# Why Ec2=m and energy x acceleration=force are true

Neither of those is a problem.

For the first, $$\frac{sqrt{A}}{sqrt{B}} = \sqrt{\frac{A}{B}}$$ (for all values of A and B)

Cool, I'm an idiot...

the speed of light is supposed to be a single constant value, so then when someone says, no no no, it must have all of this other junk also behind it, then you could solve for "c" and then find out if $$E = m c^{2} + other junk$$ actually gives you the correct speed of light.
More nonsense.

What is the speed of light squared anyways?
What is anything squared? The number, times itself. Didn't you learn this in grade school?

I thought everything was supposed to be shown that there is a single constant value of c, not $$c^{2}$$, lol.
Yes, there is a single value of c and the speed of light is constant in all reference frames but so what? Multiplying that number by anything (including itself) neither adds nor subtracts to the constancy of c in all reference frames.

By the way, I think $$c = sqrt{\frac{E}{m}}$$ does look a lot better.

No matter how many ways you write it, the formula is useless to anyone who doesn't understand what the relationships mean, and cannot apply it to the pursuit of understanding nature.

E=mc2 x c2 hyperspeed a meaningful understanding

Eienstien used algebra remember and E has a value M has a value and c2 has a value. Let's use some algebra, trig, calculus along with some statistical wave math. Lets say 0 is the center on an x, y, and z planes of existence inotherwards a quadrant chart. Now lets plot the path of E, M and c2. For example, E + 1/m-2= c2(c2+1) x the square root of 4. Or A(E-1) x B(Mx2)=Z +1 am I making sense yet?

-m x -c2 + E > 0 is an integer for example

Maximum Planck said:
teh forum elites want to shut me up because they think they have bigger physics dicks. and thus they are superior.

Not superior, just that they actually attended the lectures and labs, studied, and burned the midnight oil in order to learn how to solve the very basic problems you cannot begin to address, since you wasted away your educational years - so yeah, I can see how you would feel like you have reason to identify the accomplished people with - were you referring to prowess? - since you no doubt feel so inadequate discussing science, even though you have donned the prosthetic appliance of - Maximum Planck? How appropriate. Just remember: you must first get the Planck out of your own eye so that you may see, in order to remove the quantum particle from theirs. :m:

You were told in the site rules that this is a place of scientific discussion. What did you expect?

And you're a picture of humility and do not claim superior knowledge or skill, I assume.
Yes, I am.

Firstly the posters here aren't 'forum elites', don't imagine some cabal of people out to get you.
if you are from a "cabal", you will say that you are not.

Secondly someone showing they understand units doesn't give them a 'bigger physics dick' or make one 'superior', it shows they paid attention in physics lessons when they were 15. This isn't high brow stuff, it is a concept fundamental to any kind of description of physical things, be it engineering, chemistry, biology or physics.
but their very condescending

You should do something about that chip on your shoulder, it must be giving you balance problems.
and you think talking like that helps me get rid of chip?

Not superior, just that they actually attended the lectures and labs, studied, and burned the midnight oil in order to learn how to solve the very basic problems you cannot begin to address, since you wasted away your educational years - so yeah, I can see how you would feel like you have reason to identify the accomplished people with - were you referring to prowess? - since you no doubt feel so inadequate discussing science, even though you have donned the prosthetic appliance of - Maximum Planck? How appropriate. Just remember: you must first get the Planck out of your own eye so that you may see, in order to remove the quantum particle from theirs. :m:

You were told in the site rules that this is a place of scientific discussion. What did you expect?
NOPE. Please don't quote the Bible.

NOPE. Please don't quote the Bible.

Ah, so you're an anti-science Creationist. Case closed.

My friend, not everything can be explain with physics and euqations.

Except, of course, physics -- which was the topic here.

Neither of those is a problem.

For the first, $$\frac{sqrt{A}}{sqrt{B}} = \sqrt{\frac{A}{B}}$$ (for all values of A and B)

Well not exactly the same. Note the problem you'd have calculating the one on the left using real arithmetic (esp. computing) for the case A<0, B<0, vs. the absence of the problem calculating the one on the right under the same conditions.

Well not exactly the same. Note the problem you'd have calculating the one on the left using real arithmetic (esp. computing) for the case A<0, B<0, vs. the absence of the problem calculating the one on the right under the same conditions.
See, this is why I was never more than a mediocre programmer.

Eienstien used algebra remember and E has a value M has a value and c2 has a value. Let's use some algebra, trig, calculus along with some statistical wave math. Lets say 0 is the center on an x, y, and z planes of existence inotherwards a quadrant chart. Now lets plot the path of E, M and c2. For example, E + 1/m-2= c2(c2+1) x the square root of 4. Or A(E-1) x B(Mx2)=Z +1 am I making sense yet?

Not even a little tiny bit...:shrug:

NOPE. Please don't quote the Bible.

Blessed are the cheese makers.

Cool, I'm an idiot...
Don’t be too harsh on yourself. Sometimes the simplest mathematical details escape our attention until pointed out to us.

The detail here being the branch cut of the square root function. If we define $$i = \sqrt{-1}$$ then $$\frac{\sqrt{1}}{\sqrt{-1}} = \frac{1}{i} = -i$$ yet $$\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}} = \sqrt{-1} = i$$. A similar problem occures if we define $$-i = \sqrt{-1}$$ so the problem traces to the existence of the branch cut.

If we have some sort of multi-valued arithmetic, we can write $$( i | -i ) = \pm \sqrt{-1}$$ and then $$( i | -i ) = \pm\sqrt{-1} = \pm\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}} \approx \frac{\pm\sqrt{1}}{\pm\sqrt{-1}} = \frac{1}{(i | -i)} = ( -i | i ) \approx ( i | -i )$$ were the last equivalence is not an equals sign, but an observation that unitary minus and/or conjugation just permutes the order of the multi-values.

The detail here being the branch cut of the square root function. If we define $$i = \sqrt{-1}$$ then $$\frac{\sqrt{1}}{\sqrt{-1}} = \frac{1}{i} = -i$$ yet $$\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}} = \sqrt{-1} = i$$. A similar problem occures if we define $$-i = \sqrt{-1}$$ so the problem traces to the existence of the branch cut.

If we have some sort of multi-valued arithmetic, we can write $$( i | -i ) = \pm \sqrt{-1}$$ and then $$( i | -i ) = \pm\sqrt{-1} = \pm\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}} \approx \frac{\pm\sqrt{1}}{\pm\sqrt{-1}} = \frac{1}{(i | -i)} = ( -i | i ) \approx ( i | -i )$$ were the last equivalence is not an equals sign, but an observation that unitary minus and/or conjugation just permutes the order of the multi-values.
That is true; nevertheless the formula $$\sqrt{\frac{a}{b}}=\frac{\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{b}}$$ is valid when $$a$$ and $$b$$ are positive real numbers. In the equation $$c=\sqrt{\frac{E}{m}}=\frac{\sqrt{E}}{\sqrt{m}}$$ the values for energy and mass are indeed real and positive – unless we’re talking about tachyons.

Last edited:
how much energy is greater or less than mc2. An inequality if we are talking that an imaginary number is an approximation?

how much energy is greater or less than mc2. An inequality if we are talking that an imaginary number is an approximation?

It would really help the discussion if you did not write sentences that look like they were constructed with a random word generator.