Something incredible I worked out!:

sonhouse
Science 18 Jun '18 08:06
1. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
18 Jun '18 08:06
After working out the Schwarzchild volume and many hours with pen and paper I discovered this amazing formula!

E^2=m^2c^4 !!!!

I thought, WOW, Eureka!
2. DeepThought
18 Jun '18 15:37
There's been a number of occasions where I've been trying to prove something and ended up with x = x...
3. 20 Jun '18 20:33
Originally posted by @sonhouse
After working out the Schwarzchild volume and many hours with pen and paper I discovered this amazing formula!

E^2=m^2c^4 !!!!

I thought, WOW, Eureka!
i did some calculations and i came up with

E/2=(mc^2)/2

It only took me like 8 seconds, 10 tops.
&t=40

You made a joke as well, right?
4. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
21 Jun '18 01:051 edit
Originally posted by @zahlanzi
i did some calculations and i came up with

E/2=(mc^2)/2

It only took me like 8 seconds, 10 tops.

You made a joke as well, right?
Jeez, if you have to explain it....ðŸ˜‰
5. 21 Jun '18 06:33
Originally posted by @sonhouse
Jeez, if you have to explain it....ðŸ˜‰
You never know here. ðŸ™‚
Just now there are 100 posts in a thread arguing on the terence howard brain fart that sqrt(2) is a rational number.

You have to double-check who you're dealing with.
6. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
21 Jun '18 16:01
Originally posted by @zahlanzi
You never know here. ðŸ™‚
Just now there are 100 posts in a thread arguing on the terence howard brain fart that sqrt(2) is a rational number.

You have to double-check who you're dealing with.
Didn't you see the oblique reference to the Shwartzchild radius? I upped it mathically to the Shwartzchild volume to account for the squaring of the Einstein formula?
7. DeepThought
22 Jun '18 14:13
Originally posted by @sonhouse
Didn't you see the oblique reference to the Shwartzchild radius? I upped it mathically to the Shwartzchild volume to account for the squaring of the Einstein formula?
Wouldn't it be cubed given the relationship between radius and volume?
8. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
22 Jun '18 23:001 edit
Originally posted by @deepthought
Wouldn't it be cubed given the relationship between radius and volume?
Oh yeah, 4/3 PI R cubed. Dang. Screwed up my own jokeðŸ™‚

So it would have to be E^3=M^3 C^5. Shoot!
9. DeepThought
23 Jun '18 02:13
Originally posted by @sonhouse
Oh yeah, 4/3 PI R cubed. Dang. Screwed up my own jokeðŸ™‚

So it would have to be E^3=M^3 C^5. Shoot!
c^6 maybe.
10. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
23 Jun '18 16:32
Originally posted by @deepthought
c^6 maybe.
Exponents add so if it starts at (c^2) ^3 that would be c^5.
11. 23 Jun '18 16:48
nope

a power 'to a power' you multiply

(c^2)^3 = c^2 x c^2 x c^2 (now add) = c^6
12. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
23 Jun '18 18:28
Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks
nope

a power 'to a power' you multiply

(c^2)^3 = c^2 x c^2 x c^2 (now add) = c^6
13. DeepThought
23 Jun '18 21:33
Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks
nope

a power 'to a power' you multiply

(c^2)^3 = c^2 x c^2 x c^2 (now add) = c^6
Entirely correct, but a little care is needed as the operation is not associative.

2^(3^4) = 2^81 = huge
(2^3)^4 = 8^4 = 64*64 = (2^6)^2 = 2^12 = 4096 = considerably less huge
14. 23 Jun '18 21:44
They only look as if they might be associative using the ^ symbol for 'to the power ' or, if you prefer, to indicate an index. With the notation we have to use here, they do look similar.

If they were written out using standard mathematical notation, it would be clear that they are quite different
15. DeepThought