Pondering Enstien's theory E=mc^

reply to post by CLPrime


How can something affect something else if one is not relative to the other in an equal balance with the other?

You know like how this entire equation functions...

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I can push a TV over, but I'll be damned if a TV's gonna push me over.

If time and motion were directly connected, then all I'd have to do to stop time is stand still. I just tried, and time went merrily on its way, so we can wipe that possibility off the board right now.
Rest mass is the mass a particle has when it's at rest. Time does not stop just because a particle isn't moving.

Uh I just noticed something in what you wrote, so I'll work it from this angle.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

faster motion slows time.

So there it is in plain sight. An opposite is a mirror image of the same thing. In this case faster is slower when considering motion in this universe of 3D relative to a higher dimension above 3D. Simply movement in this universe is actually slowing just if you were to run up a down escalator until you stayed in one place creating zero time. Any faster and you break the time barrier.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


That would result in a proportional slowing of time with increasing speed. What actually happens is, the slowing of time only becomes significant at near the speed of light, at which point the rate of the passage of time approaches 0.

(Do you understand Special Relativity?)

Also, your invoking of higher "mirrored" dimensions is both unnecessary and nonsensical. You can't just make up extra dimensions and say they're a mirror image of the dimensions we experience. Such a set-up is not realistic, it's not needed, and it's not observationally consistent.
I could just as easily say that, on some 43rd dimension, dinosaurs still exist.

Motion and time are not directly (proportionately) related.

reply to post by CLPrime


In space the heavier object would do most of the pushing, or in mirror image, pulling, as there is no leverage in what we should be comparing here. Using Earth's gravity is cheating.

As far a staying still you would have to relative to dimensions higher than what this universe is contained in.


The Big Bang could have very well been caused from the primeval atom drifting causing it to become unstable thus creating time by its motion. But how can time be if you can't create motion without time and vise versa according to what I am saying here? Maybe there is something to what you say after all.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

That would result in a proportional slowing of time with increasing speed. What actually happens is, the slowing of time only becomes significant at near the speed of light, at which point the rate of the passage of time approaches 0.

Its based on a mathematical curve. Come on I know you know that.

Originally posted by CLPrime
(Do you understand Special Relativity?)

Dunno because I have been having some doubts today.

Originally posted by CLPrimeAlso, your invoking of higher "mirrored" dimensions is both unnecessary and nonsensical. You can't just make up extra dimensions and say they're a mirror image of the dimensions we experience. Such a set-up is not realistic, it's not needed, and it's not observationally consistent.
I could just as easily say that, on some 43rd dimension, dinosaurs still exist.

Motion and time are not directly (proportionately) related.

Hey, I am basing that on theoretical astrophysicists such as Dr. Kaku's math, so it at least works out on paper.

You don't have to see everything for everything to be true. If it adds up it exists. Deal with it?


Why are you being so argumentative all of a sudden?

reply to post by CLPrime


And yes motion and time are so because if you match the curves they plot an equilibrium. That's how time dilation works just like supply and demand plot price in economics.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Hey, I am basing that on theoretical astrophysicists such as Dr. Kaku's math, so it at least works out on paper.

You don't have to see everything for everything to be true. If it adds up it exists. Deal with it?

If it adds up, it has a possibility of being true, but it's not a certainty.
Additional dimensions are a facet of String Theory, they don't serve anywhere near the purpose of what you describe. Besides, dimensions don't function the way you try to make them. That doesn't mean you can't get what you're trying to describe to work, but you can't do it with dimensions. Even some String Theorists seem to have a rather fantastical view of what dimensions are.

Why are you being so argumentative all of a sudden?

Honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe 'cause it's getting late, and there are other things in life that I'm running out of patience with. Possible.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I may be misunderstanding you (which might also be what's frustrating me). What kind of curve can you plot motion and time on to get any sort of equilibrium?
By equilibrium, do you mean symmetry?

reply to post by CLPrime


> If it is possible it can and does happen somewhere someplace in our world or in others. Some more Dr. K there for ya.

> I know for instance that time is a solid of 3D. Just as if you take a film real and stack the frames on top of one another. How about that understanding for starters?

> It's late and time is running out for things you want to happen? Make them happen rather than waiting for them to happen. Be proactive instead of inactive causing one to be reactive in directions you do not want to go.

Change the course of destiny by skipping across to other worlds. Some more Dr. K for ya...

Need more energy or a subtraction to make what you want to happen? I guess you will have to pray for that sort of change.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by CLPrime

 

> If it is possible it can and does happen somewhere someplace in our world or in others. Some more Dr. K there for ya.

The "others" part is an unfounded assumption. Also, other worlds have no affect on what happens in ours. If it is possible, it may or may not happen in ours - and ours is the only world we need be concerned with.

> I know for instance that time is a solid of 3D. Just as if you take a film real and stack the frames on top of one another. How about that understanding for starters?

That's a very fitting analogy.

> It's late and time is running out for things you want to happen? Make them happen rather than waiting for them to happen. Be proactive instead of inactive causing one to be reactive in directions you do not want to go.

Change the course of destiny by skipping across to other worlds. Some more Dr. K for ya...

Time isn't running out... I'm just here sitting on the couch, with very little motion, so time is barely moving at all

Need more energy or a subtraction to make what you want to happen? I guess you will have to pray for that sort of change.

The best advice I've had in a while.

reply to post by CLPrime


Right, symmetry. I don't have the vocab usage down because like I said I am a novice on this stuff.

You know that the rate of increase in motion decrease the rate of time disproportionately like Al Gore showing his curve by getting up on his lil lifter. That's what the slowing of time looks like when approaching light speed.

I know you know this, but I assume you wanted me to explain the concept at least of what the curve sort of looks like so you could make sure I did as well. Otherwise you felt either this is all a waste of your time, or you would have to school me if not.

Am I correct?

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Right, on both counts. I certainly don't want to be working under a faulty assumption of what you do or don't understand.

To CL Prime


> Only consider what you can see. Okay. Like the only thing to consider is what the headlights shine on as the car moves along a road. Any possible maps that might be created are a waste of time because the terrain is all flat and straight ahead. Now that quite the assumption.


> We hand been over the same territory before together on another thread when I used the same analogy. I think you said the very same thing then.


> Me too this is my commercial break vehicle sitting on my couch with a computer and TV off to the side, but time flies quicker when I am posting something vs watching those looooooooong commercial breaks. So this is my light speed craft.


> Advice is cheap it's free unless you use it and it turns out to be very expense so be very careful what you ask for you just may get it..... says the Jinn.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Right, on both counts. I certainly don't want to be working under a faulty assumption of what you do or don't understand.

Okay well lets pick this up another time when you have the time and motivation to school me.

Iz gotz to run up town now.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

> Only consider what you can see. Okay. Like the only thing to consider is what the headlights shine on as the car moves along a road. Any possible maps that might be created are a waste of time because the terrain is all flat and straight ahead. Now that quite the assumption.

Seriously considering what you can't see demands even bigger assumptions.

> We hand been over the same territory before together on another thread when I used the same analogy. I think you said the very same thing then.

I remember. And, yes, I am approximately constant

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
proper equation should be E=M [color=gold]g sq'd.

Any input folks?

Here is a comparison of the difference in terms.


E = M * g^2
E = M * ( 0.666x10^-11 meters^3 kilograms^-1 seconds^-2 )^2

as opposed to the

E = M * c^2
E = M * (299,792,458 meters per second)^2

The variant suggested in the opening post,
and listed here first,
is about F, force, or cubic milimeters of weight. Actual pressure.

Whereas the second set of terms is about travel speed,
and when a cluster of vectors are traveling together it is very easy to animate a wave.
Rather a different subject than mass * gravity.
Which is, to put it bluntly, a redundant statement.

But let's give it a whirl anyway and see what we get, shall we.

to convert E = Mc^2 to E = Mg^2 divide by -0.5^-19
but to convert g back to c multiply by 0.5^19


David Grouchy