Androcles wrote:
Nothing remarkable about it all.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../DeriveMC2.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm

That second one uses 'c' to represent something other than
the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the question
at issue.


--
--Bryan

"Jacques" :
Hi everybody,

I have a question which bothers me since long time and maybe with your
help
I can find the answer at last. Since I heard the formule E=mc^2 for the
first time it struck me that there seems to be no logical relation between
the energy contained in a mass and the speed of light. I have no
difficulties to understand that the energy contained in a mass is
equivalent
to that mass.

My problem is: what the hell has this to do with the speed of something
else
(an electromagnetic wave). I cannot see the connection between them. These
two things: mass and energy on one side and the speed of light on the
other
side seem too disparate to me to allow a logical link between them.

Consider light clocks, already a basic tool for understanding SR, eg my page
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

They can be considered as gauging tools for matter, eg a material rod bound
to a lightclock defined upon its extremities.

But the lightclock itself has features which make it behave itself as a
material object:
it has infraluminal speed (the resultant v of to and fro light speed c)
it has spatial dimension (its "rod" length)
it has proper time (its "clock" ticks)
it has energy content:
if you want a coherent clock, you take light with wave length corresponding
to the "rod" length (in the rest system equal both to and fro, viz the rod
length L; in a moving system the to and fro lengths become different L+ and
L-...); the clock has a ticktock frequency f, so that c=2Lf; the
corresponding photons have an impuls p~f~c/L, their energy content is
E=pc~c*c/L~c^2.
Now, this energy can be attributed to the material object "lightclock moving
at infraluminal speed v".
Lastly, if, like me, you get to consider light clocks not solely as a way of
***gauging*** matter, but indeed as nature's way of ***generating***
(infraluminally moving) matter, here is the answer to your question, about
linking matter's energy and c^2. In my view all mass, even rest mass, is a
compound property of elementary light clock energy ;-)

guido

Light's energy isn't from its motion rather from the frequency of its
waving. If light's energy was from its constant motion then all
photons would have the same constant energy. There would be only One
energy of all photons.

Mitch Raemsch

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Jacques wrote:


1) Screw your fat stupid ass into a chair.
2) http://www.****inggoogleit.com/

Feel better?

[snip drivel]

wrote:
On May 11, 9:18 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Jacques wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have a question which bothers me since long time and maybe with your help
I can find the answer at last. Since I heard the formule E=mc^2 for the
first time it struck me that there seems to be no logical relation between
the energy contained in a mass and the speed of light. I have no
difficulties to understand that the energy contained in a mass is equivalent
to that mass.
My problem is: what the hell has this to do with the speed of something else
(an electromagnetic wave). I cannot see the connection between them. These
two things: mass and energy on one side and the speed of light on the other
side seem too disparate to me to allow a logical link between them.
I wonder, if someone can explain this connection. I wouldn't have been
surprised if the Joule (the unit for energy) had been established in
consequence of this formula, but I think both Joule, kg, m/s were already
existent before E=mc^2.
I learned from Wikipedia that James Joule died in 1889, thus before Einstein
discovered his famous formula, which I think happened in 1905.
It turns out that the speed of light is an important
constant of the spacetime in which we live. That is
why it comes up in the mass/energy formula.

Martin Hogbin

It's an impotent inconsistency,

It's one of the main errors causing physicists to stay away from
engineering (read the real world)

Take your time - space out dude.

I think friction also moves at the speed of light.

And danger, danger definitely moves at the speed of light, it must!
Can be no other way!

speed is a product of time and distance.

So E = time * mass * distance * time * distance

clear enough?

But if I have 2 marbles...


You have certainly lost some of them.

Martin Hogbin

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| Nothing remarkable about it all.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../DeriveMC2.htm
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
|
| That second one uses 'c' to represent something other than
| the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the question
| at issue.
|
Yeah, sure, v is just a velocity, c is ****in' magic, right?
**** off, you ignorant clown.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

|
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../DeriveMC2.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm

Anyone who hasn't bothered looking at Andro's own pages for a while, should
take a look at his second link - it really should be entitled "How an
Engineer Tries to do Physics" I particularly liked the rigour with which he
suggested we "change the symbol 'v' to the symbol 'c' "

Priceless!

On May 11, 12:14*pm, "Jacques" wrote:
Hi everybody,

I have a question which bothers me since long time and maybe with your help
I can find the answer at last. Since I heard the formule E=mc^2 for the
first time it struck me that there seems to be no logical relation between
the energy contained in a mass and the speed of *light. I have no
difficulties to understand that the energy contained in a mass is equivalent
to that mass.

I have difficulties understanding your statement that you have no
difficulties to understand that the energy contained in a mass is
equivalent to that mass.


My problem is: what the hell has this to do with the speed of something else
(an electromagnetic wave). I cannot see the connection between them.

You sit in a train moving at a contant speed and you watch a house of
mass m the train is passing by. What is the kinetic energy of the
house in your frame of reference?

Mike

On May 12, 12:29 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
On May 11, 9:18 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Jacques wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have a question which bothers me since long time and maybe with your help
I can find the answer at last. Since I heard the formule E=mc^2 for the
first time it struck me that there seems to be no logical relation between
the energy contained in a mass and the speed of light. I have no
difficulties to understand that the energy contained in a mass is equivalent
to that mass.
My problem is: what the hell has this to do with the speed of something else
(an electromagnetic wave). I cannot see the connection between them. These
two things: mass and energy on one side and the speed of light on the other
side seem too disparate to me to allow a logical link between them.
I wonder, if someone can explain this connection. I wouldn't have been
surprised if the Joule (the unit for energy) had been established in
consequence of this formula, but I think both Joule, kg, m/s were already
existent before E=mc^2.
I learned from Wikipedia that James Joule died in 1889, thus before Einstein
discovered his famous formula, which I think happened in 1905.
It turns out that the speed of light is an important
constant of the spacetime in which we live. That is
why it comes up in the mass/energy formula.

Martin Hogbin

It's an impotent inconsistency,

It's one of the main errors causing physicists to stay away from
engineering (read the real world)

Take your time - space out dude.

I think friction also moves at the speed of light.

And danger, danger definitely moves at the speed of light, it must!
Can be no other way!

speed is a product of time and distance.

So E = time * mass * distance * time * distance

clear enough?

But if I have 2 marbles...

You have certainly lost some of them.

Martin Hogbin

If there is a speed of light product then you must be it's producer.

E is what propagates the time space conversation distance duration.

Say we take 1 mass and we have and E of 1

We take 2 mass and we have an E of 4

And when we take 4 apples we get 16 times as much applejuice

I hack teh bible code or whut?! amen dude!!

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

2 times 2 is 4

Regreds,

-g
____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
http://wind-car.go-here.nl
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl

On May 11, 9:14*am, "Jacques" wrote:
Hi everybody,

I have a question which bothers me since long time and maybe with your help
I can find the answer at last. Since I heard the formule E=mc^2 for the
first time it struck me that there seems to be no logical relation between
the energy contained in a mass and the speed of *light. I have no
difficulties to understand that the energy contained in a mass is equivalent
to that mass.

My problem is: what the hell has this to do with the speed of something else
(an electromagnetic wave). I cannot see the connection between them. These
two things: mass and energy on one side and the speed of light on the other
side seem too disparate to me to allow a logical link between them.

I wonder, if someone can explain this connection. I wouldn't have been
surprised if the Joule (the unit for energy) had been established in
consequence of this formula, but I think both Joule, kg, m/s were already
existent before E=mc^2.

I learned from Wikipedia that James Joule died in 1889, thus before Einstein
discovered his famous formula, which I think happened in 1905.

Greetings
Jacques

The answer is quite simple. Please read:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html

This is part of my larger theory of everything found at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

Now, since most people won't bother looking at either of the links,
the simple explanation is that E=mc^2 because to eject a positron and
electron from empty space, you have to accellerate the hidden and
bound electron/positron to the speed of light. This kinetic energy
formula is simply 1/2 mv^2, or subsituting the speed of light =
1/2mc^2. The energy required to do this accleration is 1/2mc^2 for the
positron + 1/2mc^2 for the electron which is equal to the magic
E=mc^2.

So the reason why the speed of light is in this equation is because
this is how fast you must accellerate the positrons/electrons that
make up the aehter in order to break it apart. The reason why it takes
this particular speed is probably because anything slower can be
transmitted easily by the aether, so you must get upto and possibly
slightly exceed this speed in order to get a breakup to occur.

So the speed of light is significant. It is not just a random constant
as others have said. The speed of light sets the speed limit you can
go before you start breaking up the aether. The energy at which it
breaks up is set by the kinetic energy formula. Did you ever wonder
why the energy E= mc^2 and kinetic energy formula E = 1/2mv^2 look so
alike? It isn't coincidence, one is directly dirived from the other.
Simplicity itself, but of course mainstream science would deny all of
this.

It takes nothing more than classical newtonian mechanics to explain
why E=mc^2 and the assumption of an ather made out of positron/
electron pairs. This is quite clear in the case of creating positron/
electron out of empty space, although not so clear in the case of more
complex atomic fusion and fission.

-fhuemc