C Squared

go to the third page on paradoxes and dilemas

[quote:

---

"E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light"

---

square of the velocity of light = (velocity of light ) * (velocity of light )= (3 * 10^9 m/s) * (3 * 10^9 m/s)= 9 * 10^18 m^2/s^2= c^2

That what Einstein told and the unit are m^2/s^2 (not a speed)

If you consider c as a vector c^2 is a scalar.
What is the problem?

] [/quote]

The intuitive mind

The problem is E=mc2 is equal to F=ma when an exact value is stated for acceleration of ~a=9x10E16 m/s2. The only difference is F=ma has units in newtons and E=mc2 has joules as units. The newton is a joule/meter. The form of the two laws is such that I think F=ma is a better statement of real transactions that occur in real events. It needs to be clearified so that a better description of photon behavior can be developed. I see E=mc2 as too rigid and not accurate. Where as F=ma is quite the opposite

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The problem is E=mc2 is equal to F=ma when an exact value is stated for acceleration of ~a=9x10E16 m/s2. The only difference is F=ma has units in newtons and E=mc2 has joules as units. The newton is a joule/meter. The form of the two laws is such that I think F=ma is a better statement of real transactions that occur in real events. It needs to be clearified so that a better description of photon behavior can be developed. I see E=mc2 as too rigid and not accurate. Where as F=ma is quite the opposite<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your units don't match, so F does not equal E. Even when you pick special numbers, as you have in this example, so that the <b>number parts</b> of the two equations are equal.

Numbers are important. But not as important as units.

Without units, numbers don't matter. (Would you like to sell your car? I'll give you 300,000 for it!)

BTW, I think I see now why the number part of c^2 (9 E16) seems so important to you. By now you should be beginning to suspect that it really does not matter.

Regards,
LB

Yuo being a teacher should have little trouble dividing both sides of E=mc2 by one meter or multiplying both sides of F=ma times one meter. See what happens when you do this simple math trick.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You being a teacher should have little trouble dividing both sides of E=mc2 by one meter or multiplying both sides of F=ma times one meter. See what happens when you do this simple math trick.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Alright. I did it.

(No light bulb.)

And yes, you can convert these quantities from one to the other. They are related by the conversion factor of distance. Even so, force and energy are still different things. That conversion factor is part of why.

Force is also related to torque by the conversion factor of distance (T = F * d). Force and torque are different.

You know, it might be useful for us to reverse roles here. Will you be the teacher for a while?

Regards,
LB

The idea seems to be just a bit of a streach for you and thats fine with me. My point is just that c2 is very confining where as F=ma will set you free of a lot of baggage. If you want me to be a teacher you will have to catch me first it is not my calling and I hate having to be in the driving seat.