• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

E = MC^2

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SaltyNuts said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're silly, which is a super nice way have saying you've decided to remain willfully ignorant. In my pantheon of human foibles, willful ignorance is tied with psychopathic murder for being less than upstanding.
 
IronWing said:
You're silly, which is a super nice way have saying you've decided to remain willfully ignorant. In my pantheon of human foibles, willful ignorance is tied with psychopathic murder for being less than upstanding.
Click to expand...

"No your wrong!!!" Just keep repeating that over and over IronWing...
 
bbhaag said:
What if C wasn't constant though? Would that affect the perfect squared by 2?
Click to expand...
Sexy lady, I think the equation would then have become a variable equation. Basically one might need to add another vector, and maybe something would need to be squared or c would be cubed. Honestly speaking, I do not know.
 
SaltyNuts said:
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.
Click to expand...


You have seemingly ignored the compelling reason already given in this previous post

iCyborg said:
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.
Click to expand...


It is called dimensional analysis. Google it.
 
PowerEngineer said:
You have seemingly ignored the compelling reason already given in this previous post




It is called dimensional analysis. Google it.
Click to expand...


I don't follow. That is the right side of the equation. The left side is energy. Anything on the right side equals energy on the left side, because matter and the speed of light are still there. Why don't you just break down the point all simple for me like?

I'll be waiting!
 
SaltyNuts said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you've never taken calculus, or at least remember nothing from it.
 
more insight from people..
www.quora.com

Why is there that 'c' in the equation E=mc^2?

Answer (1 of 26): Forget for a moment that c represents the speed of light. What relativity is primarily about is unifying the concept of space and time. That implies measuring space and time using a common unit. But how can you do that? Suppose that you have a unit of length. How does it get con...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top