Some equation, do it make sense without being explained?

[Einstiensqd]

t=sE^2
I won't explain it until someone gets close enough and I will private message them what it means...

 

[Mulder]

Well what's the point in this? [?] Are s, t, and E all variables? Do they in any way resemble their proper symbols? A few equations of the form a = bc^2 come to mind.

 

[russ_watters]

Easy, that's Einstien's equation with different letters for the variables.

t= energy
s= speed of light
e= mass

 

[Einstiensqd]

close, but not quite. t is a constant though

 

[Turtle]

t=the speed of light
s=energy
e=energy

 

[Turtle]

opps, I mean e=mass

 

[climbhi]

okay here we go:

t = c = [squ](E/m) where E is energy and m is mass
s = [squ]E where is again energy
e = 1/[squ]m where m is again mass

if you rearrange this it yields E=mc²

 

[Einstiensqd]

t=chronological constant
s= mass of all space
E=potential and kinetic energy of all space
sE^2=warping mass and energy together
you get the chronological constant(second by second)
I put it as squared 'cause that was the only way to warp it, at least in sybols
Now, mabeye it is t=s+E, or t=sE, or t=sE^3! Yes! now it is accuratley adjusted to existing in a three-dimensional world, however, if volume is a dimension,(not a concept) t=sE^4.

 

[chroot]

I seriously hope you're under the age of 12.

- Warren

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Einstiensqd
t=chronological constant
s= mass of all space
E=potential and kinetic energy of all space
sE^2=warping mass and energy together
you get the chronological constant(second by second)
I put it as squared 'cause that was the only way to warp it, at least in sybols
Now, mabeye it is t=s+E, or t=sE, or t=sE^3! Yes! now it is accuratley adjusted to existing in a three-dimensional world, however, if volume is a dimension,(not a concept) t=sE^4.

So in other words, your "chronological constant" is measured in units of

Kg³m⁴/sec⁴ or

g³cm⁴/sec⁴?

What's it supposed to stand for?

 

[HallsofIvy]

Einsteinsqd: You are talking nonsense and you are saying it badly.


I agree with chroot: "I seriously hope you're under the age of 12."

Although that might be insulting to twelve year olds.

 

[climbhi]

Just to point out, he is a sixth grader, so he ought to be pretty close to twelve years old.

 

[Einstiensqd]

I know. It really is insane, farfetched, and stupid that I try to make a formula out of nothing, but I just did that because I wanted to find some formula for the equivelence of space and time. Words can not express the embaressment of my stupidity to try something so ridiculous and actually post it. I do want to express a theory that might change everything, but I think I sould give it up, given the little factual support, or theoretical support.

 

[Loren Booda]

Einstiensqd - any of us at Physics Forums would love to discover an equation fundamental to physics or mathematics. Invention, however is "99% perspiration and 1% inspiration." Once you have a considerable body of science under your hat, creative coincidences come more and more often. What you might learn from the above responses is that if you truly love physics, you will find satisfaction whether you match Einstein (correct spelling) or relate physics to the novice. In truth, the simpler the physics, the more profound your insight.

 

[Einstiensqd]

(lol) I knew someone would eventualy correct my spelling! Grammer just isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Loren Booda]

(Spelled "grammar", it has more to do with sentence structure than spelling.)