View Single Post
Re: The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?)
Old
  (#10 (permalink))
RascalPuff
Aka the White Mongol
RascalPuff has a spectacular aura about
 
RascalPuff's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,449
Thanks Given: 89
Thanked 81x in 77 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2007
Rep Power: 21
   
Awards Showcase
2nd Place - Monthly Theme Quiz 
Total Awards: 1
Re: The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?) - 11-25-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA View Post
Thanks again RP,

I find this line of thought wonderful!

I am somewhat well read in the thought processes of A Einstein, but have never grasped with simplicity the purpose of squared in the equations of physics. Would you do me a great favor and try to explain C squared.
I know you know.

Thanks,

=
MJA
Think of the inverse square law (the rate at which concentrically arranged expanding energy increasingly distributes itself over a greater area) and you fairly well have it.

The following is a cogent excerpt from my forum:

The formula is E=MC2. The direct non-mathematical translation of which is: 'Energy equals Matter times the speed of light, squared'.

In grade school as well as jr. high school, I would hear other students ask a question which I have since then learned is also familiar to many others; that question being: "In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?"

I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The teacher's (ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being:
'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'.

This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?'

All are implored not to take my word for this. Simply ask the next physicist or mathematician you happen in to. If you pursue this question, you will get that answer or its equivalent. I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering:
'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?'
If it isn't necessary, why is pi r squared? To find the volume of a circle why square pi r? (Answer: because the circle is 4-Dimensionally expanding, squared. Exactly why you can spend forever carrying pi out to it's 'last' decimal point... Refer, the Golden Rectangle, also known as the Golden Spiral, and 'Phi'.)


One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'.
Smoke On The Perrier:
Affixed to that familiar explicit statement made by Einstein, is the familiar implicit statement - 'but it isn't necessary'.
Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second.
*Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times.


On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding.
Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding.


Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law:
In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy.


As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the 4-Dimensional MassField, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101.

If all the Nobel laureates in the world gather together to agree that any entity acknowledged and agreed to be dynamically expanding, can be algebraically squared from any other entity which is agreed to be static and non-expanding (exactly such a gathering exists, and has existed since 1906):
what is established in such an assemblage of authority is that, none among these mortar-boarded multitudes has possession of the mathematical ability required to pass the seventh grade.

___________________

Any further thoughts on this?

Best regards,
- RP


(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.

"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus
"Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein
"Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
  
Reply With Quote