e=mc squared

sibweni · Senior Member

e=mc squared

micahj3k · Member

JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?

sibweni · Senior Member

is it true that we are products of it?

jones_1 · Veteran Member

E-energy

m-mass

c squared-the square of the speed of light

HEEEEYYY abres!! im sure you can explain this further!!help our brother out!!

abre les ojos · Guru

He can google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2

That should answer his question. If it doesn't I'll put it in lay terms..

sibweni · Senior Member

too much to read man abre i just want to know how man is the product of the equation

abre les ojos · Guru

sibweni wrote:

too much to read man abre i just want to know how man is the product of the equation

Man is technically a product of it. It's a theory on time, energy and space. If it helps understand the origins of the universe then probably it is. In relation to our position in the universe and the forces that have shaped it in time and space then yes, it does have a part to play.

But you have to understand as basic as it is it is just a theory. The theory has been used to understand energy and was the precurser to the atom bomb. But whether you can measure time and space in relation to what Einstein proposed we'll probably never know in our lifetime. Still scientists are at the moment, in Sweden I think, running a simualtion that might just do that.

micahj3k · Member

sibweni wrote:

too much to read man abre i just want to know how man is the product of the equation

Iguess as the saying goes.............If you want to hide information from a black man put it in writing...........Whats wrong with people and not wanting to read.........lol

Of course not everyone.......but majority of the black people do not read.

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuum wat a shame.

sibweni · Senior Member

micah j if you dond know abt the subject stay away i did read but couldnt understand this is no simple thingm its serious thing no wonder all knob heads wont touch it? i want to know what is it ? what does it have to do the much speculated supernova? if you kno nothing abt it please dont poke yo nose in.

abre les ojos · Guru

sibweni wrote:

micah j if you dond know abt the subject stay away i did read but couldnt understand this is no simple thingm its serious thing no wonder all knob heads wont touch it? i want to know what is it ? what does it have to do the much speculated supernova? if you kno nothing abt it please dont poke yo nose in.

You've asked a complex question. Unfortunately the answer cannot be simplified that easily unless you have a little physics knowledge. So I did the easiest thing and cut you a wiki link.

amdala · Senior Member

people of little faith, you have but eyes cant see, you have ears but hearing mayazi, you read but no understanding -:

man is NOT the product of the equation but vice versa....

MAN is a product of dothi la mdimba numpweya wanamalenga, ali, product product chani? listen to the words of wisdom and learn, dont waste time following the trails of 'learned' fools, who think man is a result of 'kuphulika kwa mpweya' ndi kukula kwatizirombo ndi kukalamba kwaanyani!

chabwino i will explain ur equation, but, rather will just xpound on what jones1 has narrated, wait, pang'ono...

abre les ojos · Guru

Amdala you sound like n undeducated fool. Since you are so sure what man is a product of why don't you put forward your EVIDENCE and not that rubbish you read in the bible. Let's see your evidence, compare it to the one's put forward by other scientists, and if yours can stand rigorous analysis, then it'll be out forward for consideration.

Either that or just shut up!!

amdala · Senior Member

for u abre,

know what the books i read tell me that who ever or what ever says 'God is not alive' is a fool, sorry man but to amdala u just a damn fool, now u shut up n listen...

last year i asked a simple ?? n u were mute, d u rmember? space boss space? the evidence is space! d u believe that the americans have been to the moon? if u do then u really need xooling again! if u dont then i will ask u now, do you have any idea about the 'speed' of the earth earth as it rotates around the sun? do u know that NO BODY, i repeat nobody even you, abre, the big mouth, knows why we colliding with 'other' bodies in space? forget magnetism, gravity? give m a break, its called 'power'... can explain power?

man u shut the hell up! i believe he will b back, chabwino inu mudzakhala nkhuni zosonkhezera ife but u'll burn 1st b4 i do!! lol

amdala · Senior Member

look now mukutilakwitsa, i meant to say why w not collinding wit dem bodies ina space!!

lord have mercy!

abre les ojos · Guru

amdala wrote:

for u abre,
know what the books i read tell me that who ever or what ever says 'God is not alive' is a fool, sorry man but to amdala u just a damn fool, now u shut up n listen...
last year i asked a simple ?? n u were mute, d u rmember? space boss space? the evidence is space! d u believe that the americans have been to the moon? if u do then u really need xooling again! if u dont then i will ask u now, do you have any idea about the 'speed' of the earth earth as it rotates around the sun? do u know that NO BODY, i repeat nobody even you, abre, the big mouth, knows why we colliding with 'other' bodies in space? forget magnetism, gravity? give m a break, its called 'power'... can explain power?
man u shut the hell up! i believe he will b back, chabwino inu mudzakhala nkhuni zosonkhezera ife but u'll burn 1st b4 i do!! lol

What are you talking about? Did you even go to school? All the nonsense that you just wrote has been theorised since the 16th century. You're waaay behind dude.
I'm not here to teach you rudimentary physics, I suggest you go read it elsewhere.

"power"? What the hell are you talking about? You sound like an illiterate, which is probably what you are....

skillzmanifest · Senior Member

Amadala leave diabolus.

laughably, this is a guy who uses wikipedia as a source. Then tries to lie to the originator of this topic about how the theory of relativity is a product of man. Having failed to provide expanation for this crime to modern physics, he then tries to insult the originator's intelligence by telling him to google it and refers him to a wikipedia article. Something a scholastic would never do for fear of redicule or even mockery.

Sibweni
To tell you the truth, in the current state of modern physics, noone here can give you an answer on that. If there is something that you know or found out that suggests that we are a product of it , and the research is not inconclusive, then let us in. I'd be more than happy to be enlightend. The equation itself, shows the relationship of energy with the other variables, as jones 1 indicated, indepedant of anything else. Perhaps if the question was restated, then maybe there would better discussion. Otherwise, noone should tell you its too complicate. For sciencific paradigm is based on simplification.

For those who aren't in the know, the credibility of wikipedia is not considered a credible source in the academic world. Notice how its text is fully edible, allowing for idiots to post inacurate information. Heck, anyone on this forum can post something on that.

If my boy Einstien was still alive, he would have back handed this goon.

abre les ojos · Guru

If you followed ANY of my previous posts you'll see that I once questioned someone who used wiki as a source of information.

But I read the information and it WAS valid so I pasted a link. However you don't seem to know what you're saying but just using it as a platform to discredit me. But you're intellectually inferior so I don't really care that much.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

skillzmanifest wrote:

...The equation itself, shows the relationship of energy with the other variables, as jones 1 indicated, indepedant of anything else. Perhaps if the question was restated, then maybe there would better discussion. Otherwise, noone should tell you its too complicate. For sciencific paradigm is based on simplification...

Did you just call relativity theory (and all of science) "uncomplicated"? You do realise that most of the folk reading your post are lay-persons right?

Anyway, the significance of the Einsteins theory of relativity lies in it's ramifications (as opposed to its mere content). I don't think you could slot in the variables and come up with "man" for an answer, but it (apparently) does provide a useful way of explaining objects in motion, and has wider implications that are yet to be fully understood . Maybe Sibweni should rephrase the question.

abre les ojos · Guru

awmygawd wrote:

Did you just call relativity theory (and all of science) "uncomplicated"? You do realise that most of the folk reading your post are lay-persons right?

Anyway, the significance of the Einsteins theory of relativity lies in it's ramifications (as opposed to its mere content). I don't think you could slot in the variables and come up with "man" for an answer, but it (apparently) does provide a useful way of explaining objects in motion, and has wider implications that are yet to be fully understood . Maybe Sibweni should rephrase the question.

Thank you!

The fact is the initial question was vague. The question didn't make much sense. I personally was assuming what I thought he meant and realised I was answering what he didn't.

skillzmanifest · Senior Member

awmygawd wrote:

skillzmanifest wrote:
...The equation itself, shows the relationship of energy with the other variables, as jones 1 indicated, indepedant of anything else. Perhaps if the question was restated, then maybe there would better discussion. Otherwise, noone should tell you its too complicate. For sciencific paradigm is based on simplification...

Did you just call relativity theory (and all of science) "uncomplicated"? You do realise that most of the folk reading your post are lay-persons right?

Anyway, the significance of the Einsteins theory of relativity lies in it's ramifications (as opposed to its mere content). I don't think you could slot in the variables and come up with "man" for an answer, but it (apparently) does provide a useful way of explaining objects in motion, and has wider implications that are yet to be fully understood . Maybe Sibweni should rephrase the question.

No buddy. I did not call the relativity theory and the rest of the sciences 'uncomplicated', I used the term simplified. That all of these bodies of knowledge that follow scientific method is based on simplification or better yet, abstraction. To be more clear about this, I was specifically addressing the formula itself, not the theory in its entirety. Which was what I understood to be what this topic was about, as it is headlined E=mc2.

When Scientists examine relationships between certain variables, they purposefully leave out other factors. The relativity theory equation, like many other models, is for that matter, very simplified. Infact it disregards other occurences and makes various assumptions. In essence, unreal models are used to explain real life relationships.

I think all of us can agree that this topic or rather the question needs to be better elaborated.