Einstein Formula

[eoredson]

I recently came across this twisted algebraic formula and I would like to know what it is and if it is valid. Help me!

Thanks, Erik.

[bplus]

Seems like a question for Phd Physicist. Why do you need to know?

[eoredson]

Seems like a question for Phd Physicist. Why do you need to know?

This formula might increase high yield plutonium nuclear devices, modify the FTL systems, and connect the quantum to electronic grand unified field problem.

Only if it is valid. If it is not valid then it will disprove einstein's original equation..

Erik.

[TerryRitchie]

I'm positive I've seen these formulas before!

.
.
.

on Sheldon's whiteboards in Big Bang Theory.

[Sprezzo]

Psssh, it's just special relativity. Whatchu wanna know?

If you can't find it in my notes
Special Relativity.pdf (x10host.com)
you'll have to ask me directly.

EDIT: Looked at the files. It seems a little insane honestly. It's not prudent to use equations of special relativity the moment right after the big bang, if it even happened, namely because SR depends on inertial reference frames. During inflation, reference frames are anything but inertial. Also, the first line of english on the notes tries to tell me that energy is somehow planck's constant. Just no. Is that reference to gravity just little "g", like 9.8 m/s^2? Super no. Just no no no. Sorry, lol.

Where did this come from?

[Dimster]

Hello Sprezzo - are you sure Einstein didn't use Max Planck's constant? I thought it was a key ingredient to the resultant E=MC^2. But I'm not sure where it (Planck Constant) may factor into Special Relativity. His constant deals with Speed of Light or Radiation which seems to be exactly what Einstein was using in his equation for Energy.

[eoredson]

Where did this come from?

@Sprezzo: Alright. I admit it. I wrote it several years ago. I really don't remember how I wrote it but nevertheless it is still a proof.

Erik.

[Sprezzo]

Heya @eoredson, didnt mean to come off as sassy up there, but then again, people traditionally have to pay to get my unfiltered guttural first-take on a physics derivation. I want to give your effort the dignity it deserves. Are you able to write (forget typing unless you use a real equation editor) your starting place for me exactly? I don't want to misinterpret the placement of any character at all in the beginning. If you give me just where you started in an extremely plain way, I'll look at your result and try to get it myself.

EDIT: Dimster: Planck's constant matters to all this but in quite particular ways. It's more of a crossover to quantum mechanics, more than it's an element of special relativity. Can also google DeBroglie wavelength to see what it all means.

[bplus]

I noticed an E in Plancks and an E in mC^2 so if you naively equate them then you've united astro physics with quantum 

[eoredson]

@Sprezzo: Start on page 2 where it assignes the first and second equations to each other. Then the following page 3 simplifies the result.

This process is then repeated using the same technique for a second declaration of the proof.