## The end of E=mc^2

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Perceiving exists.
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 pm

### The end of E=mc^2

Hi,

Sometime ago i was asked following question;

“If I said, what is the end of the following equation e=mc^2 (as it explains phenomena or as a purely mathematical and theoretical construct), does that make sense?”

I not only want to share that question with you, but too i want too share my answer, and finally, how would you regard the question?

(Let me please be very clear in pointing out, these are my beliefs. I might be wrong, but if you disagree with me on something, provide it with logic arguments and describe what is in contradiction to what, thx )

Yes, you do make sense, and let me start by explaining why I must reject any validity of the equation at all to begin with.
It might seem an odd thing to do, but I might claim the amount of stars divided by the amount of unicorns are half the gods, but that wouldn’t make sense. It is therefore I conclude, whatever is conclude-able from any equation, must make ‘sense’ to be valid.
The mass-energy equivalence not only states following to be valid;
We can express three things in an objective quantity, where at least two particular physical quantities must be known, resulting from an isolated measurement.
It states too reason for assuming, that there is an underlying relationship between those three phenomena.

Regardless of provided reason for that relationship, coincidence cannot be disproven and thus will, till otherwise be, always remain an actual explanation for the made assumption. Despite only the possible diminishing of that likeness, by means of confirming results and measurements, I will, for the sake of getting to my point, believe the existence of such an underlying relationship.
Now, let us describe the three phenomena that must be in existence, in the most simple way;
Energy, Mass, and Speed.
Because speed is a combination of two other phenomena, we must replace it by those, resulting in the existence of at least four actual forces;
Energy, Mass, Distance, and Time.
Now, since that is clear, I would like to know, can a negative distance exists? Or negative mass or time? can negative energy exist?
It is because of the infinity of numbers, I can be assured of the opposite, thus too claiming a negative temperature doesn’t exist.

Let me try to explain what I mean;

Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, it is in a given moment actually -5 degree Celsius outside and you claim it to be so, thus you are in contradiction to my statement, and even though we agreed you are right, I will explain why I am not wrong.

First, I must ask you is it -5 because you say it is, or is it -5 regardless of what you claim? Of course you might say it’s 6 degree, but we agreed for discussions purpose it isn’t. Thus therefore, what you say doesn’t change the facts.

Its still -5 in that given moment, and I claim it to be -13.2 sheep, contradicting to the quantity of -5, will it change the temperature? Of course not. Thus if I claim, in that given moment it to be 268.15 Kelvin, it will not change the temperature nor you claiming it is -5, and despite the fact we both use different quantities, we both describe the same actual temperature.
If it were to go, let’s say, -1 kelvin.., it is only because of a chosen reference point it is a negative number, but does negative heat exist? No, it is either absent, thus 0 measurability, or it is, thus more than 0.

Regardless of the infinite negative number you pick for describing something, due to the infinity of numbers I am always able to change the reference point of that scale resulting in a positive quantity, with out of course actually changing what you describe. It works easier for mass, -5 kg is hard to define, but let us say a distance is a negative, is it really or is it because we chose it to be? Of course negative amounts exist, but it is only due to comparing that a value can come into existence, thus the complete being always more than 0. Since time is a subject that requires far more depth, I will make no claims concerning, but I do claim following;

Relative negative energy amounts might exist, but in its absolute form, negative measurable energy doesn’t exist. When a measurement of energy is 0, it is lacking any, resulting in a quantity of 0, yet when some form of energy is measured, it’s absolute quantity can’t be 0, or less.

So, to come to my final answer and question;

“If I said, what is the end of the following equation E=mc^2?”
I would say, the end, is what you to call beginning.
Finally, I would like to ask you now another question; where does e=mc^2 begin?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

### Re: The end of E=mc^2

Perceiving exists. wrote:Hi,

Sometime ago i was asked following question;

“If I said, what is the end of the following equation e=mc^2 (as it explains phenomena or as a purely mathematical and theoretical construct), does that make sense?”

I not only want to share that question with you, but too i want too share my answer, and finally, how would you regard the question?

(Let me please be very clear in pointing out, these are my beliefs. I might be wrong, but if you disagree with me on something, provide it with logic arguments and describe what is in contradiction to what, thx )

Yes, you do make sense, and let me start by explaining why I must reject any validity of the equation at all to begin with.
It might seem an odd thing to do, but I might claim the amount of stars divided by the amount of unicorns are half the gods, but that wouldn’t make sense. It is therefore I conclude, whatever is conclude-able from any equation, must make ‘sense’ to be valid.
The mass-energy equivalence not only states following to be valid;
We can express three things in an objective quantity, where at least two particular physical quantities must be known, resulting from an isolated measurement.
It states too reason for assuming, that there is an underlying relationship between those three phenomena.

Regardless of provided reason for that relationship, coincidence cannot be disproven and thus will, till otherwise be, always remain an actual explanation for the made assumption. Despite only the possible diminishing of that likeness, by means of confirming results and measurements, I will, for the sake of getting to my point, believe the existence of such an underlying relationship.
Now, let us describe the three phenomena that must be in existence, in the most simple way;
Energy, Mass, and Speed.
Because speed is a combination of two other phenomena, we must replace it by those, resulting in the existence of at least four actual forces;
Energy, Mass, Distance, and Time.
Now, since that is clear, I would like to know, can a negative distance exists? Or negative mass or time? can negative energy exist?
It is because of the infinity of numbers, I can be assured of the opposite, thus too claiming a negative temperature doesn’t exist.

Let me try to explain what I mean;

Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, it is in a given moment actually -5 degree Celsius outside and you claim it to be so, thus you are in contradiction to my statement, and even though we agreed you are right, I will explain why I am not wrong.

First, I must ask you is it -5 because you say it is, or is it -5 regardless of what you claim? Of course you might say it’s 6 degree, but we agreed for discussions purpose it isn’t. Thus therefore, what you say doesn’t change the facts.

Its still -5 in that given moment, and I claim it to be -13.2 sheep, contradicting to the quantity of -5, will it change the temperature? Of course not. Thus if I claim, in that given moment it to be 268.15 Kelvin, it will not change the temperature nor you claiming it is -5, and despite the fact we both use different quantities, we both describe the same actual temperature.
If it were to go, let’s say, -1 kelvin.., it is only because of a chosen reference point it is a negative number, but does negative heat exist? No, it is either absent, thus 0 measurability, or it is, thus more than 0.

Regardless of the infinite negative number you pick for describing something, due to the infinity of numbers I am always able to change the reference point of that scale resulting in a positive quantity, with out of course actually changing what you describe. It works easier for mass, -5 kg is hard to define, but let us say a distance is a negative, is it really or is it because we chose it to be? Of course negative amounts exist, but it is only due to comparing that a value can come into existence, thus the complete being always more than 0. Since time is a subject that requires far more depth, I will make no claims concerning, but I do claim following;

Relative negative energy amounts might exist, but in its absolute form, negative measurable energy doesn’t exist. When a measurement of energy is 0, it is lacking any, resulting in a quantity of 0, yet when some form of energy is measured, it’s absolute quantity can’t be 0, or less.

So, to come to my final answer and question;

“If I said, what is the end of the following equation E=mc^2?”
I would say, the end, is what you to call beginning.
Finally, I would like to ask you now another question; where does e=mc^2 begin?

Perhaps E=MC squared is made up of postulates (axioms) that do not require proof. They are made up of self evident truths.

HexHammer
Posts: 3265
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

### Re: The end of E=mc^2

OP is pure nonsense, it has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt, which was manifested in the atomic bomb!

John K
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: Gruithuisen's Lunar City.

### Re: The end of E=mc^2

Perhaps we'll give E=mc cubed a try.

Perceiving exists.
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 pm

### Re: The end of E=mc^2

So no one disagrees with me, energy, mass, distance, and time exist and are related to each other?

Someone said, it stars with 'E' and it ends at '2'. What is your opinion about that?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

### Re: The end of E=mc^2

Perceiving exists. wrote:So no one disagrees with me, energy, mass, distance, and time exist and are related to each other?

Someone said, it stars with 'E' and it ends at '2'. What is your opinion about that?

I think it starts and ends as a postulate. How good it is depends on its ability to make testable predictions.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests