2006-07-19 10:18:40 · 13 answers · asked by ravenfan 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
I would say omfg
2006-07-19 10:23:04 · answer #1 · answered by chieriog 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I have seen and understand the proof of E=mc^2. You could not possibly make me beleive that it is not true. The proof is just that... A PROOF. Geez, first people think we didnt land on the Moon, and now much lesser minds are trying to say Einstein's most famous equation is wrong?
Give me a break.
Ok. John M is wrong. Energy has the dimension of:
((mass)*(length)^2))/(time)^2
by his argument this is impossible and yet we explain a lot, and i mean alot of things as energy.
Apparently Jon also isn't great at math
186,000 miles/second = 1,116,000 mi/min
each squared
186,000^2 = 34,596,000,000 mi^2/s^2
1,116,000^2 = 124,545,600,000,000 mi^2/min^2
If we do a simple conversion of mi^2/s^2 to mi^2/min^2 we see that..
1 mi^2/s^2 = 3600 mi^2/min^2
lets multiply... 34,596,000,000 *3600
whats that equal too??? omg?!
124,545,600,000,000 mi^2/min^2...
Jon next time you think you know how to do a conversion don't even try... and if you've thought you were right for "years" those were some wasted years. If you don't believe me or can't do these conversions yourself, go ahead and use onlineconversion.com... oughta help.
2006-07-19 17:28:29 · answer #2 · answered by AresIV 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are correct sir. E=mc^2 is not a true equation, the actual equation includes a term that includes momentum. Simply put, light has 0 mass, so it should have 0 energy (0 times anything is 0). We all know that light has energy and a 'photon' describes this. However, light does have momentum (but no rest mass). Therefore the actual equation is E^2=(m^2)(c^4)+(p^2)(c^2) to account for massless particles. E=mc^2 is only a very good approximation for particles with mass at low speeds (compared to the speed of light).
2006-07-19 18:26:21 · answer #3 · answered by bob o 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i have been saying this for years, but no one understands it. the equation is a farce. you cannot square velocity. it is like obtaining the cube root of blue. only distance can be squared. if you use 186,000 miles per second, then you use 8,160,000 miles per minute, which are equal, square them both, and you get two different, unequal anwsers. what is the square of a second, or a minute? there is no such thing. einstein simply came up with an equation that could never be disproven with application.
2006-07-19 17:34:35 · answer #4 · answered by john m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then I would really know after all that there were no such things as nukes and I would go off and build a space ship that is faster than light. But after both things turned out to be wrong I would comeback and say back to the drawing board son.
2006-07-19 17:30:31 · answer #5 · answered by rcktpilot 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Einstein has a higher IQ, so I'll trust his judgement.
2006-07-19 17:20:18 · answer #6 · answered by ♥<ŦĦØΛ>♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then I'd know not to ask you to balance my cheque-book, or ask you for directions!
2006-07-19 17:31:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would tell you to check your vitamin "b" levels getting to your brain.
2006-07-19 17:22:05 · answer #8 · answered by Scottie D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I might agree if you were to show some proof.
2006-07-19 17:20:42 · answer #9 · answered by soundwookie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, e = 2.7183 - a constant.
So, you'd be right.
[the above is sarcasm]
2006-07-19 17:21:13 · answer #10 · answered by Will 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
then id say youre wrong, and einstein'd back me up.
2006-07-19 17:24:27 · answer #11 · answered by The Frontrunner 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋