Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to Explaining Einstein

re: Please don't use more mathematics

Mi=m0c2/√(1-v2/c2)

It is not very easy to explain mathematical formulas without using the symbols presented in the formulas.
Not only that; many of these computer programs do not handle the symbols very well.
See this link for some symbols.
Another complication is that the same word can have different meaning depending on the situation where it is used.
For instance, in the other explanation, in this thread below, the word “gamma” is being used. To an untrained eye the word could mean: 1) A unit of magnetic field strength equal to one hundred thousandth (10-5) of an oersted, 2) A unit of mass equal to one millionth (10-6) of a gram, or the Greek letter that is the third in the series, (alpha, beta, gamma) that symbol again may have a meaning assigned to it such as a “wave length”.

These are “conventions” that may even change with time.

To understand the formula in its maximum depth with the least amount of math, one should understand the process of taking non mathematical information and converting it into math. That is what I did here.

The formula that you presented has a far deeper meaning than the math alone can express, in other words, both the math and the non math portions should be understood thoroughly in order to get the complete picture of the meaning.

There are mathematicians on these boards that can explain the math side thoroughly. So I will concentrate on the explanation that you asked for.

The way the formula is presented is that the result is given first, Mi or Mi, the letter M refers to the fundamental ingredient in mass, the letter i refers to infinity.
To put it another way, the formula explains how mass is distributed in infinite space.
Since the “superconsciousness” is also a part of the infinite space, the formula also hints at the connection between these “two existence's”.
The rest of the formula explains that the “fundamental mass” is always in motion, and its speed is related in a proportional fashion to the square root of “our present” light speed in the vacuum of “our” space.

Does that make it more understandable?
Johannes

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (10 posts)