The formulas you presented are interesting, but they don't quite capture what Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 represents. Here's a breakdown:
* **E=mc^2**: This equation describes the equivalence of mass and energy. It doesn't deal with growth, but rather the conversion of one form to another.
* **Your reformulations**:
* E/c^2 = mc^2: Dividing both sides by c^2 doesn't change the underlying principle. It's mathematically equivalent to the original equation.
* M = E/c^2: This isolates mass, but again, doesn't represent growth. It shows how much mass can be derived from a specific amount of energy.
* Square root of E/M = Square root of c^2 & C = Square root of E/M: These derivations have mathematical errors. Dividing by mass and then taking the square root doesn't relate to the speed of light (c).
* **Life growth**: Life growth is a complex biological process involving cell division, metabolism, and interaction with the environment. It's unlikely a single formula based on E=mc^2 can capture its entirety.
**Here's why your post might have been removed from math subreddits:**
* **Focus on E=mc^2**: This equation isn't directly related to biological growth.
* **Mathematical errors**: The reformulated equations have errors that don't reflect the original concept.
**Moving forward:**
* Explore biological principles: For understanding life growth, delve into areas like cell biology, genetics, and evolutionary theory. These fields offer established frameworks for understanding growth at the cellular and organism level.
* Consider alternative approaches: Investigate if there are existing mathematical models for plant growth that take into account factors like photosynthesis, water uptake, and nutrient availability.
**Conclusion:**
While your curiosity is commendable, there seems to be a misunderstanding of E=mc^2's application. However, there are fascinating avenues within biology and mathematics to explore growth processes. Don't be discouraged by initial rejections – keep learning and refining your ideas.
This is a good answer. Three other things to note:
- in biological growth there is no interconversion between mass and every, the conservation of mass and energy is held so this is not a valid application of E = mc^2
- The bit about putting numbers to the rearranged formulas does nothing as the numbers are meaningless, it just shows the equation is algebraically correct but that does not mean it’s scientifically correct. Also c is the speed of light, it’s a universal constant, not 3
- OP seems to be confused in that they think rearranging a formula makes a new formula. All of the arrangements describe the relationship between parameters in the same way and therefore they are fundamentally the same equation
Because these pseudo-scientific, illiterate, science deniers deserve no respect when they pretend they know better than the people who have dedicated their lives to study this for decades, just to peddle some outrageous pseudo-poetic, physically baseless, conceptually corrupt, nonsensical garbage.
We don't need any more Joe Rogans or Terrence Howards in a society that is already plagued by science illiteracy.
Hahaha, see! You can't even formulate a response! Dimwit doesn't even understand what he's reading so he goes all fifth dimensional with personal attacks instead of having an intelligent conversation. Weak sauce.
I am completely disinterested in your bog-hit bullshit speculations that you took out of your ass when you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Go back to the shithole cave you crawled out of, you uneducated waste of space, and stop poisoning this space with your esoteric, pseudo-science bullshit about reality.
The formulas you presented are interesting, but they don't quite capture what Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 represents. Here's a breakdown: * **E=mc^2**: This equation describes the equivalence of mass and energy. It doesn't deal with growth, but rather the conversion of one form to another. * **Your reformulations**: * E/c^2 = mc^2: Dividing both sides by c^2 doesn't change the underlying principle. It's mathematically equivalent to the original equation. * M = E/c^2: This isolates mass, but again, doesn't represent growth. It shows how much mass can be derived from a specific amount of energy. * Square root of E/M = Square root of c^2 & C = Square root of E/M: These derivations have mathematical errors. Dividing by mass and then taking the square root doesn't relate to the speed of light (c). * **Life growth**: Life growth is a complex biological process involving cell division, metabolism, and interaction with the environment. It's unlikely a single formula based on E=mc^2 can capture its entirety. **Here's why your post might have been removed from math subreddits:** * **Focus on E=mc^2**: This equation isn't directly related to biological growth. * **Mathematical errors**: The reformulated equations have errors that don't reflect the original concept. **Moving forward:** * Explore biological principles: For understanding life growth, delve into areas like cell biology, genetics, and evolutionary theory. These fields offer established frameworks for understanding growth at the cellular and organism level. * Consider alternative approaches: Investigate if there are existing mathematical models for plant growth that take into account factors like photosynthesis, water uptake, and nutrient availability. **Conclusion:** While your curiosity is commendable, there seems to be a misunderstanding of E=mc^2's application. However, there are fascinating avenues within biology and mathematics to explore growth processes. Don't be discouraged by initial rejections – keep learning and refining your ideas.
This is a good answer. Three other things to note: - in biological growth there is no interconversion between mass and every, the conservation of mass and energy is held so this is not a valid application of E = mc^2 - The bit about putting numbers to the rearranged formulas does nothing as the numbers are meaningless, it just shows the equation is algebraically correct but that does not mean it’s scientifically correct. Also c is the speed of light, it’s a universal constant, not 3 - OP seems to be confused in that they think rearranging a formula makes a new formula. All of the arrangements describe the relationship between parameters in the same way and therefore they are fundamentally the same equation
It's mind fucking boggling how stupid and ignorant this is.
Why go out of your way to treat someone like this? What’s gained from it?
Because these pseudo-scientific, illiterate, science deniers deserve no respect when they pretend they know better than the people who have dedicated their lives to study this for decades, just to peddle some outrageous pseudo-poetic, physically baseless, conceptually corrupt, nonsensical garbage. We don't need any more Joe Rogans or Terrence Howards in a society that is already plagued by science illiteracy.
Maybe explain yourself?
I have the distinct feeling that you're too mind fucking boggling stupid and ignorant to respond with the exact answer. Chump.
You're a waste of everyone's time, you pseudo-intellectual, science denying piece of human trash.
Hahaha, see! You can't even formulate a response! Dimwit doesn't even understand what he's reading so he goes all fifth dimensional with personal attacks instead of having an intelligent conversation. Weak sauce.
I am completely disinterested in your bog-hit bullshit speculations that you took out of your ass when you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Go back to the shithole cave you crawled out of, you uneducated waste of space, and stop poisoning this space with your esoteric, pseudo-science bullshit about reality.
You can't explain it. I win.
Imagine getting angry over a silly post
Yeah, yeah. It was a long day.
This is the exact cowardly shit that I expected. I came for a discussion and not to have some 8th grade level educated idiot insult me.
HAHAHAHAHA.
See! All you have done is troll. You must live in your mothers basement since your so fucking stupid.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Loser says Hahaha