C Squared

Jim,

Your response does not surprise me.
What is so obvious and simple is being pushed aside.

Nature does not follow human tampered physical laws!
This theory is not a popular one, and should be left for future generations to consider....

I still maintain that a system which accelerates is not a system in equilibrium. This is why entropy should be included in Einstein's equation E=mc^2.

Don't believe what people say: Gravity is not a mysterious force!

Entropy is not all that bad after all. I would rather drink water from a glass than try to catch floating droplets in mid air !

Human survival in the past and now in the future will depend on being in the right place at the right time.

Thanks for your time Jim.

Is entrophy anything more than a word in your vision? I don't see how entrophy can be used as wish it to be.

Hello, I just registered for this forum and would like to join the discussion regarding c^2. I've read a majority of the posts and I haven't seen anyone ask or describe what c^2 looks like.

If acceleration is the rate of change of velocity meaning either slowing down or speeding up and velocity is sustained motion I've always wondered what c^2 looks like. It obviously has denominated units of time^2 making it akin to acceleration although it's the numerated units of distance^2 that make it hard to understand.

It's hard to understand because I don't think we're dealing with a linear concept like acceleration or velocity anymore. I think that if something could c^2 it wouldn't be a straight forward propulsion, it would be more along the lines of now you see it, now you don't, ie teleportation.

This is hard to explain because I don't have many sources of knowledge to draw from but one velocity would be linear and one velocity would be nonlinear. Let's scale the speeds down from the insane c^2 and say the linear velo is a human and the nonlinear velo is the earth spin. If a human could somehow multiply its own linear velo with the spin of the earth then wouldn't that be teleportation albeit using an imaginary distance to 'inversely accelerate' wherever we wish to go? I mean this must be possible somewhere in the 90% of our minds we don't use, but then again what wouldn't be possible in that atrophied err unevolved percentage?

So, in terms of v^2, the fastest way to get between two points wouldn't be a straight line but rather folding the points over onto themselves. Imagine a sheet of paper, the fastest way to connect two corners of it wouldn't be drawing a line with a pencil, it would be folding the corners over onto each other, avoiding the pencil altogether. Therefore v^2 would be a direct application of the space/time curvature assuming we knew the mechanics that would allow us to construct an inverse acceleration engine.

Hopefully after I get some feedback I'll be able to explain myself and velocity squared a bit better, but don't count on it.

Don Omni,

Welcome to Meta. I saw your post and it brought back memories. I had a simular conceptual problem with gravity and F = G * m1* m2/r^2,
where m1 * m2 = m^2. That is Apple times Apple = a Square Apple.

I've actually spent 50 years thinking about that one and found a solution.

www.paygency.com/

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

One interesting thing to point out, Don, is that your formula can only apply to a theory of everything that doesn't exist yet, as there is no system in physics where c=c, h=h and G=G. So your calculuations in these existing system (Classic, GR, QM, QFT) would be 0, infinity, or undefined.

mhelland@techmocracy.net

I agree the m^2, c^2 & v^2 constructions are more or less virtual concepts. The point of this thread was not about that even before the topic was changed. Now we have another new topic that has legs and worth chatting about. How about including a lot of other fake concepts in math and science that work well like -1-^2? Too much stuff for one thread. Need more topics and better focus.