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.
[snip]

1) Screw your fat stupid ass into a chair.
2) http://www.****inggoogleit.com/
3) E^2 = p^2m^2 + m^2c^4
4) \int^c_0{P dv}

where P = mv\gamma
\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (\frac{v}{c})^2}}

\int^c_0 {\frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - (\frac{v}{c})^2}} dv = mc^2

5) Awww... monkey-boy doesn't speak LaTeX?

The integral from zero to c of [(momentum)dv]

where momentum = (mass)(velocity)(gamma)
gamma = 1/sqrt[1 - (v^2)/(c^2)]

6) Was that so hard? For the slow of thinking,

American Journal of Physics 58(4) 348-349 (1990)
E=mc^2 derived from 19th century physics

7)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/13552198/1998/00000029/00000002/art00007


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On May 11, 7:52 pm, Igor wrote:
On May 11, 1:06 pm, PCB wrote:



N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Jacques:

"Jacques" wrote in message
...
...
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.

How about as a "constant of integration"?

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

Then let c = 1. There are units systems where that is true. You

Seems to be wrong: Speed of light is much higher than 1.

1 is like staying still.

No. Zero is like staying still.

Right, at a linear scale.

But universe is logarthmic, there are no zeros in reality

"Leonardo Been" wrote in message
news | Nothing remarkable indeed, because, as "Jacques" pointed out:
|
| 'Thus Einstein's E = mc2 is actually derived from Newtonian Mechanics.'
|
| It does however not seem to answer the original poster's question.

You do not however seem to have the intelligence to make the connection or
know who said what.
Try another pseudonym, maybe that will work.
*plonk*


| _____________
| On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:51:50 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
|
| "Jacques" wrote in message
| ...
| | 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.
| |
| Nothing remarkable about it all.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../DeriveMC2.htm
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
|

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

Dear PCB:

"PCB" wrote in message
...


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Jacques:

"Jacques" wrote in message
...
...
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.

How about as a "constant of integration"?

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

Then let c = 1. There are units systems where that
is true. You

Seems to be wrong: Speed of light is much higher
than 1.

1 is like staying still.

distance unit = light year
time unit = year
c = 1

just have to do "simple" conversions to get from
those systems to the more familiar mks, cgs, or
fps systems.

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.

What is the upper limit speed that mass can have?

We dont know. Much lesser than c.

How much is that?

Depends on your units system. We have accelerated electrons to
0.999999c. "They Fly's Eye" has observed massive particles even
faster than this:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

What is the fastest speed that the EM binding
forces that hold that mass together has?

Has anyone really ever measured EM binding forces?

How they did that?

Molecular amd atomic bonding is well understood.

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'm sorry. Consider the Universe it is embedded in
then.

Looks rather that them are embedded in Universe.

Which one is bigger?

The Universe is just a population of them. Which is king?

David A. Smith

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 and one hole I can only stuff a marble into
the hole ONE time.

So what we call distance and time really depends on the rest of the
universe.

Quite clearly the gravitational potential is not part of the marble
but inside the hole.

So there we have it,

The energy in the hole is the time times the distance times the time
times the distance times the potential mass that could fit inside the
hole.

thus the hole moves at C!

so clearly!

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
http://forum.go-here.nl
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/
http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Dear Jacques:

"Jacques" wrote in message
...
Dear David,

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
...

Then let c = 1. There are units systems where that
is true.

I have no problems to understand that. The
consequence of it is E=m, meaning that double mass
contains double energy and half of the mass contains
half of the energy.

Perfect.

What puzzles me is that you can multiply the mass
in kg by the square of the speed of light in m/s and
you obtain exacltly the energy in joule. How is this
possible?

Do you remember force = mass * acceleration? The units systems
are self-consistent.

You will probably want to study:
"dimensional analysis"
.... or ...
"buckingham pi theorem"

If it is not a mere coincidence, which it is not likely
to be, how is it possible? What is the explanation of
this extraordinary fact?

I hope you understand my question.

I do, and whichever of us gets to see God first, can ask Him. We
cannot know "why" this is, only *that* it is so. We get to know
what we measure.

Beyond this we make up "fairy tales" (aka. theories) that allow
us to make new predictions, then test those. Some "fairy tales"
die, some survive for the next round of testing. It isn't much,
but it is all we have.

David A. Smith

"Jacques" wrote in message
...
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.

One derivation of the formula considers a set-up similar to two plates fixed
at each end of a length of drainpipe
----------
| |
----------
(Should be viewed as a fixed font. )

Consider a photon of wavelength lambda emitted from the left hand plate
towards the right hand plate.
The photon has a momentum p = h/lambda to the right, and the plate/drainpipe
setup has the opposite momentum (i.e. moves to the left).

After time t (which depends on the speed of light and the separation between
the plates), the photon hits the right hand plate and the momentum goes into
the plate/drainpipe setup, stopping its movement to the left.

In effect a photon has travelled the length of the pipe from left to right,
and the pipe has moved a much smaller distance from right to left.

As there has been no external force on the pipe, its centre of mass will not
have moved; so we have to consider the photon movement as equivalent to
transfering a mass from the left to the right end.

The amount of movement of the pipe depends on the momentum of the photon
(h/lambda). We can also use the wavelength of the light to give us its
energy E = hc / lambda.

Solve the problem to give the movement of the centre of mass of the system
when a photon of energy E travels from left to right and you'll find that
the mass equivalence of the photon, m = E/c^2

On Sun, 11 May 2008, 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.

Starting from "E is proportional to m", there must be a unit conversion
constant with units of velocity^2. The unit chosen for mass doesn't
matter, since it affects the left-hand and right-hand sides of the
equation equally. What matters is then just our choice of units for
distance and time.

The speed "c" is special. In the framework of special relativity (is this
also true in general relativity?), it's the only speed that's the same in
all inertial reference frames. But c has the particular value that it has
due to our choice of units to measure time and space.

So, if some particular speed features in the conversion constant, it'll
either be some entirely random value, or c.

But, consider the inertia of electromagnetic waves. An EM wavepacket of
total energy E has momentum E/c (this is a general relationship for speeds
other than c for the inertia of energy moved as waves, whether acoustic,
elastic, or thermal waves, N. A. Umov, 1874 iirc). From this, one sees
E=mc^2 gives us the inertia of an EM wave. While this is not the modern
use of "m" in E=mc^2, where m is the rest mass, there is the older usage
of m as "relativistic mass". Especially when you get to photons, what is
the difference between EM waves and matter? Should there be a unified
description of at least some of the behaviour of matter and photons? If
so, then we must have E=mc^2.

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.

These days, the modern joule is almost defined in terms of electromagnetic
radiation. Almost. Standards for units for time and distance are EM, mass
is not. But such standards aren't about logic or connectedness, but about
practical measurement.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On May 11, 8:14*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

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