E=MCsquared?

[RascalPuff]

Dear Hearts:

Algebraically speaking, when you square the dynamic expansion of of C (Celeritas constant, the velocity of light), out of (allegedly) 'static' matter.... Does this not establish that matter is likewise dynamically expanding?

Is this not a correct algebraic conclusion?

Best regards,
- RP

[thinking]

Dear Hearts:

Algebraically speaking, when you square the dynamic expansion of of C (Celeritas constant, the velocity of light), out of (allegedly) 'static' matter.... Does this not establish that matter is likewise dynamically expanding?

Is this not a correct algebraic conclusion?

Best regards,
- RP

E=MC^2 is about bring out the potenial energy within matter . if I understand the equation right.

so no

[RascalPuff]

E=MC^2 is about bring out the potenial energy within matter . if I understand the equation right.

so no

Thank you for your response, north.
With due respect, the operative words here are, 'if I understand the equation right'.

In an algebraic equation, are not all the factors obliged to be interchangeable?
Here we have a dynamic projected from a static, this does not seem to correlate the interchangeability of factors.

- RP

[thinking]

Thank you for your response, north.
With due respect, the operative words here are, 'if I understand the equation right'.

In an algebraic equation, are not all the factors obliged to be interchangeable?
Here we have a dynamic projected from a static, this does not seem to correlate the interchangeability of factors.

- RP

give an example to clearify what you mean

[RascalPuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Thank you for your response, north.
With due respect, the operative words here are, 'if I understand the equation right'.

In an algebraic equation, are not all the factors obliged to be interchangeable?
Here we have a dynamic projected from a static, this does not seem to correlate the interchangeability of factors.

- RP

give an example to clearify what you mean
___________________________________________


The qualification 'If I understand the equation right', applies to both of us, Mr. north.

What understanding I have of algebraic equations is that the factors in a given forumula are interchangeable...

What I mean is, since light is generated by and moving at right angles out of matter, then, does it not hold that matter itself is moving outward, omnidirectionally, at right angles from 'center point mass'...

[N0B0DY]

"What I mean is, since light is generated by and moving at right angles out of matter, then, does it not hold that matter itself is moving outward, omnidirectionally, at right angles from 'center point mass'..."

It's often difficult to portray our pictures of the universe, and for me it is difficult to understand how countless spheres can be expanding everywhere without touching each other. If their event carriers touch and pass through each other, then all quarters can be said to be contracting* as well - as per Huygens. If expanding and contracting everywhere simultaneously, then it can be said that they are neither expanding nor contracting. * I don't believe there can be such a force as attraction or contraction. Even the old kung fu grip is a pushing of all parts, but when the event force itself is pushing at equal intensities they cancel.

I'm not sure about matter being implied in the equation either, RP, but mass. So the energy would be moving outward from the continually shrinking point mass, and just like is supposed of black-hole evaporation, the temperature would increase exponentially as the virtual vacuum decays into the true vacuum. If the effects didn't cancel, we wouldn't be able to observe any closed systems.

[RascalPuff]

"What I mean is, since light is generated by and moving at right angles out of matter, then, does it not hold that matter itself is moving outward, omnidirectionally, at right angles from 'center point mass'..."

It's often difficult to portray our pictures of the universe, and for me it is difficult to understand how countless spheres can be expanding everywhere without touching each other. If their event carriers touch and pass through each other, then all quarters can be said to be contracting* as well - as per Huygens. If expanding and contracting everywhere simultaneously, then it can be said that they are neither expanding nor contracting. * I don't believe there can be such a force as attraction or contraction. Even the old kung fu grip is a pushing of all parts, but when the event force itself is pushing at equal intensities they cancel.

I'm not sure about matter being implied in the equation either, RP, but mass. So the energy would be moving outward from the continually shrinking point mass, and just like is supposed of black-hole evaporation, the temperature would increase exponentially as the virtual vacuum decays into the true vacuum. If the effects didn't cancel, we wouldn't be able to observe any closed systems.

"for me it is difficult to understand how countless spheres can be expanding everywhere without touching each other." - Nobody (Ibid)

I defer to the reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant repelling force, and what is now called 'dark energy', apparently generated by 'dark matter'.

[N0B0DY]

If you're referring to time-phased flavor eigenstates then I would concur because they follow the exclusion principle, but bosons don't follow such a principle so what exactly is expanding?

We have an absolute rest pressure at the singularity of spacetime which is synonymous to the unobserved zero-k state. So both the absolute interior and exterior state of the universe must be null and void of all vacuum fluctuations. (Perhaps re: Dave's "Matter is Everything in a Void.")

[RascalPuff]

If you're referring to time-phased flavor eigenstates then I would concur because they follow the exclusion principle, but bosons don't follow such a principle so what exactly is expanding?

We have an absolute rest pressure at the singularity of spacetime which is synonymous to the unobserved zero-k state. So both the absolute interior and exterior state of the universe must be null and void of all vacuum fluctuations. (Perhaps re: Dave's "Matter is Everything in a Void.")

Your terminology and statements transcend my knowledge, Nobody.
I am not qualified to submit a response.