Universe Expansion

[TheBox]

If I add E=mc^3 to water it ''expands''

If I add E=mc^3 to metal it ''expands''

If I add E=mc^3 to a gaseous medium it ''expands''

If I add E=mc^3 to the human body it ''expands''

I must be stupid to think that adding E=mc^3 to the Universe would make it ''expand''

 

[Debed]

Right.
I am going to assume that the number 3 is a spelling error.
In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.

So you can not «add» the formula to water, metal, gases, human body or the universe.

You can add more mass, or you can add more velocity to a body, but the formula is still E=mc^2

 

[TheBox]

Right.
I am going to assume that the number 3 is a spelling error.
In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.

So you can not «add» the formula to water, metal, gases, human body or the universe.

You can add more mass, or you can add more velocity to a body, but the formula is still E=mc^2

When I was at school , a volume was 3-dimensional not two dimensional .

Space-time is also 3-dimensional

A photons energy is divided by the volume , not just a surface .

E=mc^3 satisfies math logic and the physical process .

Place a lots of marbles in an empty box , is the formation of the marbles 2d or 3d ?

Ok, I don't actually think E=mc^2 was ever actually an equation , it was Einstein's way of explaining the process with a physical formula . The math of it isn't actually correct and meaningless . Yes I have used E=mc^3 but I explain E=m(c^3/V) which is an exact summation of the total energy of a body or system .

Consider a sponge , when it is dry the summation of energy is E=mc^3 the c^3 being the conserved light of the volume .

Now if we add water to the volume , we have E=mc^3+mc^3

I think Einstein just went along with science because they thought it was an equation .

Energy actually equals all the material of the body + all the charge of the body/t + photons/t

 

[TheBox]

So you can not «add» the formula to water, metal, gases, human body or the universe.

When you turn on a hob E=mc^3 is what you are doing . You are adding light to the water etc .

 

[TheBox]

Right.
I am going to assume that the number 3 is a spelling error.
In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.

So you can not «add» the formula to water, metal, gases, human body or the universe.

You can add more mass, or you can add more velocity to a body, but the formula is still E=mc^2

Look its quite simple , I have used boiling water to show you . Maybe it should be E=m(ev/V)/t ?

 

[Debed]

E=mc^2 is just a formula to calculate how much potential energy there is in an object.

The second squared is not about dimensions.

 

[TheBox]

E=mc^2 is just a formula to calculate how much potential energy there is in an object.

The second squared is not about dimensions.

299,792,458m isn't a dimension , what school did you go ?

The term "squared" is often used in mathematics to represent a particular operation that multiplies a number by itself. What exactly does squared mean in math? Squared is a mathematical term that refers to the number 2 being multiplied by itself. In other words, it means "two raised to the power of two."

299,792,458m ^2

So you are telling me E=meters/per second ?

I must have zero energy today because I am stationary .

See my friend m1 and m2 has energy even if they don't collide . The potential energy released from a collision is the product of itself . A collision doesn't make new energy , only space can create new energy .

In a collision kilograms of force is applied , F=m1*a

mass can't travel at c so mc^2 fails physics and mathematical logic.

Let us take a set of scales and place a 1kg object on the scales . The scales will measure 2kg because the 1kg object and the earth is both applying a force acting on each other .

Now let us raise this object 9.81m off the ground and then drop it . It falls at 9.81m/s2 which means it will take one second to hit the scales .

Let us input the equation F=ma2

F=2kg*9.81m/s2 =19.62kg of force (I did this wrong , considered a constant speed instead of the acceleration .)

Try dropping this on a set of scales and this what it should measure if the acceleration is correct .

P.s c is an acceleration but can't be used for mass .

Einstein was trying to say that when a photon hits matter , the photon is divided by the area , hence mc^x,y

Drop a ball of plasticine from a height and you can see this when it lands . Shine a projector at a wall , E=mc^x,y

9.81m/s2 hmmm, seems like a second from 1m height , is that correct? Maybe it should be a 1m/s2 ? I can count 1.s why something falls from a meter and about 1.5 seconds from 2 meters .

 

[TheBox]

E=mc^2 is just a formula to calculate how much potential energy there is in an object.

The second squared is not about dimensions.

I think F=ma/2 as just failed math and physical logic because I get the same result for an object at rest and an object falling from a 1m height .

1kg*0m/s=1kg of force

1kg*1m/s=1kg of force (error)

Try it , drop an object from ~1m height , you can count 1 before it hits the floor so it is travelling at ~1m/s

And don't reply it is travelling at 9.81m/s2 because it's not , I am dropping it from ~1m and it is travelling ~1m/s

1m/s is ~2.2369 miles per hour so I think 1kg*2.2369 would be the answer of the force of a 1kg object being dropped from a 1m height . so 2.2369 kilograms of force .

so F=m(mph)

1kg*(0mph)=1kg of force

1kg*(2.3369mph)=2.2369 kg of force

 

[Debed]

299,792,458m isn't a dimension , what school did you go ?

That is the speed of light in a vacuum. You thought it was a dimension?

The term "squared" is often used in mathematics to represent a particular operation that multiplies a number by itself. What exactly does squared mean in math? Squared is a mathematical term that refers to the number 2 being multiplied by itself. In other words, it means "two raised to the power of two."

No, it means that the number is being multiplied with itself. For example, 3^2=3x3=9

299,792,458m ^2

So you are telling me E=meters/per second ?

Nope. No idea how you even could reach such a conclusion, but that is irrelevant.

I must have zero energy today because I am stationary .

According to E=mc^2, you got a lot of energy in you.

See my friend m1 and m2 has energy even if they don't collide . The potential energy released from a collision is the product of itself . A collision doesn't make new energy , only space can create new energy .

No, not even space can create energy. Do not forget the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can not be created or destroyed.

In a collision kilograms of force is applied , F=m1*a

Ok.

mass can't travel at c so mc^2 fails physics and mathematical logic.

Let us take a set of scales and place a 1kg object on the scales . The scales will measure 2kg because the 1kg object and the earth is both applying a force acting on each other .

Now let us raise this object 9.81m off the ground and then drop it . It falls at 9.81m/s2 which means it will take one second to hit the scales .

Let us input the equation F=ma2

F=2kg*9.81m/s2 =19.62kg of force (I did this wrong , considered a constant speed instead of the acceleration .)

Try dropping this on a set of scales and this what it should measure if the acceleration is correct .

P.s c is an acceleration but can't be used for mass .

Einstein was trying to say that when a photon hits matter , the photon is divided by the area , hence mc^x,y

Drop a ball of plasticine from a height and you can see this when it lands . Shine a projector at a wall , E=mc^x,y

9.81m/s2 hmmm, seems like a second from 1m height , is that correct? Maybe it should be a 1m/s2 ? I can count 1.s why something falls from a meter and about 1.5 seconds from 2 meters .

Are you mixing things up?
Having light squared means multiplying the speed of light with itself. It has nothing to do with square meters or anything resembling the shape of a square.
Take a football and kick it. You have thus increased its energy by using some of your own energy.

 

[TheBox]

That is the speed of light in a vacuum. You thought it was a dimension?

No, it means that the number is being multiplied with itself. For example, 3^2=3x3=9

Nope. No idea how you even could reach such a conclusion, but that is irrelevant.

According to E=mc^2, you got a lot of energy in you.

No, not even space can create energy. Do not forget the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Ok.

Are you mixing things up?
Having light squared means multiplying the speed of light with itself. It has nothing to do with square meters or anything resembling the shape of a square.
Take a football and kick it. You have thus increased its energy by using some of your own energy.

Oh you are another robot .

Seems as you have low intelligence , lets start here ,

Which part of mass can't travel at the speed of light don't you understand ?

 

[Debed]

Oh you are another robot .

Seems as you have low intelligence , lets start here ,

Which part of mass can't travel at the speed of light don't you understand ?

What part made you think that the formula said anything about travelling at light speed?

 

[TheBox]

What part made you think that the formula said anything about travelling at light speed?

Hmm, meters a second and squared gives it away !

What makes you think that the formula doesn't say anything about travelling at light speed?

I can't wait for your answer , this should be good seems as CERN uses this to get results by colliding particles .

We will all await your explanation of the equation without using any travel involvement !

I even added a diagram to help you explain

 

[TheBox]

What part made you think that the formula said anything about travelling at light speed?

Here is another diagram to help you , if you can't explain it to 6 year old , you know .

 

[TheBox]

No, not even space can create energy. Do not forget the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Additionally repeating present information theory isn't a valid argument against new theory .

You'd have to prove my theory incorrect !

Your statement is contradictory to physics , because if energy cannot be created , then where did the big bang energy come from ?

Space can and does create energy all the time and this can be detected , it's called the cosmic background microwave radiation .

See my friend , absolute space can never become less , it can only change in one way

Δ0=ΔE

Here's the opening argument and question .

Could a point of empty space (x0,y0,z0,) over trillions and trillions of years of what we call time , manifest a single point of static energy , namely a point of conserved light , zero point energy ?

Does the Sun create energy ? Yes it does which shows this statement ''Energy can not be created or destroyed'' to be false .
Electrical energy is created , again showing this statement ''Energy can not be created or destroyed'' to be false .

A single point of energy in an absolute space cannot have transition motion because all points are identical in state . So the point of energy is already attracted to the point it occupies , retaining the conservation state .
In simple terms it can't revert the point back to its original empty state because it would be breaking physical laws . It is equally attracted to its own point as any other point .

As I explained in the theory of realism , this is a 1:1 conservation ratio . If it were not for this , things would not be able to move .

All points have to retain a 1:1 ratio so if there is any increase , a 2:1 for example , 1 of the 2 has to move because it can't be conserved . It moves until it finds an empty point where it is then conserved .

Empty points can be found at the edge of space-time .

 

[Debed]

Additionally repeating present information theory isn't a valid argument against new theory .

You'd have to prove my theory incorrect !

Your statement is contradictory to physics , because if energy cannot be created , then where did the big bang energy come from ?

The energy was there. Whether it was in the form of a singularity or something else, is irrelevant. Energy can not be created or destroyed. It just changes form.

Space can and does create energy all the time and this can be detected , it's called the cosmic background microwave radiation .

The background radiation is a proof of the big bang.

See my friend , absolute space can never become less , it can only change in one way

Δ0=ΔE

Here's the opening argument and question .

Could a point of empty space (x0,y0,z0,) over trillions and trillions of years of what we call time , manifest a single point of static energy , namely a point of conserved light , zero point energy ?

Does the Sun create energy ? Yes it does which shows this statement ''Energy can not be created or destroyed'' to be false .
Electrical energy is created , again showing this statement ''Energy can not be created or destroyed'' to be false .

The sun does not create energy. The sun relies on fusion (and quantum mechanics) to fuse together atoms. And since energy can not be created, nor destroyed, the leftover energy from such a fusion makes it shiny, and deadly.
This is elemental physics, man.

A single point of energy in an absolute space cannot have transition motion because all points are identical in state . So the point of energy is already attracted to the point it occupies , retaining the conservation state .
In simple terms it can't revert the point back to its original empty state because it would be breaking physical laws . It is equally attracted to its own point as any other point .

As I explained in the theory of realism , this is a 1:1 conservation ratio . If it were not for this , things would not be able to move .

All points have to retain a 1:1 ratio so if there is any increase , a 2:1 for example , 1 of the 2 has to move because it can't be conserved . It moves until it finds an empty point where it is then conserved .

Empty points can be found at the edge of space-time .

Maybe I have not had enough coffee yet, but this does not appear to make sense.
What are you even talking about here?

 

[Debed]

Hmm, meters a second and squared gives it away !

What makes you think that the formula doesn't say anything about travelling at light speed?

On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.

 

[TheBox]

On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.

No it doesn't , it says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared .

How does that equate to your definition/explanation ?

Explain the physical process of E=mc^2 ?

Remember if you can't explain it to a six year old you don't understand it yourself .

 

[TheBox]

The energy was there. Whether it was in the form of a singularity or something else, is irrelevant. Energy can not be created or destroyed. It just changes form.

So you are saying before the big bang there was energy ?

The background radiation is a proof of the big bang.

You are just repeating present information and not considering the the background radiation could be something else . By the way unbounded radiation travels outwards as a general rule of thumb . Detecting a proposed background radiation can't be what you think .

The sun does not create energy. The sun relies on fusion (and quantum mechanics) to fuse together atoms. And since energy can not be created, nor destroyed, the leftover energy from such a fusion makes it shiny, and deadly.
This is elemental physics, man.

Again you are repeating present information , that isn't a counter argument . The sun does create energy , what do you think light is ? What do you think electric charge is ? What do think particles are ?

Maybe I have not had enough coffee yet, but this does not appear to make sense.
What are you even talking about here?

I will put in basic language for you , a Higgs field is spaces conservation of light . This light is ''fixed'' to space by a force .

However , its not really a field because fields have to emanate from a source .

A Quantum Mainframe Server ( Q.M.S) is a volume of conserved light that serves the purpose of every thing . This is my modern version and correct version of space-time etc .

All Q.M.S have an energy constant E=V any given point (x0,y0,z0,) having a conservation max limit of 1:1 that remains constant throughout the entire volume . However , this constant law is broken at any Q.M.S core because of gravity-B tensors creating black holes at the core of each Q.M.S . The BH is then where the Big bang fits and the high temperature , high density state is formed , forming a star .

 

[marvas]

1kg*0m/s=1kg of force

1kg*1m/s=1kg of force (error)

Actually 1*0=0

Did you fail primary school or what ?

 

[TheBox]

1*0=0
Did you fail primary school or what ?

Now this is where I am going to make you feel silly because I am quite the math genius too .

If you have £1 in your hand and you times that by 0 , how many pound do you have left in your hand ?

See my friend , physical reality isn't the same as imaginary numbers . The value of 1 in imaginary numbers is 0 .

The value of £1 in physical reality is £1

You have just failed my advanced class but in all fairness you haven't attended any lessons .

 

[marvas]

After the genius Einstupidein who failed highschool, here comes another one who failed elementary school. But, will he get the Nobel prize ? Surely he deserves it after he proved that 1*0=1 ! His demonstration, a highly advanced experiment which involves holding one pound in a hand, or a coin in a pocket, cannot be refuted by anyone. Except primary school children, who of course are wrong because they did not attend his highly advanced classes. Just like highschool students are wrong because they did not attend Einstupideins classes who ignored highschool physics because he was too advanced to go to highschool and he made up his own highly advanced alternate maths and physics instead. Were gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space-time, light is not a wave in a medium, but a particle in space, which is bent by mass, because Einstupidein did not learn about waves and refraction in highschool. Or about geodesics, which he applies erratically and illogically in empty space, because Einstupidein did not learn that geodesics can only be applied to a curved surface, such as the earth's- which is where the concept of GEOdesic comes from. It is a measurement of the curvature of the earth's surface. Space has no physical surface so it is logically and physically imposible for it to have any geodesics.

 

[TheBox]

After the genius Einstupidein who failed highschool, here comes another one who failed elementary school. But, will he get the Nobel prize ? Surely he deserves it after he proved that 1*0=1 ! His demonstration, a highly advanced experiment which involves holding one pound in a hand, or a coin in a pocket, cannot be refuted by anyone. Except primary school children, who of course are wrong because they did not attend his highly advanced classes. Just like highschool students are wrong because they did not attend Einstupideins classes which ignores highschool physics because he has his own highly advanced alternate maths and physics instead.

That is pretty much correct even though you were trying to be sarcastic .

Try this :

Lesson 3 -division

1/2 is not equal to 0.5

2/2=1

2/0.5=4

The reason for this is the 1 of 2 is the primary dominator

In example 30 divided in half or by half is 30/2=15

It is never 30/0.5=60

1/2 states to divide the dominator by 2, the 1 being any value primary dominator .

30/0.5 states divide by a quarter of 2 and that is why the answer comes back 60 .

0.5*4=2