In article , jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...
E = mc^2 + 1/2mv^2


You are mixing up Einstein and Newton.

The first part of this formula is Einstein
Mc^2

Which has no meaning in Newton physics as in Newton physics where we
have two laws.
The law of conservation of mass.
The law of conservation of energy.


The second part in Newton is the value for kinetic energy.
1/2 mv^2

In Newton system the formula for energy is
E= Kinetic energy + potential energy.



--
It is scarily when you consider that kooky conspiracy theorist actually
vote.

Observations of Bernard - No 57

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad6bae8620d623e989a43@news...
In article , jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...
E = mc^2 + 1/2mv^2


You are mixing up Einstein and Newton.

Well, of course. Newton could handle math and Einstein couldn't.


The first part of this formula is Einstein
Mc^2

No, that's Langevin, Not Einstein
You already said what Einstein's formula was.

Which has no meaning in Newton physics as in Newton physics where we
have two laws.
The law of conservation of mass.
The law of conservation of energy.

Up until Langevin, that was true. Einstein thought it was
E= m (Definite integral 0 to v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^3 .dv.
See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
If you are going to teach history, at least get it right or stop trying to
teach it.
That integral belongs to Newton, by the way.
Einstein isn't allowed to use the work of Newton.




The second part in Newton is the value for kinetic energy.
1/2 mv^2
It sure is.



In Newton system the formula for energy is
E= Kinetic energy + potential energy.

There you are wrong.
Just because Newton hadn't discovered E = mc^2 in his lifetime
doesn't mean those that followed him didn't. See
"Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1 (1965).

E = mc^2 +1/2 mv^2. so
E^2 = (mc^2 +1/2 mv^2)^2

I have no idea where you got your kooky formula from.
Did you copy it from somewhere? You won't learn much that way.
Androcles

In article , jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad6bae8620d623e989a43@news...
In article , jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...
E = mc^2 + 1/2mv^2


You are mixing up Einstein and Newton.

Well, of course. Newton could handle math and Einstein couldn't.

Check Einstein mathematics in GR. He may not have been a brilliant
mathematician but he was pretty good.



The first part of this formula is Einstein
Mc^2

No, that's Langevin, Not Einstein
You already said what Einstein's formula was.


(a)

I think you should do some checking on Paul Langevin. He derive E = mc^2
from Einstein's theories.



Which has no meaning in Newton physics as in Newton physics where we
have two laws.
The law of conservation of mass.
The law of conservation of energy.

Up until Langevin, that was true. Einstein thought it was
E= m (Definite integral 0 to v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^3 .dv.
See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
If you are going to teach history, at least get it right or stop trying to
teach it.
That integral belongs to Newton, by the way.
Einstein isn't allowed to use the work of Newton.

see (a) above







The second part in Newton is the value for kinetic energy.
1/2 mv^2
It sure is.



In Newton system the formula for energy is
E= Kinetic energy + potential energy.

There you are wrong.

Actually I am right.

Just because Newton hadn't discovered E = mc^2 in his lifetime
doesn't mean those that followed him didn't. See
"Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1 (1965).

E = mc^2 +1/2 mv^2. so
E^2 = (mc^2 +1/2 mv^2)^2

I have no idea where you got your kooky formula from.
Did you copy it from somewhere? You won't learn much that way.
Androcles

plonk to you too







--
It is scarily when you consider that kooky conspiracy theorist actually
vote.

Observations of Bernard - No 57

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad97630bc5ca0b2989a4a@news...
In article , jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad6bae8620d623e989a43@news...
In article , jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...
E = mc^2 + 1/2mv^2


You are mixing up Einstein and Newton.

Well, of course. Newton could handle math and Einstein couldn't.

Check Einstein mathematics in GR. He may not have been a brilliant
mathematician but he was pretty good.

Yes. It is a common misconception (paraded about by crackpots and the
popular press) that Einstein was not able to do math. They cite that he
failed math. In fact, he was a first rate mathematician, coming up with a
notational methodology for repeated summation that is widely used in all
branches of physics and many branches of mathematics.
Einstein's failure at a mathematics course was not due to ineptitude, but
lack of interest in the regimented structure of the classes he took in the
gymnasium.

Dear Michael Varney:

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad97630bc5ca0b2989a4a@news...
In article ,
jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad6bae8620d623e989a43@news...
In article ,
jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...
E = mc^2 + 1/2mv^2


You are mixing up Einstein and Newton.

Well, of course. Newton could handle math and Einstein couldn't.

Check Einstein mathematics in GR. He may not have been a brilliant
mathematician but he was pretty good.

Yes. It is a common misconception (paraded about by crackpots and the
popular press) that Einstein was not able to do math. They cite that he
failed math. In fact, he was a first rate mathematician, coming up with
a
notational methodology for repeated summation that is widely used in all
branches of physics and many branches of mathematics.
Einstein's failure at a mathematics course was not due to ineptitude, but
lack of interest in the regimented structure of the classes he took in
the
gymnasium.

I have it on good authority (;) that the first Ms. Einstein was being
courted at the time as well...

I nearly failed Controls Theory for just such a reason...

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:7TFbc.9149$zh.6390@fed1read07...
Dear Michael Varney:

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad97630bc5ca0b2989a4a@news...
In article ,
jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad6bae8620d623e989a43@news...
In article ,
jp006f9750
@nospamblueyonder.co.uk says...
E = mc^2 + 1/2mv^2


You are mixing up Einstein and Newton.

Well, of course. Newton could handle math and Einstein couldn't.

Check Einstein mathematics in GR. He may not have been a brilliant
mathematician but he was pretty good.

Yes. It is a common misconception (paraded about by crackpots and the
popular press) that Einstein was not able to do math. They cite that he
failed math. In fact, he was a first rate mathematician, coming up with
a
notational methodology for repeated summation that is widely used in all
branches of physics and many branches of mathematics.
Einstein's failure at a mathematics course was not due to ineptitude,
but
lack of interest in the regimented structure of the classes he took in
the
gymnasium.

I have it on good authority (;) that the first Ms. Einstein was being
courted at the time as well...

Ahh! Woman... woe to man!


I nearly failed Controls Theory for just such a reason...

Ditto for nearly a whole semester in UGrad!