StupidAndy Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 so i posted this in the "you know your a nerd when" forum game, but i want a solid answer, so whats the simplest answer? google it? NO! its wait 12 hours until someone has the idea to post on this thread! so heres the paradox E=Mc2 E=energy ==equal, so same M= matter C= constant, so speed of light, its consistent, except with the warp drive apparently 2=twice, so multiplied by two so energy is matter twice the speed of light. right? wrong. this is the paradox !PARADOX WARNING! if you don't want your mind blown, do not continue reading !PARADOX WARNING! light is energy, so it should follow the same rules, so its twice the speed of light, but that can't happen, because its the speed of light, and it is the constant, so it can't go any faster, so how is there energy? the light should keep going twice the speed of light, making a endless spiral downwards, making the speed of light, constantly going faster, making it inconsistent, so you could technically see across the universe in 0.00000001 milliseconds, its a paradox. and thats just energy, lets go for something like heat. so heat, its hot, and lack of it is cold, and its energy, so E=Mc2 right? no. nothing can go faster then the speed of light, so it shouldn't exist, so there shouldn't be any energy in the universe, so no light, no heat, no magnetism, no electricity, though i may be wrong, but isn't that just electrons? so there should just be matter, not energy im not taking dark matter and energy into consideration yet, because, nobody knows what it is or does. am i being smart for a pre-high schooler? or just a ignorant idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaarst Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 E = mc2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dman979 Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Yeah, like Gaarst said, you've got the equation wrong. Try E=mc^2 if your superscript is broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 c2, not 2c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Aside from the mistake with the formula, you're misinterpreting its meaning. All it's saying is that mass and energy are equivalent, and that the mathematical conversion between the two is the square of the speed of light. Thus, for example, if you want to know the mass of a photon, just take its energy and divide by c-squared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonfliesgoats Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 What the other guys said is right. Also, loud mistakes erase quiet ignorance in one, some or all of us. Keep screaming ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 (edited) If take 150 000 km/s as measurement unit, then c = 2 and c2 = 2c. That's what they call maths. Edited December 3, 2016 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaarst Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 42 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: If take 150 000 km/s as measurement unit, then c = 2 and c2 = 2c. That's what they call maths. Yeah, and physics says that's wrong. c is a speed, a speed can't equal the square of a speed (it's like saying a mass equals a length). When taking the square of c, you also have to take the square of the unit or conversion factor, so c2=2c is wrong. c2 = (2*(150000 km/s)) * c would be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Kinetic energy is the mass times the velocity squared. That doesn't mean anything in the system being examined moves at the velocity squared, or twice the velocity, or anything of that sort. The velocity is just a term which comes up twice in the math. What I've always wondered is, does Einstein's equation merely represent the maximal case of the kinetic energy equation? Since the speed of light is as fast as anything can go, nothing could have more energy than its mass multiplied by the maximum velocity squared. I suspect that's far too simple and I'm mistaken, but what the heck, it doesn't hurt to ask, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaarst Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Vanamonde said: What I've always wondered is, does Einstein's equation merely represent the maximal case of the kinetic energy equation? Since the speed of light is as fast as anything can go, nothing could have more energy than its mass multiplied by the maximum velocity squared. I suspect that's far too simple and I'm mistaken, but what the heck, it doesn't hurt to ask, right? E = mc2 describes the rest energy. Kinetic energy adds to that, so without relativistic effects, the maximum energy (we don't care about potential here) would be 3/2*mc2. Except that in special relativity, kinetic energy becomes more complicated and includes a factor γ (Lorentz constant) going to infinity as the velocity of the object goes to c which means that the energy of an object with speed c is infinity. The total energy of an object in special relativity is γmc2 (the velocity of the object is included in the factor γ). Edited December 3, 2016 by Gaarst Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Oh, jeez. I even left the 1/2 coefficient out of the kinetic energy equation. Nothing like being publicly stupid to get one's day off to a great start. I knew about it! Honest! Thanks, Gaarst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonfliesgoats Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 I am publicly stupid all the time! It's fun! We should eat cake and drink scotch now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 20 hours ago, StupidAndy said: !PARADOX WARNING! if you don't want your mind blown, do not continue reading !PARADOX WARNING! [GONE VIOLENT](MUST WATCH) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 8 hours ago, Gaarst said: Yeah, and physics says that's wrong. c is a speed, a speed can't equal the square of a speed (it's like saying a mass equals a length). When taking the square of c, you also have to take the square of the unit or conversion factor, so c2=2c is wrong. c2 = (2*(150000 km/s)) * c would be correct. You could just use a standard notation. Energy is L2MT-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now