E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Saint martin
Posts: 7
Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 6:14 am

E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Saint martin »

E=MC2 the greatest mathematical blunder of the 20th century.

Let's put this into simple terms before I completely destroy this ridiculous theory of relativity, the fastest thing in the universe is the speed of light represented by C in the equation, supposedly a constant speed, or the constant of the universe.

So nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

So basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.

So let's look at this as a theory of everything, and add in the true equation E=MV (energy=mass multiplied by variable(s)).

As C=constant we can change our value of C to simplify the equation remembering that the value of C is always the maximum speed of the universe.

So we have an energy to work out with E=MC2, E=?, M=1, C=100.

So energy is equal to 1x100x100=10,000.

Obviously as 100 is the maximum speed detonation or some other variable must be applied to gain anything else at this point, therefore as the dictionary states;

'Relativity 1. the fact or state of being relative. 2 physics [this is E=MC2 area of focus] a (special theory of relativity) a theory based on the principle theory that all motion is relative and that light has constant velocity, regarding space-time as a four-dimensional continuum, and modifying previous conceptions of geometry. b (general theory of relativity) a theory extending this to gravitation and accelerated motion.'

Light has a constant velocity, and therefore does not even have any supposed acceleration or deceleration periods.

So anyone who knows anything about our universe will also know that those who believe in E=MC2, have a future destruction, or ending this is supposedly around 15 billion years from now, again another sign of inferior math's is how they shrink 1,000,000,000,000 or 1 billion to 1,000,000,000 or 1 thousand million or capitalistic billion, greed based acquisition of language as well as wealth.

So under the description of relativity, we find the word continuum, which means our universe if under the language restrictions placed by correct or accurate use means our universe has no future ending predictable.

So as we have the speed of light as a maximum, and we multiply it by itself to get impossibility, and we have a predicted ending for the universe, these two basic faults make Einstein and every supposed mathematician to have followed him erroneous.

I can give you the philosophy of how Einstein erred when he spoke to the infinite dreamer who Einstein credited all genius to, at our beginning we had only 1, from 1 came 2, from 2 came 4, from 4 came 8, from 8 came 16, this is a basic foundation for preparing to calculate infinity, which E=MC2 must be capable of doing or this part of relativity being the infinite source is forgotten. Now from that foundation we can start to multiply on an infinite scale;

Infinity is equal to infinity to the power of infinity infinitely.

This is the basic philosophy of nothing or paradox theory of relativity with creation theory included, which is something I can get into later, as this is beyond some scientists on Earth at present with possibly the M-Theorists who accept light has variable speeds, as our leading founders of E=MC2 as a blunder.

Those who know M-Theory, from basic observations of a simple glass prism in good sun light in England I was able to extrapolate that red is the slowest, yellow second speed and blue the fastest under the 3 secondary light sources, these are contained in white groups which are also contained in black, so a 5 scale speed of light would be black fastest, white second and then as white is broken down into the supposed primary colours of blue, yellow and red.

I make black my chosen fastest as black is the absorption of all colour so a more realistic basic colour of infinity.

So back to our 1-2-4-8-16 on the true infinity scale, 1 -2 = 2, 2 - 4 = 16, 4 - 8 = 256, 8 - 16 = 65,536 and so on.

This can be repeated at greater scales also, whereby we predict a step or more, thus under one predicted step we would have it as; 1 - 2 = 4, 4 - 16 = 65,536, obviously multiplying infinity out from a base value of 1 in stages incrementally.

Those who are aware, if you place 1 grain of rice on the first square on a chess board, and double the number each square, you will not have enough rice (supposedly) on earth to fill the last square, that is the first scale of calculating infinity, which is obviously inferior than calculus which is what the second theory of calculating infinity is based upon, the third scale is taking leaps in calculus instead of the gradual infinite curve scale..

Now for a better theory of relativity, and this one is included or backed up by M-Theory (String Theory uses E=MC2 so is also buffoon territory, while M-Theory accepts that the speed of light is a variable depending on the colour of the light particles) E=MV.

Energy = Mass x Variables, as already covered earlier, the variables are calculated using calculus generating further mathematical equations, if M-Theory doesn't already use E=MV or some such variation then they will also be erroneous with the String Theorists.

Another point of note for the mathematicians, you are chasing infinitives on the micro scale and infinities on the macro scale, every correct mathematical equation therefore must end with a sphere and/or orbits of spherical nature, at any point you can clearly identify a given shape with identifiable sides you have a failed calculation.

Look at the universe then for my obvious evidence.

A galaxy is a sphere of light trapped in a black hole, from this we have a disk in 2D format in a 3D universe, from this orb/disk we find many more orbs, these orbs we call stars, when we go into these orbs we find more orbs around the orb, some of these orbs have orbs upon them, macro scale.

Micro scale, we have the atom, this is an orb [this is in orbit with either a star or planet] with orbs, inside the primary orb we find more orbs, that is the limit of our current technology when actually zooming into the micro, due to inability to safely split open a nucleus of an atom. now with this there are other experiments, all experiments are created when we send spheres at high speeds, and we find more spheres when we actually find anything, sometimes they appear elongated due to the current technology of camera or light absorption.

This is what I thought about a month or so ago when i decided to self teach mathematics, I chose to look at E=MC2 and cried laughing straight away, sorry.

I would like to add, I am entirely self educated, i am a 40 year old man, who suffered a brain injury 12 years ago, and 4 years ago managed to start reading again, and so have studied a little over the past four years, I am now keen to see how advanced my mind is from a reincarnation type event survived.

This is no joke, E=MC2 is seriously a misinterpretation of the philosophy of chasing infinities and infinitives, macro and micro cosmology, as Einstein said he got the information from the infinite dreamer, this therefore must have been in philosophical format or it would not be a foundation thought..

If you think of it like this, we have a point zero for the big bang to hold any theory, and so far all theories agree we had some form of big bang creating everything from nothing, which when you keep on philosophical terms is a definite paradox, so hence paradox creation theory also contained in E=MV.

So from point zero we have to get to a point 1, or 2 as we now recognise a start point to be either a 1 or a 0, 0 for it was nothing, but 1 as we tend to start with 1 when following a step diagram philosophy. with the earlier multiplications we multiplied infinity on a very basic scale, we were supposing infinity was not conscious and to be honest I think this is Darwin's error on his theory of evolution also, he mentions the mind in evolution and then straight away leaves it out, at this point I thought he actually had it, consciousness generating reincarnation, therefore carrying a previous genetic diagram of a potential deformity leading to evolving the species, seems an obvious alteration to random design, to intelligent random design, after all he turned to god and gave up in the end.

So this time we say infinity is conscious, we now have a base thought in which to make calculations based upon the number of fragments of conscious concrete mind type explosion [I have read some philosophies of occult studies (philosophy, psychology, history, politics, religion, economics, commerce, law, with string theory and physics only via documentaries (I have further studies to add to this in due course, mathematics and physics is what I am looking at now))], I add this now as it is relevant to the concrete mind version of paradox creation theory which I will gladly discuss sensibly with those interested later.

So with consciousness infinity can calculate with any method to come up with a base infinity scale to start the expansion mind set for an intelligent conscious big bang explosion, let us say infinity at its first series of calculations decided it needed one centillion (1 with 600 0's)as its first base vale.

So we would now have as our infinity base calculation, one centillion to the power centillion to the power centillion as our first explosive calculation to begin evolution and creation, this therefore generates an area of controllable space for the big bang to continuously expand into, generating a continuum which is needed for the theory of relativity..

Now as all religions have some form of story hidden or in plain texts of someone trying to steal creation, this leads to the belief of a simple paradox creation first, being in a dream format ending with the death of the creator in the big bang, splintering into conscious complex paradoxes, but reincarnating as an equal if paradise is found, or a wrathful or just god if found in hell, sorry for straying, trying to point out this is a theory of everything as E=MC2 is supposed to be.

So it is plausible to see the big bang as two ignition points when religion is taken into physics, creating a better metaphysics subject, as E=MC2 claimed it did, as i said, my E=MV does this, my primary variable to sustain conscious life, is immortal conscious reincarnation.

This cannot be philosophically denied, so remains as a perfect philosophy (where did your consciousness come from if you have an argument against this) if you can philosophically follow me through the dilemma of E=MC2 as erroneous and E=MV as the only viable option at present.

So we have a potential big bang of a loving nature which may have avoided pain for all simple paradoxes involved in the initial ignition of creation, and then shortly afterwards we have an attack creating a potential for a second big bang which is filled with anti matter, or also could be called anti paradoxes as complex paradox creation is what the big bang must be.

Personally with consciousness involved with the creation, I doubt anti matter would have been needed, as infinite consciousness is nothing (at least that's my stand point so far, I'm interested in discussing many of my points maturely), nothing could make mater without the need for anti mater, or how did it create the matter in the first place?, both needed to be created from nothing, so one was probably not needed or why are they destructive together?

Now this is where my open agreement with the string theory version of the big bang ended, as they ignored the fact light must have an acceleration speed, which they completely refuse to accept, they showed five versions of galaxies I think it was, four failed and one was like a swas-sticka (this was Hitler's belief on the shape of the Milky Way) design, so as Hitler's idea of a four pronged galaxy has been proven erroneous with our two pronged sweeping spiral galaxy we know we live in today, so to me string theory is a Hitler error, the only working galaxy is nowhere to be seen in over 200 million galaxies in the known universe, so how does it prove anything?

Here is my big gap, I can agree with star formations leading to the super giant class early stars as being the galaxies of today when they exploded, creating many big bang type creation events, which could prove a teaching consciousness to all those worthy, and going by the number of probably living stars in the universe means our creator shared everything in death and hopefully life too when the explosion finishes, as that is another paradox of a conscious creation. we can actually be in a state of conscious existence preceding creation as per Sartre' Being and Nothingness.

So I have ideas around the micro beginning of the universe and i have the macro in another similar explanation due to the nature of the repeating sphere patterns all over creation, which leads back to the micro cosmos.

As I have very basic maths at my disposal (GCSE C grade, also this is my only qualification from school, a late study really) I would like to enter philosophical discussions around the atom, and more interestedly in how manipulation of the orbits of the atom could potentially change the qualities of the atom, I may be ahead of our technology here, as we can't enter the nucleus yet, can we manipulate the orbits (electrons) safely?


regards

martin.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Steve3007 »

So nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

So basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.
C2 is not a speed or an energy.

Do the dimensional analysis: SI units of speed are ms-1. C represents a speed. Therefore the units of C2 are m2s-2. And the units of MC2 are kg m2s-2, which is the unit of energy - joules.
Saint martin
Posts: 7
Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 6:14 am

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Saint martin »

Steve3007 wrote:
So nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

So basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.
C2 is not a speed or an energy.

Do the dimensional analysis: SI units of speed are ms-1. C represents a speed. Therefore the units of C2 are m2s-2. And the units of MC2 are kg m2s-2, which is the unit of energy - joules.
I fail to comprehend why C2 is not a speed, I can see why it is not an energy as it is supposed to be the equation that proves energy release from atoms, however as the experiment fails on over 95% of atoms, it is a serious blunder and i can only ponder, why is a theory that fails over 95% of the time, used as the only theory to explain atomic energies?

I have been trying to speak with other people on another site about this phenomenon, and all I keep getting from them, is fission is not to be confused with burning, or fire, however, as fission (or fusion) uses combustion, and combustion is the base formation of fire, I completely disagree, and I hope you do also.

Your calculations return velocity to a solid number not powered by any integer so you do not say it generates meters per second squared, again another of the problems I had at the other site as obviously motion and time are currently only measured in 1 dimension, which I hope you agree to as well, and going by the above you at least seem to. though I shall cover the negative power 2 of time next.

So now I shall cover the discrepancies of E=MC2 I can see from your calculation;

Ok so you have it make calculations of Kg m2 s-2, not sure how you convert the speed of light squared into this equation, so I shall try and simplify it as this is a philosophy site, I like to test the philosophy of existing mathematics to make sure they are not overly erroneous.

The Kg m2 i can get from the weight times volume calculations of finding the mass, however this negative power two second that I have discrepancies with, how is this time dimension possible? as E=MC2 is supposed to be true, does it have any experiments whereby it generated a second dimension of time that is currently only found beyond the event horizon of a black hole?, especially the super massive black holes holding our galaxies together.

I mean what effects occurred when E=MC2 generated the second dimension of time needed for a negative power of 2? is a negative power in time a representation of negative time? I do see how super symmetry (to me super symmetry is the conscious capacity of infinity on the negative or mirrored side, and the universe on the 'known' side) has some plausible merits so it could be possible for a non matter aspect to travel backwards through time, though I hope this is not what you are suggesting here.

Is fission the only test that supposedly proves E=MC2?

If fission is the only test to prove E=MC2, then i shall leave my proof against it as thus;

As fission is a form of burning at a higher energy, as we do not accurately measure the heat generated at the point of ignition (or 299,792,458 meters per second would not be the ridiculous calculation that needs to be REMOVED from a mass to generate a joule value of 1) now seeing as atoms are in everything we see and use, and we can compound destroy them or compound manufacture them, how is it a compound destruction of an atom at a much lower energy used rate is not the more accurate measurement for at least the lighter atoms?

So again, I use E=MV, this was an error to get you looking at the mass of the object, and more importantly the supposed constant of 299,792,458 which makes a stupid division in order to find 1 joule of energy, I mean seriously, using E=MC2, how SMALL is the mass of an object with energy value of 1?

Or does E=MC2 assume minimum value of energy to be obscene like the obscene constant calculation of 299,792,458 m/s squared.

Another point I think E=MC2 is a failure is because as I said earlier, you have a HIGH heat test for HEAVY atoms, and you do not have a LOW heat test for LIGHTER atoms, isn't it ludicrous to have a burning experiment that DESTROYS lighter atoms WITHOUT nuclear detonation, doesn't that therefore imply that E=MC2 may ONLY be a calculation for 1 or 2 atoms?

I mean you burn a match and oxygen, hydrogen, helium etc, atoms from the 1 electron to 8 electrons are all destroyed with very little energy released, especially in comparison to the (is it Uranium that we have successfully (supposedly controlled) split?) energy used to destroy a uranium atom, so a match can destroy atoms with weights of 1.01 - 15.99, though with other atoms like carbon between these gases I would also say it is also possible that the heat test will vary by more than the weight of the atom, so E=MC2 is erroneous as the weight of the atom does not seem to be the governing factor of its detonation capacity.

Now let us cover atom formation a little, again please remember I am doing this as a blind philosopher, by this I mean I do not know all the scientific words, so would appreciate if you can supply words from time to time to fill in my blanks, so what I know of atom formation is;

A hydrogen atom is made up from a nucleus and 1 orbit being an electron, inside the nucleus are 3 spheres (I don't know the name for these), these spheres contained within the nucleus seem to be in relation to the orbits (electrons), 3 components in a nucleus generates 1 orbit, 4 generates 2 orbits and so on each sphere added into the nucleus generates 1 more electron or orbit as I like to call them.

So we seem to add 1 identical component to the nucleus in order to change the atom, this should therefore generate a pattern in the atoms, firstly the nucleus SHOULD increase in dimensions (does the nucleus grow? and seriously, do we have the ability to measure the nucleus EXACTLY at present to answer this question), the pattern should be one of identifiable weight gain, so when we start to look at this supposed pattern we find it quickly falls out of scale, however the arrangements of the orbits form patterns that remain uniform, maybe this uniformity is something more to do with the mass of the object and also their destructive capacities?

Now the pattern of identical weight added breaks down straight away, Hydrogen 1.01, Helium 4.00, Lithium 6.94, so it appears to weigh around 2.99, or 3 for a simple round number as Beryllium 9.01 makes it 2.94 - 3.05, in the first few atoms looked at (this is where my fission of simple heat test is currently basing its philosophy of destructive atoms not all being as a nuclear or atom bomb), when we get to 51 antimony 121.75 up to 52 Tellurium 127.60, making the highest KNOWN difference 5.85 and 18 Argon 39.95 down to 19 Potassium 39.09 the lowest KNOWN difference to be -0.86, granting a unit difference of -0.86 to 5.85 per component placed into the nucleus, and a further look along the table generates even greater mysteries, as adding to an atom not only adds weight, but it also has a capacity to reduce the weight, as in;

element 18 Argon 39.95, element 19 Potassium 39.09 - element 27 Cobalt 58.93, element 28 Nickel 58.69 - element 52 Tellurium 127.60, element 53 Iodine 126.90 - element 90 Thorium 232.04, element 91 Protactinium (231) - element 92 Uranium 238.03, element 93 Neptunium (237) - element 94 Plutonium (244), element 95 Americium (243) - element 103 Lawrencium (262), element 104 Rutherfordium (261) - element 106 Seaborgium (263), element 107 Bohrium (262) - element 110 Darmstadtium (281.16), element 111 Roentgenium (280.16), element 112 Copernicium (277) - element 114 Flerovium (289), element 115 Ununpentium (288).

So all of the above pairs and one trio have spheres added and the weight go down, doesn't this cause physicists any concern as to what actually causes the weight of an atom to change? and therefore as you cannot accurately describe the mass of an atom, how can you make any calculations based upon their mass as to their supposed energy capacities? and again, how is it we are missing some of our lower atoms? I know atoms are formed in the destruction stages of a star, and the heavier atoms are generated by larger stars actually going nova, so I do realise I may be answering this question myself so it could be considered rhetorical, but...

Element 43 Technetium (98) is missing, this isn't a bad representation of the first simple atoms created on Earth, the next unknown being 61 Promethium (145) and then 84 Polonium (209), with all atoms unfounded up to element 118 (this is where my periodic table ends, I know you have theorised further atoms) with only 90 Thorium 232.04 and 92 Uranium 238.03 as the only known heavy atoms.

So as our periodic table is incomplete, it also has no known patterns discernible at present, as the pattern found holds no relation to the energy contained (or does it?) as the nucleus gaining 1 component per orbit seems to be the governing factor here, so it would logically gain weight per added component, as the weight gain is not uniform to the components, we must then accept a further event is going on INSIDE the nucleus, and it is maybe not the splitting of the nucleus that caused the explosion, but the evolved condition of one of these extra components crammed into the nucleus at the orbit or electron generation stages.

This therefore leads to an obvious observation if this theory holds true, and as your test is limited, it certainly holds more merit at present in philosophical format before we foolishly rush into experimenting, we should philosophically comprehend as much of the changes as possible to then locate the ACTUAL sphere which is detonated in a Uranium atom nucleus.

As I suggested earlier, it is possible we do not accurately measure the heat generated in fusion, or fission, and therefore when doing any calculations, as the heat massively increases in probably plankt (not sure how this is spelt) time therefore the actual time we need to record in the seconds part is so small we do not hold capacity to carry out these experiments accurately, as the ACTUAL point of detonation or collapse needs to be EXACTLY recorded to a PRECISE time, therefore all of our supposed scientific observations are probably in a failed experiment capacity as we have polluted our results with time and heat, hence so ridiculous a calculation needed to correct this pollution, and why it fails on lighter atoms which use a much lower amount of heat energy to detonate.

I tend to have this opinion as it seems to me ludicrous to require the multiplication of a supposed speed of light especially in its nearly 300 million condition making any small energy calculation pathetic to say the least, 1 joule needs to lose 300 million times 300 million erroneous calculations technically, and if the 1 joule energy had a mass of 10, then this completely shatters your equation as you would need negative energy NOT anti matter, as I believe science is now claiming anti matter has survived from the big bang till today, meaning if true, we could lose our entire universe to one stupid experiment not properly looked into before we foolishly try burning atoms with MASSIVE detonations possible, when I say MASSIVE I mean it is philosophically possible to detonate an atom and wipe out the Earth, especially with E=MC2 as the factor for calculating this, as we have 300 million times 300 million as a calculation to increase or decrease the supposed energy outputs.

Now onto a calculation error I made in my dissertation, I did not correctly power my numbers some of you may have noticed, on the simple 4 scale I did 4x4, instead of 4x4x4x4, so that part whereby I said it was 16, is actually 256, the next calculation requires 256 to the power 256, so... 256x256x256x256x256... and so on, until it reaches a massive number, the beginning of continuum calculations.

Which I have not seen Einstein's calculations of yet, how did Einstein supposedly calculate a continuum?

I shall leave it at this for now, as I wish to have a discussion on the points I have raised, and to find out if science has any actual defence to my attempt to discredit the E=MC2 as a theory calculating atomic energies.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Steve3007 »

I fail to comprehend why C2 is not a speed
Your failure to understand this suggests that you need to revise some basic high school maths and physics before having any hope of understanding the more advanced subjects you seem to be trying to tackle. So I'll start with this and leave the rest of your long post until after you've got to grips with it. Most of the rest of the post seems to me to be very confused and garbled.

It is not a speed for the same reason why a distance squared is not a distance. It's a speed squared. C2. (You're aware that the 2 is supposed to be super-scripted, yes?)

Remember, the definition of speed is: the amount of distance traveled by an object per unit time. In the standard international system of units (the so-called "SI Units") the standard unit of distance is the metre. The standard unit of time is the second. You don't have to use those units. It's just convenient, when communicating, to agree that we're all going to use the same units, and those units are as good as any.

So, in these "SI Units" speed is defined as the number of metres traveled per second. Mathematically, this is written as "metres divided by seconds" or, for short, m/s. ms-1 means exactly the same thing.

Now if you take the speed and square it, you also have to square the units in which it is expressed. So the units of "speed squared" are m2/s2. Or, in other words, m2s-2. In words: "metres squared per second squared".
Saint martin
Posts: 7
Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 6:14 am

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Saint martin »

we all agree that multiplying numbers is a one dimensional event, therefore we agree numbers are one dimensional, we also agree time is one dimensional, and obviously so is velocity.

so if I was to say the number 4 to the power 4, we all agree that is the equation 4x4x4x4, and this results in an answer that is one dimensional as 256?

for my philosophy I shall continue as we agree and try to keep this brief so we can work on two areas together not one please.

so now instead of the number 4, I shall call it a unit, and again I shall power my unit by the power 4, so again I now end up with my description of the 4 (number) as a unit and keep it as one dimensional, so it again ends up with the now unit 256, or 256 unit(s), we can optionally agree or disagree at this stage to pluralise it or leave it as a single description.

so again now with my unit 4 I change the equation, instead of powering I shall simply multiply, which when you simplify a power scale is giving the power 2 a different number to the original number.

so now in this scale 2x4=8 units (as i assume we agree to pluralise this particular unit?)

now if i power my 4 with a 2 I get the equation 4x4=16 units (please note in this one dimensional powering, we do not power the units we end up with).

so now we get to our disagreement with your equations in what we agree is another one dimension calculation, can you now realising how you use one dimensional math's as a given granted and as so simple, forgotten area of basic mathematics that is forgotten when calculating distances, times and velocities, come to an agreement with me that the squaring of meters/second in E=MC2 as erroneous?

and with the atomic scale, what I was thinking about was, the periodic scale has atoms growing as each electron is gained, or proton i believe it is added, at the points I indicated, instead of gaining weight the atom apparently lost weight, this leads to two immediate conclusions, firstly we do not know what kind of power conversion and storage of such power for lost weights go, or we have incorrectly weighed the atoms and need to re look at our basic atoms again to find the pattern whereby each gain of a proton gains weight in the atom, or this potentially disproves E=MC2 (and yes I know this is a squared number I'm not that proficient with my keyboard, sorry) as the stored energy that is lost in weight could or would most likely be the actual detonation found when you unstabilised Uranium.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Steve3007 »

I'm sorry, but I find your sentences very difficult to understand because of the lack of grammar and the length. I think it would be useful if you keep it shorter. Take your time thinking about what you're going to say and how best to convey it. Don't just write down everything you're thinking as you think it. Make a single point at a time and try to make the sentences as clear as possible.

I don't know what you mean by "multiplying numbers is a one dimensional event".

Think of a number that represents a length of 2 metres. Now think of a square which is 2 metres along each side. The area of that square is 2 metres times 2 metres. That is 4 metres2, or 4 m2. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that when you square a length you get an area?

Similarly, if you square a velocity you get a "velocity squared". This is just how it works.

If you don't agree, I'm afraid that there's not much else we can say because we disagree about the basic rules of mathematics - we're not speaking the same language. For more detail, I strongly recommend that you Google the term "dimensional analysis".

The rules of mathematics are a little bit like the rules of any other language. If you decide to unilaterally change them, then you're probably going to have to accept that you will no longer be able to communicate ideas to other people using them. And it will no longer be possible to critique existing parts of physics that are expressed using the original rules.

Briefly, on E = mc2

You can think of it as simply a way of converting from the units of mass to the units of energy. That's all it does. The fact that the constant of proportionality is (on a human scale) a very large number means that you get a lot of energy for not much mass.
Saint martin
Posts: 7
Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 6:14 am

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Saint martin »

Steve3007 wrote:I don't know what you mean by "multiplying numbers is a one dimensional event".
When you multiply 44 you expand the equation to 4x4x4x4=256, this is a one dimensional event using the power scale of basic maths learned at around the age of 11 in England. They may not philosophically name it a one dimension event but it is, as the unit of measurement here is the dimension we are calling number, or numbers when multiple number are present.

So 4x4=16, not 162 or 16 numbers2 which is what you are doing with velocity to the power two.
Steve3007 wrote:Think of a number that represents a length of 2 metres. Now think of a square which is 2 metres along each side. The area of that square is 2 metres times 2 metres. That is 4 metres2, or 4 m2. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that when you square a length you get an area?
Can you please demonstrate exactly where the second dimension is created or scientifically represented. Now obviously when you give me an equation that has a 90 degree vector added to the second equation i am therefore going to calculate a result that would be written as....

10m x 10m = 100m squared or 10m2 as...

11m x 10m = 110m squared. As I hope you can see in this equation using your rule, it certainly does not describe the scientific result supposedly found.
Steve3007 wrote:Similarly, if you square a velocity you get a "velocity squared". This is just how it works.
Velocity is in one dimension and therefore single dimensional mathematics must be applied, which is basic maths whereby 1x1=1, 2x2=4 and so on when calculating identical numbers. A number that has any power placed next to it is simply stating it will multiply itself by that number of times, so 27 = 2x2x2x2x2x2x2=128
Steve3007 wrote:If you don't agree, I'm afraid that there's not much else we can say because we disagree about the basic rules of mathematics - we're not speaking the same language. For more detail, I strongly recommend that you Google the term "dimensional analysis".
I shall look into dimensional analysis later, but if it is making the same dimensional errors in basic maths calculations then i will be discarding it on the same basic maths errors.
Steve3007 wrote:The rules of mathematics are a little bit like the rules of any other language. If you decide to unilaterally change them, then you're probably going to have to accept that you will no longer be able to communicate ideas to other people using them. And it will no longer be possible to critique existing parts of physics that are expressed using the original rules.
I hope you can now see, it is you who has forgotten the basic maths scale here not I.
Steve3007 wrote:Briefly, on E = mc2

You can think of it as simply a way of converting from the units of mass to the units of energy. That's all it does. The fact that the constant of proportionality is (on a human scale) a very large number means that you get a lot of energy for not much mass.
Now you say it has a constant proportionality, this is based upon only one or two atoms supposedly successfully tested, this is such a gross over statement of arrogance on sciences behalf, that I would urge the caution of looking the fool, as a test of 2 from 118 atoms (I have on my periodic scale) is in no way a scientific success.
DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by DarwinX »

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.
Saint martin
Posts: 7
Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 6:14 am

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Saint martin »

we do agree that the first format of maths we were taught for multiplication resulted in the following simple equations?

1x1=2, 1x2=2, 1x3=3, 1x4=4, 2x2=4, 2x3=6, 2x4=8, 3x3=9, 3x4=12, and 4x4=16.

and we agree that 42=16.

what we fail to agree on is where E=MC2 you say the power two scale is now a squared number while i say it is a square number.

i shall try and agree with you on part of the equation, and also explain why i partially agree.

so we have E which is Energy and it is an unknown quantity, that we realise has some form of relation with mass multiplied by a fixed number, this fixed number we have chosen to describe in a square state, whereby we still need to do a further calculation on our constant aspect of our calculation, hence we have left it in the state of square, whereby we need to multiply this number by itself to get our true number.

so we now perform an experiment whereby we try to ascertain the value of E contained in a small atom, for this experiment we have to measure the amount of energy (E) released by the experiment, the amount of energy used to cause the release of energy needs to be thusly removed from our calculations of energy generated.

the amount of energy recorded was converted to the new measurement of joules (J), and the joules calculation would incorporate factors such as; Energy used to perform the experiment, Energy received at initiation of experiment success, Energy received after experiment completes, weight of experimental component, volume of experimental component, factors of potential experiment failure and finally the total sum off all energies used and found.

so taking into consideration the above factors in philosophical format, as you can only discuss the experiment before you perform the test. you now decide to call the cubic weight of the object its mass, generating the M, so we now have the E=M part of the full equation, the calculations of energy used, lost and found you are now calling C2, at this point i disagree with you, but i shall continue from here on in as though i agree with you in my partial format.

so we now have the equation 299,792,4582, which is supposed to describe the numbers used in the calculation whereby we balanced out the mass into energy (J), so we have;

299,792,4582=8.987551787x1016.

now to get our Energy (J) we now need to calculate the mass by this number, (i know this is a seriously high number for the mass, but) let's call it 0.000001, so we now have;

E=0.000001x8.987551787x1010
E=8.987551787x1010

so you can now see, using the number which the speed of light represents instead of using it as a velocity, i can now calculate the value of energy without the foolish complication of claiming i need to lay a carpet on time and velocity to find energy or joules (J).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Steve3007 »

Saint martin:

I'll go through your post a point at a time. As you will see, there are some points where I agree with you, some where I disagree and some where I don't really know what you mean.

we do agree that the first format of maths we were taught for multiplication resulted in the following simple equations?

1x1=2, 1x2=2, 1x3=3, 1x4=4, 2x2=4, 2x3=6, 2x4=8, 3x3=9, 3x4=12, and 4x4=16.

and we agree that 42=16.
Yes. But remember, these are dimensionless numbers. If the numbers represented a physical quantity, like velocity, then squaring the number also squares the physical quantity.
what we fail to agree on is where E=MC2 you say the power two scale is now a squared number while i say it is a square number.
I'm not sure what the difference is.
i shall try and agree with you on part of the equation, and also explain why i partially agree.
OK.
so we have E which is Energy and it is an unknown quantity, that we realise has some form of relation with mass multiplied by a fixed number,...
Yes. The speed of light in vacuo is a constant, therefore the speed of light squared is also a constant.
...this fixed number we have chosen to describe in a square state, whereby we still need to do a further calculation on our constant aspect of our calculation, hence we have left it in the state of square, whereby we need to multiply this number by itself to get our true number.
There are good reasons, in terms of the underlying physics, why the constant in the equation is the speed of light squared, just as, for example, there are good reasons why, in the classical physics that you would have been taught in high school, the kinetic energy of a moving object is given by the equation:

K.E. = 1/2mv2

Note: In terms of dimensions, this equation agrees with E=MC2. The S.I. unit of energy, the joule, is, in base S.I. units (kilograms, metres and seconds):

kg X m2 X s-2.

Take a look at another high school equation: the equation for the potential energy of a body in a uniform gravitational field:

P.E. = mgh (mass X acceleration due to gravity X height)

Note that if you multiply the units of mass, acceleration and height from this equation you get:

(kg) X (m X s-2) X (m) = kg X m2 X s-2.

This is the same as the units in the equation for K.E. As you would expect, both are units of energy.

So, dimensional analysis (examining the dimensions of the quantities in the equation) shows that the equations of KE, PE and relativistic energy are dimensionally correct. This is the way in which dimensional analysis can be used to check whether an equation is balanced - whether the dimensions each side of the equals sign agree.
so we now perform an experiment whereby we try to ascertain the value of E contained in a small atom, for this experiment we have to measure the amount of energy (E) released by the experiment, the amount of energy used to cause the release of energy needs to be thusly removed from our calculations of energy generated.
the amount of energy recorded was converted to the new measurement of joules (J),...
Yes, because, as shown above, the unit "joule" is shorthand for kg X m2 X s-2.

Out of interest, you could try expressing other units, like for example the "newton" (S.I. unit of force) in base S.I. units (kilograms, metres and seconds). You would find that the unit "newton" is shorthand for:

kg X m X s-2.
...and the joules calculation would incorporate factors such as; Energy used to perform the experiment, Energy received at initiation of experiment success, Energy received after experiment completes, weight of experimental component, volume of experimental component, factors of potential experiment failure and finally the total sum off all energies used and found.
The only directly relevant quantities are total energy and mass before the experiment and total energy and mass after the experiment. I don't know why you think volume is relevant.
so taking into consideration the above factors in philosophical format, as you can only discuss the experiment before you perform the test. you now decide to call the cubic weight of the object its mass, generating the M, so we now have the E=M part of the full equation,...
No, the cubic weight of an object is not its mass! Weight is a force (S.I. unit = newtons). It is the force exerted on an object by gravity. It is not directly relevant, and the cubic weight certainly is not equal to the mass.
...the calculations of energy used, lost and found you are now calling C2,...
No I'm not. E=MC2. Energy is not equal to C2.
at this point i disagree with you, but i shall continue from here on in as though i agree with you in my partial format.
I also disagree with your account of what I said.
so we now have the equation 299,792,4582, which is supposed to describe the numbers used in the calculation whereby we balanced out the mass into energy (J), so we have;

299,792,4582=8.987551787x1016.
You need to include the units in order for those numbers you've quoted to make any sense. The value of the number which represents the speed of light is, of course, entirely dependant on the units in which that speed is expressed. In units of miles per hour, for example, the number would be different. The number you have quoted is specifically in metres per second (or m/s or ms-1).
now to get our Energy (J) we now need to calculate the mass by this number,...
You mean we need to multiply this number by the mass, in kilograms, in order to get the energy in joules.
(i know this is a seriously high number for the mass, but) let's call it 0.000001, so we now have;

E=0.000001x8.987551787x1010 E=8.987551787x1010
Yes. With mass in kg and energy in joules.
so you can now see, using the number which the speed of light represents instead of using it as a velocity,...
Remember, unless you make it clear which physical quantity is represented by this number and what units you are using, the number is meaningless. That's why, in high school physics tests, they always say "show your units". If I tell you that I am driving my car at a speed of 346 or that my weight is 147 or that my height is 179, this is meaningless unless I tell you the units or we have already agreed what units we are using.
...i can now calculate the value of energy without the foolish complication of claiming i need to lay a carpet on time and velocity to find energy or joules (J).
I don't know what you mean by "lay a carpet on time and velocity"!

Remember, as with all other physical quantities, the number which represents energy is meaningless without units. Different units = different number. For example, before the "metres kilograms seconds" (sometimes called MKS) system of standard units, there was another system called "centimetres grammes seconds". This was called the CGS system (look it up). People older than the age of about 50 would probably have used this system in school rather than MKS.

In this system, the unit of energy is called the "erg", not "joule", and the unit of force is called the "dyne", not "newton".

So the take-home message is: units are important. There ends the physics lesson! Sorry about the excessive detail, but I used to be a physics teacher.
Last edited by Steve3007 on April 23rd, 2014, 4:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Present awareness »

Einstein had a theory about relatives. He called it his theory of relativity. In his theory, he states that time will slow down, in direct proportion, to the time your mother in-law stays at your house. He didn't want his wife to know about it, so he disguised it in a complex mathematical formula E=MC2 Exasperation= Mother in-law, Coming, 2 days
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Skycloudnz
Posts: 19
Joined: April 16th, 2014, 10:31 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Skycloudnz »

Something has been found to move faster than the speed of light. The original theory was that "Energy is a factor of mass and the speed of light". Like all theories it was the start of the idea. As Popper would say it now needs some adjustment. That is the nature of science not exact facts that cause great problems when new information comes to hand.
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Present awareness »

Skycloudnz wrote:Something has been found to move faster than the speed of light. The original theory was that "Energy is a factor of mass and the speed of light". Like all theories it was the start of the idea. As Popper would say it now needs some adjustment. That is the nature of science not exact facts that cause great problems when new information comes to hand.
Imagination can move faster then the speed of light. That's why in Star Trek, they have warp speed.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Wayne92587 »

The equation should read M=EC 2; E equaling a unit of Energy, C 2, simply being a very large number,186,000 squared.

Mass existing as a lump of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities here-to-fore having no relative, numerical value is Equal to 186,000 squared, units of Energy.

M=EC2 simply meaning that there is a hell of a lot of Energy in a given Mass.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: E=MC2 as a philosophical blunder.

Post by Steve3007 »

Wayne: Why do you particularly pick miles/second as your unit of speed? Why not, say, furlongs per fortnight?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021