E = MC^2

[SaltyNuts]

E = MC^2. Probably the most fundamental equation we know regarding our universe. It set forth the fundamental relationship between mass and energy. Energy equals mass times the speed of light... squared. That squared is a little bit of a curiosity, is it not? I mean, it could be anything other than 2, it could be 2.074, 1.945, 2.0001, 2.0000001, 1.99999999999999999872, etc. etc. But it is a perfect 2, a perfect squared. Out of so many possibilities it could have been, it is a perfect whole number.

Weird, isn't it? Its almost like whoever, or whatever, created this universe wanted this universe to have a nice, elegant, simple whole number there...

 

[IronWing]

There are more terms to the total energy equation. The mc^2 part was Einstein’s contribution to the previous equation.

 

[SaltyNuts]

There are more terms to the total energy equation. The mc^2 part was Einstein’s contribution to the previous equation.

So? The point still stands.

 

[IronWing]

Not really.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Nice logical analysis LOL.

 

[BoomerD]

E = MC^2. Probably the most fundamental equation we know regarding our universe. It set forth the fundamental relationship between mass and energy. Energy equals mass times the speed of light... squared. That squared is a little bit of a curiosity, is it not? I mean, it could be anything other than 2, it could be 2.074, 1.945, 2.0001, 2.0000001, 1.99999999999999999872, etc. etc. But it is a perfect 2, a perfect squared. Out of so many possibilities it could have been, it is a perfect whole number.

Weird, isn't it? Its almost like whoever, or whatever, created this universe wanted this universe to have a nice, elegant, simple whole number there...

Can hou show your PROOF that it's exactly 2.000000000000000?

 

[iCyborg]

That squared is a little bit of a curiosity, is it not? I mean, it could be anything other than 2, it could be 2.074, 1.945, 2.0001, 2.0000001, 1.99999999999999999872, etc. etc. But it is a perfect 2, a perfect squared. Out of so many possibilities it could have been, it is a perfect whole number.

In the formula M*C^n, n=2 is the only case that results in the units of energy. So it's either 2, or it's not E on the other side.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Can hou show your PROOF that it's exactly 2.000000000000000?

I can't prove anything. I can only try and educate. I can only lead the horses to the stream, I can't make them drink the water. But here is an article:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2

From said article:

"scientists found that E differs from mc2 by at most 0.0000004, or four-tenths of 1 part in 1 million"

WOW. So it is either 2 or something so, so, SO immeasurably small different from it that no difference can be detected.

So, isn't it weird, out of all the trillions, etc. of numbers it could be, it is a perfect 2 or something differing so little from 2 the difference cannot be detected? What are the chances of that? One in trillions or whatever. A freaking MIRACLE, no? No, not at all. Whoever or whatever created this universe wanted it at 2.

Thank you for helping to further my point.

Now all of you be good little horsies and drink the water...

 

[Ajay]

So? The point still stands.

And just to make this all a bit more confusing. We actually aren't able to measure the exact speed of light experimentally. Theoretically, the speed of light is constant, in a vacuum. But how does one verify this over long distances? We put a mirror on the moon the check this, and it appears to our values are very accurate - but, there is no way to tell if light travel faster towards the mirror and then slow back from the mirror, yielding the correct answer. The problem is that the speed of light is also the speed of causality, so it will never be possible to measure the speed of light over long distances and prove that there are no asymmetries wrt direction of travel. This limit on causality means that communications between the source and destination cannot be simultaneous for the type of measurements need to prove that there are no 'quirks' in the way light propagates.

 

[SaltyNuts]

And just to make this all a bit more confusing. We actually aren't able to measure the exact speed of light experimentally. Theoretically, the speed of light is constant, in a vacuum. But how does one verify this over long distances? We put a mirror on the moon the check this, and it appears to our values are very accurate - but, there is no way to tell if light travel faster towards the mirror and then slow back from the mirror, yielding the correct answer. The problem is that the speed of light is also the speed of causality, so it will never be possible to measure the speed of light over long distances and prove that there are no asymmetries wrt direction of travel. This limit on causality means that communications between the source and destination cannot be simultaneous for the type of measurements need to prove that there are no 'quirks' in the way light propagates.

All that might be well and good, but see my post immediately above yours. Its exactly 2 for all practical purposes.

 

[Ajay]

Lots of stuff in nature revolves around squares, Euler constant, PI, etc. It's almost like they were destined to be together - like rum and coke

 

[SaltyNuts]

Lots of stuff in nature revolves around squares, Euler constant, PI, etc. It's almost like they were destined to be together - like rum and coke

I don't know about that other stuff, never thought about those, but at least in the case of the squared in E-MC^2, yes, yes indeed... destined by the creator(s).....

 

[sdifox]

I don't know about that other stuff, never thought about those, but at least in the case of the squared in E-MC^2, yes, yes indeed... destined by the creator(s).....

you are the best proof there is no creator.

 

[SaltyNuts]

you are the best proof there is no creator.

You are completely devoid of intellect of any kind.

 

[SKORPI0]

The reason is that kinetic energy, or the energy of motion, is proportional to mass. When you accelerate an object, the kinetic energy increases to the tune of the speed squared. You'll find an excellent example of this in any driver's education manual: If you double your speed, the braking distance is four times longer, so the braking distance is equal to the speed squared [source: UNSW Physics: Einsteinlight].

Why is the speed of light squared in Einstein's theory?

Answer (1 of 59): The relativistic energy equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. At rest with zero momentum it results in the more famous version. The reason for this is that under special relativity, the three dimensions of space and the single dimension of time get combined into one fourdimensio...

www.quora.com

 

[sdifox]

You are completely devoid of intellect of any kind.

NOVA | Einstein's Big Idea | Library Resource Kit: E = mc2 Explained | PBS

here is a tip, attributing natural phenomenon to creators <> intellect.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Why is the speed of light squared in Einstein's theory?

Answer (1 of 59): The relativistic energy equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. At rest with zero momentum it results in the more famous version. The reason for this is that under special relativity, the three dimensions of space and the single dimension of time get combined into one fourdimensio...

www.quora.com

Yes, everyone knows the squared relationship. That is my point, why is it such a perfect squared relationship, why not 2.1, 2.2, 2.9, 2.445764343254346345, 1.23534563456345, 11.235345645745634534, there are so many things it can be, but its a perfect 2. Like I said, almost like whoever put the equations and laws of our universe together wanted the most fundamental ones to be nice and neat.

 

[SaltyNuts]

NOVA | Einstein's Big Idea | Library Resource Kit: E = mc2 Explained | PBS

here is a tip, attributing natural phenomenon to creators <> intellect.

Again, that is just showing that the relationship is indeed squared, which everyone here acknowledges. You can't even figure out what you are posting is not further any kind of argument on your part LOL. Here is a tip: saying "it is just because it is" <> intellect.

 

[IronWing]

Yes, everyone knows the squared relationship. That is my point, why is it such a perfect squared relationship, why not 2.1, 2.2, 2.9, 2.445764343254346345, 1.23534563456345, 11.235345645745634534, there are so many things it can be, but its a perfect 2. Like I said, almost like whoever put the equations and laws of our universe together wanted the most fundamental ones to be nice and neat.

Paging Mr. SaltyNuts, e is on the white courtesy phone.
Mr. Saltynuts, paging Mr. SaltyNuts, π is on the red courtesy phone.
Again, paging Mr. Saltynuts, Mr. SaltyNuts, h is on the black courtesy phone.

 

[repoman0]

Paging Mr. SaltyNuts, e is on the white courtesy phone.
Mr. Saltynuts, paging Mr. SaltyNuts, π is on the red courtesy phone.
Again, paging Mr. Saltynuts, Mr. SaltyNuts, h is on the black courtesy phone.

Careful, don’t let him see the e^(i*pi)=-1 proof

 

[sdifox]

Again, that is just showing that the relationship is indeed squared, which everyone here acknowledges. You can't even figure out what you are posting is not further any kind of argument on your part LOL. Here is a tip: saying "it is just because it is" <> intellect.

I guess you didn't read the part about why it is squared...

 

[SaltyNuts]

Paging Mr. SaltyNuts, e is on the white courtesy phone.
Mr. Saltynuts, paging Mr. SaltyNuts, π is on the red courtesy phone.
Again, paging Mr. Saltynuts, Mr. SaltyNuts, h is on the black courtesy phone.

Oh come now IronWing, you can do better than that.

e? Speed of light? If you point is that its not a nice neat miles per hour of km/hour per number or whatever, that is because humans came up with what a mile is and what a km is, and those are arbitrary numbers. If you define the speed of light as the distance light can go in a year, its 1, a nice neat number! Your point is worthless.

Pie? The relation between certain physical measurements of objects? Obviously in any physical universe there will be all sorts of relationships between physical things, and those relationships will not all be nice and neat. Heck, it would be strange IF they were all nice and neat. But the fact that they are not is not surprising in the least.

I have no idea about h, whatever that it, but I'm sure it is not telling for similar reasons.

You can't run from it IronWing. You don't like the obvious implication of what I am saying, but you can't run from that implication. Probably the most fundamental property in our universe, the relationship between matter and energy, was specifically designed to have a perfect squared relationship. That is absolutely by far the most rational conclusion, whether you like it or not.

 

[SaltyNuts]

I guess you didn't read the part about why it is squared...

Those explanations do no not say what you think they say dude. It looks like they are going from one equation to another, but that does not answer WHY that relationship is what it is in any equation. Indeed, they can't possibly answer that. But whoever, or whatever, created this universe wanted its most fundamental equation explaining the universe to have a nice, neat squared number in there.

 

[IronWing]

Oh come now IronWing, you can do better than that.

e? Speed of light? If you point is that its not a nice neat miles per hour of km/hour per number or whatever, that is because humans came up with what a mile is and what a km is, and those are arbitrary numbers. If you define the speed of light as the distance light can go in a year, its 1, a nice neat number! Your point is worthless.

Pie? The relation between certain physical measurements of objects? Obviously in any physical universe there will be all sorts of relationships between physical things, and those relationships will not all be nice and neat. Heck, it would be strange IF they were all nice and neat. But the fact that they are not is not surprising in the least.

I have no idea about h, whatever that it, but I'm sure it is not telling for similar reasons.

You can't run from it IronWing. You don't like the obvious implication of what I am saying, but you can't run from that implication. Probably the most fundamental property in our universe, the relationship between matter and energy, was specifically designed to have a perfect squared relationship. That is absolutely by far the most rational conclusion, whether you like it or not.

Um, h is more fundamental and is a messy number, or was until physicists said, "screw it" and arbitrarily defined it.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Um, h is more fundamental and is a messy number, or was until physicists said, "screw it" and arbitrarily defined it.

What is h as you are using it?