E=mc3 - is this physically possible?

[Alkazar]

Is the formula E=mc3 physically possible? I mean if the M=mc2 made by Einstein is just a theory, or if it is possible to prove it?

[airlinemusic]

Einstein used someone's transformantion to write a paper on the

photo optic effect, that effect was commonly used for motion picture

sound. He also used the Heinsenberg uncertanty principle, the h with the

~ on top. These were very popular and he got raves for using them.

So you must find a good use for your formula.

[Ana_Albania]

Yes, E=mc^2 is true!

[HallsofIvy]

E= mc^3 does not even have the right units: Energy, standard unit being Joules, has units of kg m^2/s^2. mc^3 would have units of kg m^3/s^3.

No, it is not possible for energy to be mc^3.

[Epsilon=One]

E= mc^3 does not even have the right units: Energy, standard unit being Joules, has units of kg m^2/s^2. mc^3 would have units of kg m^3/s^3.

No, it is not possible for energy to be mc^3.There are too many errors and probably typos (the "3" and "M") in the first post to attempt a meaningful reply.

And, airlinemusic (the grammar is not clear) may have confused the "Heinsenberg uncertanty principle" (sic.) with the reduced Planck constant "h-bar" (h/2pi)???

However, such has not constrained the reply of others; so here I go.

The physical (non-symbolic/non contrived) source of E=mc² is with the structure of the quantum, as described symbolicly by the Pulsoid Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/eP2), v = εP², which is derived from the Brunardot Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/BT), c² = 2v² – s². Thus, there would appear to be some physical truth to E = mc².

[HallsofIvy]

Epsilon=One wrote "There are too many errors and probably typos (the "3" and "M") in the first post to attempt a meaningful reply."

Were you referring to my use of "m" to mean "meters" where in the original post it was "mass". I don't see any other errors, but I will repost with no abbreviations.

The unit of energy in the meter-kilogram-second system is the "Joule" which can be defined as "the work necessary to lift a one Newton weight a distance of one meter" or, equivalently, as "the kinetic energy of a one kilogram mass moving at one meter per second".

Since the Newton itself is defined as "the force necessary to accelerate a one kilogram object at one meter per second per second", it has units of
"kilogram-meter/second^2". That is, the Joule has units of (kilogram-meter/second^2)*(meter)= kilogram (meter^2/second^2). Equivalently, since kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2, it has units of kilogram (meter/second)^2 which is the same thing.

"mc^3" would have to have units of "kilogram (meter/second)^3" or "kilogram (meter^3/second^3), not at all the same thing. Energy CANNOT be "mc^3" because it has the wrong units.

[HallsofIvy]

What IS it with the "spam filter" here? I typed out my response and when I tried to post, got a message that there were words the spam filter would not pass. I did what another person on this forum suggested: "cut" half the content and reposted to see if I could find the problem. It went through with no problem. So I edited repeatedly, adding one line back at a time. With each line it went through. Eventually, I had added back everything I had originally taken out and the "spam filter" passed the same words it had earlier refused! What a pain!

[OfficeShredder]

I think epsilon was referring to alkazar's post

[Epsilon=One]

I think epsilon was referring to alkazar's postYou're correct.

And, the SPAM filter is maddening. It doesn't accept many common words that contain syllables it doesn't like.

For instance: acc umulate; conge neric, etc. (A space between the letters of an objectionable syllable will let the word sail through. After awhile, you'll begin to think like the damn filter . . .

The filter doesn't seem to bother the actual SPAM. I must delete about 15, or so, SPAMs a day that have no problem posting. It almost seems the filter is just aimed at the legitimate posts.

Considering the amount of SPAM that gets posted, I can't imagine what useful purpose the filter serves. The SPAMers get around it much easier than the legitimate members do.

[OfficeShredder]

Interestingly enough, I've never had a problem with the spam filter. I kind of assumed there wasn't one because of all the spam that gets posted here.

[Epsilon=One]

Interestingly enough, I've never had a problem with the spam filter. I kind of assumed there wasn't one because of all the spam that gets posted here.Try posting words such as: ma ss, circ umvent, accu mulate, conge neric, etc. without the space between the letters.

Let me know what happens.

[OfficeShredder]

damnit! I guess I've just never used those words.

I find it surprising I've never said ma ss before

[Epsilon=One]

damnit! I guess I've just never used those words.

I find it surprising I've never said ma ss beforeThere's a message here somewhere when "ma ss" on a physics site is objectionable.

Best that I can determine the "filter" has only been operational for a few months. About the same time that the Pvt Msg box became operational after about a year of downtime. I'm still working on answering all of my Pvt Msgs, as some of you have probably noticed, that got lost for a year in cyberspace.

It really gets tricky when the objectionable syllable is in an URL. Spent part of a day figuring out a "work-around."

[scigg]

Is the formula E=mc3 physically possible? I mean if the M=mc2 made by Einstein is just a theory, or if it is possible to prove it?
Theory which is 99.9999999% right. Which proves tha E=MC3 is not.

[axlarry]

Is the formula E=mc3 physically possible? I mean if the M=mc2 made by Einstein is just a theory, or if it is possible to prove it?

you need to rephrase your question. It's too ambigous to answer :)

[gigowora]

The the most current formula, last I have read, and I do know a little about this subject/theory... I do not like these poor editors. Please forgive the crude math representation.

E=delta(m)(c)^4

Short answer for you to research...

The change in mass as you approach the speed of light (the rest should be easy. If you grasp the change in mass the closer to the speed of light, you will be teaching soon). The 4th power represents the 3 spacial coordinates (x,y,z) axis, plus t = time.

Hope this gives you something to think about.

[gigowora]

E=delta(m)(c)^4

There are 2 priciples to take you to the next level.

1. Let's start with the c^4. Light does move in all three spacial directions. This will be more clear in relavance later, but should be agreed.
2. Time. Any object with kinetic energy (object in motion) travels a distance with g (gravity) over a period (fixed or continuous) determining the kinetic energy.

Let's take the 2 in a combined example of the formula.

As you know, Newton's law, if I drop to different objects on Earth of different mass or weight, they hit the ground at the same time. Do not confuse weight and mass.

The same two different objects on the moon will fall to the ground at the same time. Ahh, same priciple with different results. Right? The realtive time is different. It takes longer for the same mass to fall on the Moon because g is different.

So, we have established that light goes in 3d.
And that g changes the relative mass.

Now, let's ge the the rocket ship fun part.

If a rocket is accelerating towards c, with mass x, as it passed different objects in space with a different g acting on it. The realtive mass would change.

OK, having said that. Imagine passing a planet approaching c. a g is acting on the ship. But, as I pass the planet the light refelcting off of the planet is traveling at the same speed as the ship. (Like two cars on the highway going the same speed looks like they are not moving until a tree is in reference).

If you look forward in from the ship the objects in front get bigger, right?

The objects (planet passed gets smaller, right?) WRONG!

The sunlight from when you passed is like the car next to you. The planet will remain as it did when you passed. The reference to the planet will not change until there is a differential in the ship and the rays of light.

If the rocket stops. The light from the planet's reflection will continue and a NEW frame of refernce is in place.

Back to the change in mass. The continuous change in mass as objects act on the ship are affecting the mass.

This is important becuase... The change in mass does what to the equation?

All objects have an attraction. Even the ship against the rays of light.

You have to think of physics as just energy views. It is that simple.

The E is changed as the mass changes as demonstrated here. Time is also affected becuase looking back from the rocket (you get the idea) would look like you have not left. However, looking forward, the destination is rapidly approaching at the same t-Time.

I hope this helps.

gigowora@gmail.com

[Epsilon=One]

E=delta(m)(c)^4...

...The E is changed as the mass changes as demonstrated here. Time is also affected becuase looking back from the rocket (you get the idea) would look like you have not left. However, looking forward, the destination is rapidly approaching at the same t-Time.

I hope this helps.Not really. There are many assumptions that you have made that are not correct.

Some of these assumptions are: you have not adequately identified what orthogonal dimensions are: i.e. there source; you have confused time and the speed of light as to which is constant and which dilates; you have assumed there is truth in the equations of relativity when relativistic high speeds are approached; you have made erroneous assumptions concerning a definition of gravity; you have not adequately accounted for the primacy of the Inverse Square Law and its application; nor, Lights relationship to its precursor that is mass; and, of course, the limits to which you can explain Reality (www.101123.com/T) with unproven symbolism; et cetera.

[gigowora]

You have made some points as I took liberties to try to explain years of learning and teaching in a paragraph or two. The double edge sword to replying to these questions.

I think we may agree to disagree, but please elaborate with specifics. Just remarking assumptions and errors (please) were made is not constructive.

I will agree with your Inverse Square Law point was an oversight in my brevity. Still, I admit I did not take everything into consideration as I wrote. I thank you for pointing that out.

[Epsilon=One]

You have made some points as I took liberties to try to explain years of learning and teaching in a paragraph or two. The double edge sword to replying to these questions.You are so correct. Ad hoc posting, especially in my case as one begins to enter senility, is most difficult.

I think we may agree to disagree, but please elaborate with specifics. Just remarking assumptions and errors (please) were made is not constructive.I agree. But, as you have pointed out, forum posts have their limitations. I will be more than happy to try to pursue our thoughts as far as discourse may bring a closer agreement. It is too soon to "agree to disagree"; we may agree far more than you suspect.

Please, pick a single point or two of the issues that I raised and I'll try to elaborate within the forum confines. Then, when our thoughts are exhausted we can move on to other "specifics."

I will agree with your Inverse Square Law point was an oversight in my brevity. Still, I admit I did not take everything into consideration as I wrote. I thank you for pointing that out.None of us are able to "take everything into consideration" as we write . . . especially within forum posts. Though, dialogue is, I believe, a great advantage to the forum format; as, the reader is able to easily "follow up" when more clarity is required.

I am amazed from my few words that you seem to understand much about my concern with the ISL. I have found few physicists with such insight.

[gigowora]

The inverse proportional relativity to the radiating source is more than a valid variable to the overall equation. In thinking more about it, It is just something I needed to apply. I reserve to table for now :) It is simple, I just want to think though it. I am leaning towards (hate i when i commit) There may be a new thoughts here you have inspired. I am thinking about not just the vector, but the relative (reference point) and the effect(s). I.e. I am wondering about which reference is prominent.

I am reminded of a post higher up than us. The poster remarked - If I were in a Rocketship that was traveling at 2 m/s slower than C. And I walked at 3 m/s towards the front of the ship. I would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

OK, I thougt. Let's start over!

Having read that, I want to think about how to apply the degradation. Writing out loud The degradation (for short unil I get the correct verbage) is realtive to the original reference point the source. How does we apply the degradation as it recharges from peripheral sources or degrades again from sources it passes.

OK, thanks for something to think about. Any thoughts are welcome. Since you brought it up. Help solve the problem :) Don't be a problem creator... Just kidding\\

So, hmmm.

[gigowora]

To continue our discussion.

Let's keep some privacy to my dabbling theories.

Time as a reference vs. objects.

Time, in a literary sense being: past, present and future. Work can be in the PPF. The delta is time (being that the objects are in simliar PE and kinetic domain).

E -described as either, The potenial E may not be in the same time reference as kinetic.

A given object:

1. Past - There was PE and there was kinetic. Glass fell off the table. or it never fell. PE existed and remains. and/or kinetic was observed and complete and back to PE.
2. Present - PE exists and Kinetic may be observed "Potential" in the future or may continue to be PE and or at a later time be kinetic
3. Future - PE may exist if the object STILL does. Kinetic is dependent on the PAST. Does it still exist? Kinetic is only potenital as it has not occured.

To our email discussion, the replacement of reference is fundamental.

Objects are more a constant, time makes them a variable. i.e. C is not a constant over the change in time observed by it reference point ( the non valid part from before)

It is getting late I hope I wrote the PPF correct. We all know what is intended there.

[Epsilon=One]

...to my dabbling theories.I appreciate your "dabbling"/random thoughts. I don't want to say too much that may abort the process . . . it does not matter whether you are right or wrong; only that you are thinking. Eventually the pinball will drop into the high-scoring pocket as you flip it about.

Time, in a literary sense being: past, present and future. Work can be in the PPF. The delta is time (being that the objects are in simliar PE and kinetic domain).No. Work cannot be in the present. The present does not exist; only the past and future exist. The present is at the limit of the infinitesimal; Infinity (www.101123.com/I) does not exist.

Glass fell off the table. or it never fell. PE existed and remains. and/or kinetic was observed and complete and back to PE.
2. Present - PE exists and Kinetic may be observed "Potential" in the future or may continue to be PE and or at a later time be kinetic
3. Future - PE may exist if the object STILL does. Kinetic is dependent on the PAST. Does it still exist? Kinetic is only potenital as it has not occured.Past and future cannot be easily observed locally, which is at too small a scale to differentiate. It is better to look to the Cosmos as examples of the past and future that can be observed simultaneously.

Objects are more a constant, time makes them a variable. i.e. C is not a constant over the change in time observed by it reference point ( the non valid part from before)Do not confuse the connotations of "time"; which the theories of physics do not consider. Time consists of a "clock" which generates pulses . . . and the counting of those pulses, which must be extremely precise and uniform; otherwise, the subatomic structure could never function; there would be chaos . . . a form of non-existence.

...I hope I wrote the PPF correct. We all know what is intended there.That requires a two part response that is dichotomous.

[gigowora]

Thanks for moving on.

[gigowora]

I guess you are on the other side of the fence. I was tired and not making much sense admitted.

I have to know yor thoughts here :) Presentism?

[Epsilon=One]

I guess you are on the other side of the fence.???

I have to know yor thoughts here :) Presentism?Which thoughts???

[gigowora]

Theory which is 99.9999999% right. Which proves tha E=MC3 is not.

What a waste of typing for all. Math is not your strongest if there is one.


Do not expect a reply.

[gigowora]

???

Which thoughts???

Sorry, been away for work. Not suggesting you have work on "Presentism" I just was interseted in your thoughts.

I hate to use WIKI but for short as I have to leave..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_%28philosophy_of_time%29

[kaka222]

E=mc^3 doesn't mean anything, so no. If we lived in a whole new dimension where scientists figured out that the energy equivalence to matter was proportional to the cube of some different speed of light, then maybe your statement might make sense, probably not though.

[HarleQuin]

I thought that was really interesting.

[HarleQuin]

Bacteria multiply.So 1 bacteria has x energy, related to its mass. If a bacteria is 1000 bacteria a some later stage...what is its energy content based on its mass? I dont know...

[HallsofIvy]

Bacteria multiply.So 1 bacteria has x energy, related to its mass. If a bacteria is 1000 bacteria a some later stage...what is its energy content based on its mass? I dont know...
Bacteria have to eat to increase their energy. It is not a closed system.

[HarleQuin]

E= mc^3 does not even have the right units: Energy, standard unit being Joules, has units of kg m^2/s^2. mc^3 would have units of kg m^3/s^3.

No, it is not possible for energy to be mc^3.

i fort vat was qwhite interesting.the guy below you is a genius.of certain callibre.(i dunno if you know that?i read a post-it(!) by him,and apparently aswell as being educated at Princeton,was on a work program with NASA.
so i'm off to read everything he's written here,i guess.....bye.

[HarleQuin]

Bacteria have to eat to increase their energy. It is not a closed system.

I forgot about that.i assumed that they would multiply or perhaps cannibalise.
Not a nice thought,i know,but you have to these things apparently.

[Paul N. Butler]

Alkazar;

E=MC^2 is roughly the equivalency relationship of total entity motion in the first five spatial dimensions between a photon of energy with a velocity of C=1 which only has motions in the first four spatial dimensions and a particle of matter at rest that also possesses motion in the fifth spatial dimension. Unlike the dimensional interface structure between the first three spatial dimensions and the fourth spatial dimension, which causes any composite three dimensional velocity greater than the speed of light to be induced into the fourth spatial dimension (thus generating the photon’s variable mass, frequency, and wavelength effects) velocity is only transferred from the fourth spatial dimension to the fifth spatial dimension to generate a matter particle (by causing the photon to take a curved path in the first three dimensions, which closes upon itself to create a matter particle (the particle is actually the enclosed path)) when certain angular components are present. It is therefore possible to have a photon with about .511 MEV with all of the motion above the speed of light contained in the fourth dimension and at the same time have an electron with about .511 MEV in which a portion of the motion has been transferred from the fourth dimension velocity to the fifth dimension to generate the fifth dimensional velocity. This velocity transfer can, of course, also go in the opposite direction under the proper conditions. C is squared due to the multiple expansion factor that an extra dimension (the fifth dimension) introduces. If you were to replace the C^2 with C^3 you would be implying that it was necessary to also include the sixth dimensional velocity for matter to get the total equivalency relationship with energy. This is not the case, however, because although the three to five dimensional entities that make up our structural system are a part (sub structure) of the eight spatial dimensional continuum, there is a structural disconnect between our structures and those of the upper three spatial dimensions. We may be an observable subset of anyone in those dimensions, but we are trapped in our five dimensional structure due to the limited nature of the entities that we are made of and so we can not observe them. To get an idea of what I am talking about, if a small two dimensional world existed on the surface of your desk, you would be able to look down and see everything going on in it from above, but any two dimensional creatures that existed in that world would not be able to look up and see you. They could only sense you if you chose to move into their two dimensional area and then only the part of you that overlapped that area. For matter particles in motion, momentum factors etc. must be added to the formula to account for the particles additional motions. Like all approximations other factors can come into play in advanced fifth vector structuring applications, (comment to future generations (not that it is likely that anyone will save this post for that long)) but for the present technology level here this should suffice.

[gigowora]

I finished another gig;). I am back to play, if you remember me. It has been about 4 years.

What are you thinking about

[gigowora]

Alkazar;

E=MC^2 is roughly the equivalency relationship of total entity motion in the first five spatial dimensions between a photon of energy with a velocity of C=1 which only has motions in the first four spatial dimensions and a particle of matter at rest that also possesses motion in the fifth spatial dimension. Unlike the dimensional interface structure between the first three spatial dimensions and the fourth spatial dimension, which causes any composite three dimensional velocity greater than the speed of light to be induced into the fourth spatial dimension (thus generating the photon’s variable mass, frequency, and wavelength effects) velocity is only transferred from the fourth spatial dimension to the fifth spatial dimension to generate a matter particle (by causing the photon to take a curved path in the first three dimensions, which closes upon itself to create a matter particle (the particle is actually the enclosed path)) when certain angular components are present. It is therefore possible to have a photon with about .511 MEV with all of the motion above the speed of light contained in the fourth dimension and at the same time have an electron with about .511 MEV in which a portion of the motion has been transferred from the fourth dimension velocity to the fifth dimension to generate the fifth dimensional velocity. This velocity transfer can, of course, also go in the opposite direction under the proper conditions. C is squared due to the multiple expansion factor that an extra dimension (the fifth dimension) introduces. If you were to replace the C^2 with C^3 you would be implying that it was necessary to also include the sixth dimensional velocity for matter to get the total equivalency relationship with energy. This is not the case, however, because although the three to five dimensional entities that make up our structural system are a part (sub structure) of the eight spatial dimensional continuum, there is a structural disconnect between our structures and those of the upper three spatial dimensions. We may be an observable subset of anyone in those dimensions, but we are trapped in our five dimensional structure due to the limited nature of the entities that we are made of and so we can not observe them. To get an idea of what I am talking about, if a small two dimensional world existed on the surface of your desk, you would be able to look down and see everything going on in it from above, but any two dimensional creatures that existed in that world would not be able to look up and see you. They could only sense you if you chose to move into their two dimensional area and then only the part of you that overlapped that area. For matter particles in motion, momentum factors etc. must be added to the formula to account for the particles additional motions. Like all approximations other factors can come into play in advanced fifth vector structuring applications, (comment to future generations (not that it is likely that anyone will save this post for that long)) but for the present technology level here this should suffice.

That is good practical physics input. I share that the question at hand is of theory. Agreed, 2-3 dimension example. However, this example is self defeating. We cannot have an experiment to prove theory by nature. This outside the "Sphere" PUN intended. :)

[Epsilon=One]

That is good practical physics input. I share that the question at hand is of theory. Agreed, 2-3 dimension example. However, this example is self defeating. We cannot have an experiment to prove theory by nature. This outside the "Sphere" PUN intended. :)The entire comment of Paul N. Butler reduces to irrationality when no definition of "dimension" is offered . . . not to mention a plethora of other terms without definition.

You are quite right concerning your generalized critical comment.

For a greater understanding of the issues involved see a fundamental theory such as Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PTis); or refer to: Korzybsky's "Science and Sanity," Third Edition.