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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by ryan2006, Mar 7, 2013.

1. ### ryan2006Registered Member

Messages:
14
Albert Einstien is famous for his equation e=mc2, I said ec2=m after observing a tree. Knowing that the tree was made up of both mass and energy I simply put the c2 on the other side of the equation. Through observation we know that Alpha, Beta, and Gamma rays are emitted from the sun as well as photons. The (energy) as it passes through time and space divides the planets(mass) while the planet(mass) divides the alpha, beta, and gamma waves passing through space and time. We know Sir Iaasac Newton was right when he said mass x acceleration= force is true so I added energy x acceleration=force is true. We know Einstien used algebra so e=mc2 also means mass divided by both sides or e/m=c2 while with ec2=m thus by dividing both sides by e we get c2=m/e. mass x acceleration= force is mass at a contant acceleration of light squared while energy x acceleration= force is energy multiplied by the constant acceleration of light squared. The reason why energy x acceleration=force is true is that you see I have a black belt in Tae Kwon Do; when you punch both mass and energy accelerate so energy my chi focused on a board will break the board. I do not have the mathematical proofs for Ec2=m other than talking with universities over the past three years.

3. ### ryan2006Registered Member

Messages:
14
How do you propose to elaborate a mathematical proof when you don't have a PH.D in Physics. or I mean I don't.

5. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
Your equation is dimensionally incorrect, so it can't be right.

Back to the drawing board, I guess.

That's also dimensionally incorrect. Look:

mass times acceleration is like kg times metres over seconds squared, which is the same as force.

But energy times acceleration is $kg.m^3/s^4$, which is not a force.

So, your equation can't be right.

7. ### eramSciengineerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,875
yeah, that's the first thing I noticed.
But of course it's not right, ryan's trolling and deliberately posting nonsense.

8. ### Maximum_PlanckRegistered Member

Messages:
54
CORRECT.

WRONG.

Dimensional "correctness" is not required for equation to be valid.

9. ### NehushtanRegistered Member

Messages:
29
Yes, it is required. We know that force = mass × acceleration. To say that energy × acceleration = force would be equivalent to saying energy = mass, which is false. There’s a factor of velocity-squared missing.

Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
10. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
That's all good but you're either mistaken or just trolling. Your post is cast something like a parody on science by a Creationist. Of course maybe that's not it at all, maybe you're just mistaken. In that case, I would suggest you take a class in geometry and begin to learn something about the scientific method. Unlike religion (if that's your game) science can't rely on non-sequitur connections between cause and effect. It has to come from a real connection--unlike your examples. It also has to come from application of proven laws, which your statements violate.

The energy delivered in a Tae Kwon Do punch (or kick) is due to the high velocity. The energy you deliver is proportional to the velocity squared.

But what are you up to? Why are you posting this nonsense in a science forum?

11. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,451
2 points here. Chi energy is not a real thing. It is a made up concept that helps you to focus your attention. The board breaks only because your fist/arm has mass and that combined with the punch velocity results in enough kenetic energy to break the board. It also helps that the boards you break are lined up so you break them along the weak wood grains.

12. ### Maximum_PlanckRegistered Member

Messages:
54
You cannot prove that mathematically.

13. ### Maximum_PlanckRegistered Member

Messages:
54
My friend, not everything can be explain with physics and euqations.

14. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,451
I agree! However, breaking a board with your fist can be completely explained with physics and equations.

15. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,451
You many not be able to - but most people who have graduated from high school could.

16. ### Maximum_PlanckRegistered Member

Messages:
54
two "condescending" fools

But you have not accounted for 氣。 How do you explain?
Nehustan only proven that the equation is dimensionally wrong. He did not proved that it is incorrect.

17. ### NehushtanRegistered Member

Messages:
29
If it’s dimensionally wrong, then it must be incorrect.

Dimensional analysis is a useful way to determine if an equation makes sense. For example, suppose someone gives you this equation:

energy × time = mass × difference in velocity

This example is taken from an actual novel, the English translation of Jo Nesbø’s Hodejegerne (“Headhunters”). When I first saw the equation, I thought it looked fishy. Dimensional analysis indeed shows that it cannot be right: the left-hand side has dimension $\mathrm{[mass]\cdot[length]^2\cdot[time]^{-1}}$ whereas the other side has dimension $\mathrm{[mass]\cdot[length]\cdot[time]^{-1}}$. A length factor is missing.

It turns out that the error was due to something that was quite literally lost in translation. The equation in the original Norwegian was something like kraft × tid = masse × endring i hastighet – the translator Don Bartlett mistranslated the Norwegian word kraft as “energy” instead of “force”.

So, you see? Physics has its uses in everyday life too.

Last edited: Mar 8, 2013
18. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,451
Actually, this complete and utter ignorance of this statement:

Dimensional "correctness" is not required for equation to be valid.

clearly shows whom the fool is.

19. ### Maximum_PlanckRegistered Member

Messages:
54
Okay I may be a "fool" but all of you are very "condescending".

Messages:
10,296
Nope, they just aren't tolerant of a fool who pretends to know what he's talking about. Dishonesty - which is what you are displaying here - is not acceptable in science.

21. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
I've always maintained that Force = Banana^2. I challenge these so-called "mathematicians" to falsify that!!

22. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
It is often best to find out if an equation is correct if it is in the proper units. So then banana^2 wouldn't be in the same units used to describe force, so then the equation would be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)

If you take a bannna and square it you would never be able to get kilogram meters per secound squard. You would just have a lot of banana's.

23. ### Maximum_PlanckRegistered Member

Messages:
54
teh forum elites want to shut me up because they think they have bigger physics dicks. and thus they are superior.