# Could we include Frequency on E = mc²?

+ 0 like - 1 dislike
1255 views

Do these equations make any sense?

$E = mc²$
$E = h.f$
$f = \frac{1}{\Delta t}$

f = Frequency

$$c² = \frac{d²}{t²}$$

$$c² = \frac{d²}{t} * \frac{1}{t}$$
if $\Delta t$ is equal to $t$, then we have E=mc², if different, we have $E =m . \frac{d²}{t} . f$

Equaling both Energy Equations:

$$h.f = m.c²$$
$$h.f = m . \frac{d²}{t} . f$$
$$h = m.\frac{d²}{t}$$
$h = d².\frac{m}{t}$ => happens to be the same units of Plancks Constant.
$m²\frac{kg}{s}$

Throwing "h" again in the formula of E = h.f:

$$E = d².\frac{m}{t}.f$$
OR
$$E = m.\frac{d²}{t} . f$$
That could be also seen as:
$$E = m. \frac{d²}{t} . \frac{1}{\Delta t}$$
IF, $\Delta t$ is equal to t:
$$E = m.\frac{d²}{t²}$$
and since $v² = \frac{d²}{t²}$ and  $c² = v²$:

$$E = mc²$$

Is there something wrong with these equations?

Closed as per community consensus as the post is not graduate-level
recategorized Dec 3, 2018

Your assumed equation $E=hf$, due to Planck 1900, already shows that frequency is linked to energy. Its huge implications are already well-known.

Your rewriting of the equations is empty play.

@Arnold, i know that he already showed it, but what im trying to show is that his equations would fit anything, including Einstein's that is a special case of Planck's where time and frequency are synced.

Is right to afirm that? that they are both the same equation?

They are different equation, and to make them look the same you need additional input.

Arnold, I have prepared a informal paper with the ideas. Do you want to take a look a it?

No, your calculations are empty of meaning.

Could please tell me why this is wrong? is the math completely wrong? or you not agree with the conception?

you conclude with one of the hypotheses. By construction, the conclusion is true, even if the details are not checked. However, what it is the interest of this performance ?