1. E = mc^2

I have detected a lack of credibility in this formula and so I decided to do a dimensional analysis of it.

E? Well, the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%.

So with this concept, we go to the next step and that is mass? So why did he include mass? Light has no mass.
And he did include C^2 in his formula. So his mc^2 must have applied to the deBroglie matter waves?
Well, it just happens that the c^2 can apply to the standing waves of the hydrogen atom, since they radiate in a flat pi pattern. But unfortunately, these standing waves do not radiate any energy.

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

Cosmo

2.

3. Cosmo,
give up.
It's not to late to accept reality as it is, not as you imagine it to be.
You could be a happier person for it.
Sincerely
John

P.S. Next time you say you've made a dimensional analysis it would be a good idea to present the dimensional analysis results. you didn't do that. If you think you did, then you need to go back to college and learn the basics. If you know you didn't you need to go back to college to learn how to present an argument.
Or you could just go after the Highways Department - love and respect coming your way.

4. Originally Posted by John Galt
Cosmo,
give up.
It's not to late to accept reality as it is, not as you imagine it to be.
You could be a happier person for it.
Sincerely
John

P.S. Next time you say you've made a dimensional analysis it would be a good idea to present the dimensional analysis results. you didn't do that. If you think you did, then you need to go back to college and learn the basics. If you know you didn't you need to go back to college to learn how to present an argument.
Or you could just go after the Highways Department - love and respect coming your way.
John
I have a mission in my life and that is to promote the 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so thank you mother Nature for this great gift of promoting the truth.

My religion is based on NATURE that is the greatest artist, inventor and therefore, our greatest teacher.

On the other hand, the bible pales in comparison as to what it teaches.
The picture is worth a thousand words.

Cosmo

5. Originally Posted by Cosmo
The picture is worth a thousand words.
So give up writing and paint pictures instead. At least they aren't required to make sense nowadays.

6. I wish I had a dollar( used to be a nickel but with the troubled economy and all)
for every brilliant amateur scientist that has a theory that E=mc^2 is screwed up, you can go faster than "c" and time travel is just a worm hole away.

7. Originally Posted by Cosmo
John
I have a mission in my life and that is to promote the 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so thank you mother Nature for this great gift of promoting the truth.
Terrific. Can we see the dimensional analysis now please. If you want to promote the truth I am sure you will wish to comply.

8. Moderator's intervention:

As much as I agree that Cosmo's posts are on an overwhelmingly large amount not more than unsupported thoughts based on fixations, often even contradicting facts and fundamentally secured knowledge in Physics, I would like to call on everyone else to refrain from personal attacks. You are, however, free to prove the absurdity of his claims.

In the meantime, I will move this thread to "Pseudoscience" for two reasons:

1. This discussion was lead already in a previous thread. And Cosmo's ideas don't gain more truth just by repeating them over and over.

2. For the last time: The energy equation E=mc^2 is not about light or photons. It describes the total amount of energy that a particle carries.

9. Can I suggest if you have a problem with the formula have a look at the derivation for it. It really makes a lot more sense when you see where its all coming from. Einstein didnt just pluck the formula out of thin air.

Also; experiments have demonstrated e=mc2. Its not "just a theory".

10. Originally Posted by Cosmo

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

Cosmo
Eh, think they may actually have experimentally tested that one Cosmo. Maybe a whole load of times. Have you?

Far as I'm aware, you can directly measure loss of mass upon energy release in things like nuclear reactions that follows the mass energy equivalence exactly. So in what way is the equivalence failing to describe what we observe?

11. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Moderator's intervention:

As much as I agree that Cosmo's posts are on an overwhelmingly large amount not more than unsupported thoughts based on fixations, often even contradicting facts and fundamentally secured knowledge in Physics, I would like to call on everyone else to refrain from personal attacks.
I hope this was not directed at me, since I made no personal attack. I have done two things in this thread
1) Made a heartfelt appeal to Cosmo to stop causing himself needless pain by abandoning his unfounded speculations.
2) Asked for details of his dimensional analysis.
Please confirm you are not suggesting I have made a personal attack.

12. Originally Posted by Cosmo
E = mc^2

I have detected a lack of credibility in this formula and so I decided to do a dimensional analysis of it.

E? Well, the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%.

So with this concept, we go to the next step and that is mass? So why did he include mass? Light has no mass.
And he did include C^2 in his formula. So his mc^2 must have applied to the deBroglie matter waves?
Well, it just happens that the c^2 can apply to the standing waves of the hydrogen atom, since they radiate in a flat pi pattern. But unfortunately, these standing waves do not radiate any energy.

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

Cosmo
If 95% of the energy is light energy radiated by stars, does that mean that stars have less than 5% energy left to radiate more light?

13. Originally Posted by John Galt
I hope this was not directed at me, since I made no personal attack. I have done two things in this thread
1) Made a heartfelt appeal to Cosmo to stop causing himself needless pain by abandoning his unfounded speculations.
2) Asked for details of his dimensional analysis.
Please confirm you are not suggesting I have made a personal attack.
John, you were one of three users who replied before Dishmaster stepped in, is there some specific reason why you think the comment was directed specifically at you? Dishmaster was merely pre-empting possible flaming. He knows, as I do, that outrageous claims can illicit frustrated responses. We would just like the issue to be debated in terms of the argument itself. So it was a general warning, nothing personal

14. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Moderator's intervention:

As much as I agree that Cosmo's posts are on an overwhelmingly large amount not more than unsupported thoughts based on fixations, often even contradicting facts and fundamentally secured knowledge in Physics, I would like to call on everyone else to refrain from personal attacks.
I hope this was not directed at me, since I made no personal attack. I have done two things in this thread
1) Made a heartfelt appeal to Cosmo to stop causing himself needless pain by abandoning his unfounded speculations.
2) Asked for details of his dimensional analysis.
Please confirm you are not suggesting I have made a personal attack.
No, it was not directed towards you. But I had the impression that I needed to step in before things got worse, because some of the other posts started to progress into the direction. I had a lot of frustrating discussions with Cosmo myself, so I know, how one could feel about him.

15. Thank you Dishamster. I just wanted to be sure I hadn't been misunderstood.

Biologista, after rereading my own post I decided it could have been interpreted as a very subtle attack on Cosmo. Since that was not my intent I wanted to be sure I hadn't inadvertently offended. (I like my offending to be deliberate. :wink: )

16. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Cosmo
John
I have a mission in my life and that is to promote the 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so thank you mother Nature for this great gift of promoting the truth.
Terrific. Can we see the dimensional analysis now please. If you want to promote the truth I am sure you will wish to comply.
I have another truth to add to my original post that I forgot to enter. Must be a memory block.

And that is that 'c' has ENERGY LEVELS. So when 'c' is used in an energy formula, you must include the FREQUENCY of the light also.

So that is another error of Einsteins by this omission.

So this confirms why my critique does not belong here. It is completely justified.
So it should be back where it belongs.

Cosmo

17. Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Cosmo
John
I have a mission in my life and that is to promote the 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so thank you mother Nature for this great gift of promoting the truth.
Terrific. Can we see the dimensional analysis now please. If you want to promote the truth I am sure you will wish to comply.
I have another truth to add to my original post that I forgot to enter. Must be a memory block.

And that is that 'c' has ENERGY LEVELS. So when 'c' is used in an energy formula, you must include the FREQUENCY of the light also.
No, the energy levels are on the opposite side of the equation actually.

Otherwise it would say E = C

18. I am still waiting for the dimensional analysis. Do you intend to provide it? If so when? If not, why not?

19. Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
Originally Posted by Cosmo
E = mc^2

I have detected a lack of credibility in this formula and so I decided to do a dimensional analysis of it.

E? Well, the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%.

So with this concept, we go to the next step and that is mass? So why did he include mass? Light has no mass.
And he did include C^2 in his formula. So his mc^2 must have applied to the deBroglie matter waves?
Well, it just happens that the c^2 can apply to the standing waves of the hydrogen atom, since they radiate in a flat pi pattern. But unfortunately, these standing waves do not radiate any energy.

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

Cosmo

If 95% of the energy is light energy radiated by stars, does that mean that stars have less than 5% energy left to radiate more light?
No.
I just thought that their is some forms of energy like the Gamma rays that are the result of matter (neutron) star decay. These GR's permeate space also.
Of course these are just crude estimates regarding the energy percentages.

Incidentally, I do not see any constructivr criticisms in this thread.

Cosmo

20. Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
Originally Posted by Cosmo
E = mc^2

I have detected a lack of credibility in this formula and so I decided to do a dimensional analysis of it.

E? Well, the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%.

So with this concept, we go to the next step and that is mass? So why did he include mass? Light has no mass.
And he did include C^2 in his formula. So his mc^2 must have applied to the deBroglie matter waves?
Well, it just happens that the c^2 can apply to the standing waves of the hydrogen atom, since they radiate in a flat pi pattern. But unfortunately, these standing waves do not radiate any energy.

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

Cosmo

If 95% of the energy is light energy radiated by stars, does that mean that stars have less than 5% energy left to radiate more light?
No.
I just thought that their is some forms of energy like the Gamma rays that are the result of matter (neutron) star decay. These GR's permeate space also.
Of course these are just crude estimates regarding the energy percentages.

Incidentally, I do not see any constructivr criticisms in this thread.

Cosmo

I just repeated your theory in other words.

So we can conclude you have refuted your own theory?

21. Originally Posted by Cosmo
Incidentally, I do not see any constructivr criticisms in this thread.
Cosmo
I don't see any dimensional analysis and its absence is not incidental.

22. Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
Originally Posted by Cosmo
E = mc^2

I have detected a lack of credibility in this formula and so I decided to do a dimensional analysis of it.

E? Well, the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%.

So with this concept, we go to the next step and that is mass? So why did he include mass? Light has no mass.
And he did include C^2 in his formula. So his mc^2 must have applied to the deBroglie matter waves?
Well, it just happens that the c^2 can apply to the standing waves of the hydrogen atom, since they radiate in a flat pi pattern. But unfortunately, these standing waves do not radiate any energy.

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

Cosmo

If 95% of the energy is light energy radiated by stars, does that mean that stars have less than 5% energy left to radiate more light?
No.
I just thought that their is some forms of energy like the Gamma rays that are the result of matter (neutron) star decay. These GR's permeate space also.
Of course these are just crude estimates regarding the energy percentages.

Incidentally, I do not see any constructivr criticisms in this thread.

Cosmo

I just repeated your theory in other words.

So we can conclude you have refuted your own theory?
Absolutely not.

Cosmo

[/b]

23. Originally Posted by Cosmo
And that is that 'c' has ENERGY LEVELS. So when 'c' is used in an energy formula, you must include the FREQUENCY of the light also.

So that is another error of Einsteins by this omission.
Once again a counter argument neglected (see above and the many discussions before). This equation does not (necessarily) concern photons. "c" is a physical constant like h, k, G, etc. It does not have any energy levels. Atoms and molecules do.

Don't close your eyes from the real world! For the derivation, please look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2...nce#Background

24. Cosmo,
if you can't present the dimensional analysis because you don't really understand what dimensional analysis is, that's OK. Otherwise when are you going to respond? I'm prohibited by forum etiquette, my intrinsic good manners, and my bizarre affection for you, from making antagonistic personal remarks, but if you continue to ignore this reasonable request I shall be sorely tempted.
Thank you
John

25. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Cosmo
And that is that 'c' has ENERGY LEVELS. So when 'c' is used in an energy formula, you must include the FREQUENCY of the light also.

So that is another error of Einsteins by this omission.
Once again a counter argument neglected (see above and the many discussions before). This equation does not (necessarily) concern photons. "c" is a physical constant like h, k, G, etc. It does not have any energy levels. Atoms and molecules do.

Don't close your eyes from the real world! For the derivation, please look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2...nce#Background
I visited those sights and after reading portions, I find it to be nothing that deals with reality.

These experts you go to also SWALLOW the BBT that to me is TOTAL fiction.

The expansion of a VACUUM? Get real.

Einsteins M/E formula is useless, period. It is puedoscience.
The jews have a lot of spiritual clout because everyone swallows the bible that is also a fantasy.

Photons do not have mass. My article on the Creation of Photons is a reality based on the Bohr concept of the hydrogen atom.

Can you explain the 'creation of photons' from your official understanding of the CoPs?

Other than what I said, I do not see anything here that gives an official explanation of these photons?

Photons became officially accepted 'after' the Maxwell equations that apply to the 'continuous' signwave standing waves.
The Planck quanta are the true sources of energy and that is my opinion.

And only FORCES create the light energies. Mass plays no part in the creation of light energy.

Cosmo

26. Originally Posted by John Galt
Cosmo,
if you can't present the dimensional analysis because you don't really understand what dimensional analysis is, that's OK. Otherwise when are you going to respond? I'm prohibited by forum etiquette, my intrinsic good manners, and my bizarre affection for you, from making antagonistic personal remarks, but if you continue to ignore this reasonable request I shall be sorely tempted.
Thank you
John
John, the words themselves explain what they mean. To me, that means that you take the individual components and supply the sources for their meanings and how they relate to each other.

Photons do not have mass. So how can they relate to mass?
And can you explain why 'c' is squared?
Photons are 'single' one line dimensions.

Cosmo

27. Fair enough. You don't know what dimensional analysis means. You meant something quite different and trivial by the expression. Nevertheless, thank you for taking the time to reply.

28. Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by John Galt
Cosmo,
if you can't present the dimensional analysis because you don't really understand what dimensional analysis is, that's OK. Otherwise when are you going to respond? I'm prohibited by forum etiquette, my intrinsic good manners, and my bizarre affection for you, from making antagonistic personal remarks, but if you continue to ignore this reasonable request I shall be sorely tempted.
Thank you
John
John, the words themselves explain what they mean. To me, that means that you take the individual components and supply the sources for their meanings and how they relate to each other.

Photons do not have mass. So how can they relate to mass?
And can you explain why 'c' is squared?
Photons are 'single' one line dimensions.

Cosmo
The c in the equation does not literally mean photons, it does not mean "light", so talk of wavelength and frequencies makes no sense. It means the speed of light, which is a constant of the universe.

29. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by John Galt
Cosmo,
if you can't present the dimensional analysis because you don't really understand what dimensional analysis is, that's OK. Otherwise when are you going to respond? I'm prohibited by forum etiquette, my intrinsic good manners, and my bizarre affection for you, from making antagonistic personal remarks, but if you continue to ignore this reasonable request I shall be sorely tempted.
Thank you
John
John, the words themselves explain what they mean. To me, that means that you take the individual components and supply the sources for their meanings and how they relate to each other.

Photons do not have mass. So how can they relate to mass?
And can you explain why 'c' is squared?
Photons are 'single' one line dimensions.

Cosmo
The c in the equation does not literally mean photons, it does not mean "light", so talk of wavelength and frequencies makes no sense. It means the speed of light, which is a constant of the universe.
You are just confusing this issue.

Light moves through space and numerous experiments have determined the movement of this light and photons through space regardless of the frequency or wavelength.
So 'c' applies to both forms of light
However, the energies of these pulses or waves varies with the frequencies.

Familiarize yourself with the Bohr atom.

Cosmo

30. You are just confusing this issue.

Light moves through space and numerous experiments have determined the movement of this light and photons through space regardless of the frequency or wavelength.
So 'c' applies to both forms of light
However, the energies of these pulses or waves varies with the frequencies.
And why on earth do you presume to include the energy of light here?

If you did a proper dimensional analysis, you would find that the equation

has the same dimensions as the formula for kinetic energy i.e.

Why is this so? Because the units of c and v are the same, and the unit of mass in both equations are the same. We can ignore the 1/2 factor, as it does not count in a dimensional analysis, where it is the units that ultimately matter.

Now, if you've followed what I've said above, you'll realise that since, by dimensional analysis, the two equations can be rendered equivalent in dimensions, if you claim that the mass-energy equivalence is wrong by dimensional analysis, you'll also be claiming that the formula for kinetic energy is also wrong.

In short, your argument leads to the conclusion that the formula for kinetic energy is also wrong. Which is more than enough to show that your argument is fallacious in the extreme.

31. I'm brand new to this site and its forums (great GREAT place btw..) so i'm unsure as to how much attention will be paid to my responses, but i've read the book user Cosmo referred to (The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene) and in addition to it being one of the most comprehensive pieces of literature on string theory, i also realize that Cosmo (probably) misunderstood or didn't fully grasp the fundamentals laid down in the earlier sections of the book...especially the experiment he referenced in his post.

I'm here to learn, so by no means is my contribution meant to attack cosmo...i just realised where his ideas may have stemmed from...

Raz.

32. razkal,
welcome to the forum.

People keep mentioning The Elegant Universe in all sorts of contexts. I need to dust off my copy and read it again.

I think you'll find Cosmo's reading is much wider than a couple of popular science books, but I also suspect that your basic analysis is correct - Cosmo has the wrong end of the stick. My principal reason for thinking this is that he insists on talking in words. The knowledgeable physics crowd on the forum can't usually go more than a paragraph without lapsing into equations. :wink:

33. I may not be too well educated in science, but based on the inital topic post, if I were to punch someone in the face, there would be energy used to do so. So why don't my arms emmit light when I punch something, if 95% of all energy is simply light. I've never punched an actual person before, maybe that would be required to emit light?

34. Originally Posted by John Galt
razkal,
welcome to the forum.

People keep mentioning The Elegant Universe in all sorts of contexts. I need to dust off my copy and read it again.

I think you'll find Cosmo's reading is much wider than a couple of popular science books, but I also suspect that your basic analysis is correct - Cosmo has the wrong end of the stick. My principal reason for thinking this is that he insists on talking in words. The knowledgeable physics crowd on the forum can't usually go more than a paragraph without lapsing into equations. :wink:
well, i can't argue with his logic, words are just as beautiful as numbers, which coincidentally, Greene used quite elegantly (lol) to describe various aspects of the books content without losing any of the intricacy and detail in translation...i'm really puzzled as to how Cosmo managed to misinterpret the material though.

wrt the "knowledgeable physics crowd" that seems to include ~75% of the frequent posters in Physics! I'm a Zoology and Environmental Science Major so the physics finds its niche in my brain slowly but surely...i'm learning alot and finding new ways to comprehend what i'm exposing myself to, thanks in advance to the site admin(s)/mods and posters...

i've some questions myself wrt some of the theories and experiments so i guess i'll mosey on over to physics forum n start searching lol

Raz.

35. So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.
The only thing worse than not understanding a formula is to apply it incorrectly. In a perverse sense we have half the battle won.

Cosmos, what I see here is an inability to know when to apply the formula. Your remarks about E and light and whatever in the original post show us that you do not know when to apply the formula.

Here's a real world scary scenario. Suppose that the North Koreans launch a weapon with a warhead containing 100Kg of fissionable material. Suppose that it converts 1% of the mass of the fissionable material into energy. How big a bomb is it?

36. ugh.....

Based on a detonation over a period of one second, I make it 30 kilotons of force.

37. Geez drowsy turtle I just made up a problem and thought that cosmos here could plug the values into the formula and come up with a value and then surprise us all by saying thanks.

Please give it a try cosmos and tell us if turtle power is correct. I really don't know I didn't do the computations.

38. Originally Posted by Viper-X
I may not be too well educated in science, but based on the inital topic post, if I were to punch someone in the face, there would be energy used to do so. So why don't my arms emmit light when I punch something, if 95% of all energy is simply light. I've never punched an actual person before, maybe that would be required to emit light?
When you say light, what you actually mean is electromagnetic energy. Most of the force of a punch is converted into infrared radiation, or heat.

Generally, the energy behind almost any force on Earth is eventually converted into heat, by friction or air resistance.

39. Originally Posted by hokie
Geez drowsy turtle I just made up a problem and thought that cosmos here could plug the values into the formula and come up with a value and then surprise us all by saying thanks.

Please give it a try cosmos and tell us if turtle power is correct. I really don't know I didn't do the computations.
FYI in terms of energy this is 90000000000000000J or

40. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by Viper-X
I may not be too well educated in science, but based on the inital topic post, if I were to punch someone in the face, there would be energy used to do so. So why don't my arms emmit light when I punch something, if 95% of all energy is simply light. I've never punched an actual person before, maybe that would be required to emit light?
When you say light, what you actually mean is electromagnetic energy. Most of the force of a punch is converted into infrared radiation, or heat.

Generally, the energy behind almost any force on Earth is eventually converted into heat, by friction or air resistance.
Except when batman punches someone, in which case the energy is converted into POW balloons.

Isn't science amazing?

41. Originally Posted by salsaonline
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by Viper-X
I may not be too well educated in science, but based on the inital topic post, if I were to punch someone in the face, there would be energy used to do so. So why don't my arms emmit light when I punch something, if 95% of all energy is simply light. I've never punched an actual person before, maybe that would be required to emit light?
When you say light, what you actually mean is electromagnetic energy. Most of the force of a punch is converted into infrared radiation, or heat.

Generally, the energy behind almost any force on Earth is eventually converted into heat, by friction or air resistance.
Except when batman punches someone, in which case the energy is converted into POW balloons.

Isn't science amazing?
This is true; I've tried it in the lab myself!

42. Originally Posted by Robbie
Originally Posted by salsaonline
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by Viper-X
I may not be too well educated in science, but based on the inital topic post, if I were to punch someone in the face, there would be energy used to do so. So why don't my arms emmit light when I punch something, if 95% of all energy is simply light. I've never punched an actual person before, maybe that would be required to emit light?
When you say light, what you actually mean is electromagnetic energy. Most of the force of a punch is converted into infrared radiation, or heat.

Generally, the energy behind almost any force on Earth is eventually converted into heat, by friction or air resistance.
Except when batman punches someone, in which case the energy is converted into POW balloons.

Isn't science amazing?
This is true; I've tried it in the lab myself!
I tried, but came up with inconclusive results owing to the poor quality of the batman supplied. I am still waiting on a re-embursment.

43. Originally Posted by John Galt
Cosmo,
give up.
It's not to late to accept reality as it is, not as you imagine it to be.
You could be a happier person for it.
Sincerely
John

P.S. Next time you say you've made a dimensional analysis it would be a good idea to present the dimensional analysis results. you didn't do that. If you think you did, then you need to go back to college and learn the basics. If you know you didn't you need to go back to college to learn how to present an argument.
Or you could just go after the Highways Department - love and respect coming your way.
John
No way.
Did you swallow the BBT too? That is what they teach in college, right?

Cosmo

44. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
The c in the equation does not literally mean photons, it does not mean "light", so talk of wavelength and frequencies makes no sense. It means the speed of light, which is a constant of the universe.
Constants are applicable to substances, forces or energies.

How would you take the meaning of 'c' other than to light energy?

Light, and that includes the Quanta, can radiate in 1, 2 or 3 directions.

This is really a frivolous argument.

Cosmo

45. Originally Posted by hokie
Cosmos, what I see here is an inability to know when to apply the formula. Your remarks about E and light and whatever in the original post show us that you do not know when to apply the formula.

Here's a real world scary scenario. Suppose that the North Koreans launch a weapon with a warhead containing 100Kg of fissionable material. Suppose that it converts 1% of the mass of the fissionable material into energy. How big a bomb is it?
Ha ha. I wasn't thinking along those lines.

Cosmo

46. Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
The c in the equation does not literally mean photons, it does not mean "light", so talk of wavelength and frequencies makes no sense. It means the speed of light, which is a constant of the universe.
Constants are applicable to substances, forces or energies.
You already responded to this point. Applicable to, of course. But "c" in the mass energy equation is not, as I understand it, equivalent to light nor any specific thing. It is merely the constant itself. So for you to treat it as literally meaning "light" is a misunderstanding of the equation.

Originally Posted by Cosmo
How would you take the meaning of 'c' other than to light energy?
As it was intended by Einstein. The constant 'c' is '299,792,458 meters per second'.

Originally Posted by Cosmo
Light, and that includes the Quanta, can radiate in 1, 2 or 3 directions.

This is really a frivolous argument.

Cosmo
That it is. You opened this thread having claimed to have done a dimensional analysis of the mass–energy equivalence. That analysis, you claim, shows the equation to be useless. Since that claim you've made several confusing claims, several claims that appear to be based on a misunderstanding of physics and most crucially you have failed to provided the dimensional analysis despite several requests for it. And now weeks later you've bumped a thread answering comments from May that you've already addressed whilst providing basically no new arguments.

Right now this seems to be going nowhere. So, you can provide the dimensional analysis or I will lock this thread.

47. I would like to thank Dishmaster for shedding light on E=mc^2. Below Dishmaster said, "The energy equation E=mc^2 is not about light or photons. It describes the total amount of energy that a particle carries." This helped me immensely! Thank you Dishmaster!

Also, I have heard the E=mc^2 formula really has more to it than what I just wrote. That E=mc^2 is the media version of the formula. I understand it has a 00000000000000000000021 to it (or something like that), and the zeros and 21 have something to do with the particles. Is this true?

Michel Michel

48. Originally Posted by Michel Michel
I would like to thank Dishmaster for shedding light on E=mc^2. Below Dishmaster said, "The energy equation E=mc^2 is not about light or photons. It describes the total amount of energy that a particle carries." This helped me immensely! Thank you Dishmaster!

Also, I have heard the E=mc^2 formula really has more to it than what I just wrote. That E=mc^2 is the media version of the formula. I understand it has a 00000000000000000000021 to it (or something like that), and the zeros and 21 have something to do with the particles. Is this true?

Michel Michel

MODERATOR NOTE : Welcome to the forum, Michel. Can I request that you please open up a new thread for your question in the appropriate forum section, since this thread is more than three years old, and many of the original participants here are no longer active. We will then do our best to address your queries. In the meantime, I am locking down this thread as we don't want to get into the habit of "necro-threading".

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement