long since I read up about this stuff and it's incredibly easy to get confused by your own explanation. Does that ever happen to anyone else or just me? gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
