Home › Forum › Chat Forum › E=mc^2?

E=mc^2?

Actually the base 13 thing is just coincidence, the root cause is the intimely introduction of Telephone Sanitisers into the Gene Pool.
Posted 4 years ago…or more to the point:
why is c the square root of E/m?
why not the cube root, or the 42nd root.
or half?
or 1/678590876445?
or Sin?/Cos?/Tan? + iThe universe appears to hang together on the whim of a rather prosaic mathematical function. On a recent ride I was wondering why it the ratio or Energy, mass and light wasnt more “exciting”.
Has TdF stage 7 started yet, I need a distraction…
Posted 4 years agoIt’s funny how the world can be divided between people who’ve read H2G2 and those who haven’t – it’s all the inside jokes.
Like I was discussing democracy with someone recently, and I said something about how the wrong lizard might get in – I just got a blank look.
It’s a bit like The Big Lebowski that way.
Posted 4 years agoUsed to be “those who’ve read Illuminatus and those who haven’t…”
I’m in a clique! I’m in a clique!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_enigma
Posted 4 years agomaths and physics are great tools for people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Posted 4 years agoOh god, the Illuminatus. The most effective book in the world for making all your freinds really boring for months and months… I do not miss those days at all.
Posted 4 years agoI like:
Posted 4 years ago
sqrt(i) = sqrt(1/2) + i * sqrt(1/2)I once told my boss in a pdr that the whole department had seats on the B Ark. Went totally over his head.
Posted 4 years agoif you define c as 1, rather than a random figure, it becomes E=M !
apatr from the fact it isnt, it is actually
E = M + P^2
(or E^2 = M^2C^2 + P^2C^4)
which is why particle colliders work
Posted 4 years agoAnd BTW there are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t.
Boom, and, quite possibly, tish!
Posted 4 years agoI always find E.psi=H.psi to be something that makes my brain hurt. A lot.
Posted 4 years agoStoner – Member
this is a personal favourite of mine: e^i?=1
https://xkcd.com/179/being unable to follow the explain xkcd always makes me sad ðŸ˜¥
but nobody makes jokes in base 13.
ðŸ™‚
Posted 4 years agoCZ – thanks… I’m here until DEC 25, or is that OCT 31? You decide!
Posted 4 years agoThere are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don’t and those who understand gray code.
Posted 4 years agoThere are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don’t and those who understand gray code.
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don’t, and those who understand ternary.
Posted 4 years agoF111
ðŸ˜€
Posted 4 years agoActually the base 13 thing is just coincidence, the root cause is the intimely introduction of Telephone Sanitisers into the Gene Pool.
That’s the official version. Presumably I’m not the only person to wonder whether the pan dimensional beings had 13 fingers though?
As for ?, sine is a fairly fundamental function, and sin(?/2) = 1. Hence ? = 2 * arcsin(1). Using the infinite series expansion:
arcsin(x) = x + (1/2)*x^3/3 + (1*3/2*4)*x^5/5 + …
? = 2 * (1 + 1/(2*3) + 1*3/(2*4*5) + …)There’s probably an easier way, but that’s one way to calculate ? from first principles.
Posted 4 years agoThe universe has no real relationship to that equation – it doesn’t rely on it or hang together because of it.
All science is a guess, hypotheses that people come up with with a made up set of rules that we then use to try and predict what will happen.
The fact that the equations seems to predict some stuff we can measure means that we trust our lives to them.
It’s the best guess until a better one comes along.
Posted 4 years agoDo I exist? Do you exist? That’s where we start going when you question the fundamentals of science. Some of the things discussed in this thread are mathematics, hence really are fundamental – nobody is ever going to prove them wrong, because they don’t rely on measurements. Some is physics, but the current “best guesses” are actually extremely good ones.
Of course it is worth bearing in mind that E = mc^2 actually disproves KE = 1/2 mv^2
Posted 4 years agoOf course it is worth bearing in mind that E = mc^2 actually disproves KE = 1/2 mv^2
that sounds to me like a very bold statement. How exactly does it disprove it?
Posted 4 years agoHow exactly does it disprove it?
KE equation is part of Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics shows that Newtonian physics is just a very good approximation at low speeds.
Posted 4 years agoThere are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand quantum computing, those who don’t, and those who are a superposition of both 8)
Posted 4 years agoAs for ?, sine is a fairly fundamental function, and sin(?/2) = 1. Hence ? = 2 * arcsin(1). Using the infinite series expansion:
arcsin(x) = x + (1/2)*x^3/3 + (1*3/2*4)*x^5/5 + …
? = 2 * (1 + 1/(2*3) + 1*3/(2*4*5) + …)Out of curiosity I decided to try calculating it using that formula. It clearly doesn’t get there that quickly – after 200,000 terms I have 3.139070 (currently running to 1 million terms but it’s taking a very long time – I have a total of 500 billion multiplications or divisions to do that, so I guess it’s not surprising!)
Posted 4 years ago@ScottCheg – love that !
As for E= m c^2 we covered the derivation in the first year at Uni and I’m delighted to report that I have no recollection of it which means something more useful has taken its place or worse these brain cells have died, it was in 1981.
Posted 4 years agoIt’s threads like this that make me want to take STW, love it, hug it to my chest and call it George… ðŸ˜€
Posted 4 years agoDisappointed at the lack of Big Audio Dynamite in this thread.
Posted 4 years agoJust for you knottinbotswana
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHTDkJbQqM[/video]
and as a bonus
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZqUNEHYZgQ[/video]
which is so 80s it hurts.
Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘E=mc^2?’ is closed to new replies.