hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response

andreas:
hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response

I don't understand the question.

andreas wrote:
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?

I would call c² the multipier in E=mc². Netowns law of gravity tells us
how the force depends on distance and masses of bodies. To make the
units match we have to multipy with G.

Einsteins energy mass relation tells us how the (rest-)energy of a body
depends on the (rest-)mass. Here we have to multipy with c² to equal the
units..

Both G and c are fundamental constants of nature.

In article ,
says...
hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response



Commonly E is in Joules, m is in Kilograms and c is in meters/second.
As the units come from Newtonian physics and a Joule units are Kilogram
* meters / sec2 So it works out nicely.

If however you decided to use E say in calories.

You would need to make it

E = 1/k * m* C^2

where k = 4.186

--
These is always a page that we are looking for and there is always a
note, that we have lost that we now really need now.


Observations of Bernard - No 66

Dear Theo Wollenleben:

"Theo Wollenleben" wrote in message
...
andreas wrote:
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?

I would call c² the multipier in E=mc². Netowns law of gravity tells us
how the force depends on distance and masses of bodies. To make the units
match we have to multipy with G.

Einsteins energy mass relation tells us how the (rest-)energy of a body
depends on the (rest-)mass. Here we have to multipy with c² to equal the
units..

Both G and c are fundamental constants of nature.

Good response!

David A. Smith

"andreas" wrote in message ...
hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response

No it is not a silly question.

The notation 'c' or what has become known as the 'speed of light' was
originally called the Equation of Light.There is a wonderful story
behind it despite its demotion to mathematical notation and a thorough
understanding of the principles behind it make the discussions in this
forum irrelevent.

Apologies for a very truncated history and more extensive material can
be found in Bernard Cohen's small book.

http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/Online...mer/index.html

It did not take Galileo long to figure out the usefulness of the newly
discovered satellites of Jupiter insofar as most scientists at the
time were occupied with finding terrestial longitudes.In other words
close attension was paid to the motion of the satellites when they
appeared and dissapeared behind Jupiter.

It became apparent that the innermost satellite - Io proved an
exception for sometimes it appeared to move slower and then would
speed up as determined by when it reappeared behind Jupiter.

http://www.planetary.org/html/news/a...s/bigjupio.jpg

What Roemer did was assume that Io's motion in reality is constant and
attributed the anomalous motion to a widening and shortening of the
distance between Earth's and Jupiter's heliocentric orbits.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-349/p6c.jpg

As the planets shorten the distance between each other,Io appears to
speed up and likewise as they widen Io appears to slow down.The effect
is witnessed as an illusion for the cause and effect is not a property
of light itself nor of the motions of Io but simply a matter of
turning your gaze to the orbits of Jupiter and Earth where it is
resolved geometrically.

You cannot square the speed of light,nor add to it nor subtract from
it,it is a wonderful expression of clear thinking on the part of
Roemer and it should be understood as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This represented the highest form of refinement that astronomy had up
to then attained,within a year of the discovery in 1676 things fell
apart,first owing to Flamsteed,then Newton building on Flamsteed's
error and finally Bradley's poor reasoning in respect to finite light
distance.

Most notably,the clear thinking of Roemer's method and insight fell
victim to Newton's scrambling of the precepts where they remain to
this day.


"Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior
Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of
their Gravity."

Optics 1704

The astronomical illusion of anomalous motion once expressed by the
Equation of Light is just another letter that can be pushed around
like pi or Phi,their geometrical meaning are now absolutely anonymous
as the physicists go about their ballistic business without apologies
or remorse.

Ask them what c^2 means and they will say it is just a very large
number with no association with light, but then if you have to call
that concealment 'genius' what else could you call into question.In
the history of the investigation of physical and celestial phenomena a
wilful holocaust like the present one was never supported by so many
even as the history of clocks and light and their respective
relationship to geometry and astronomy is so well documented.

The effect will be a weakening of western civilisation for no
heritage,no matter how strong,could support the dilution of concepts
from one generation to the next.The short term ability to avoid the
necessary astronomical corrections is offset by the realisation that
future generations will fare even worse as the disciplines of
astronomy and geology fall into stagnation and fundamentalism.

On the positive side,astronomy and geology,both representative in
their own way of the recorded history of cosmological and planetary
evolution,remain intact behind the dross of the 20th century and back
further into Newtonian ballistics.It remains to be seen whether this
delicate moment passes towards more stable views or a continuation of
the descent of creatures into their own monolithic worlds.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
| "andreas" wrote in message
...
| hi,
| In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
| Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
| I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula
was
| known.
| Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
| Thanks for any response
|
| No it is not a silly question.
|
| The notation 'c' or what has become known as the 'speed of light' was
| originally called the Equation of Light.There is a wonderful story
| behind it despite its demotion to mathematical notation and a thorough
| understanding of the principles behind it make the discussions in this
| forum irrelevent.
|
| Apologies for a very truncated history and more extensive material can
| be found in Bernard Cohen's small book.
|
| http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/Online...mer/index.html
|
| It did not take Galileo long to figure out the usefulness of the newly
| discovered satellites of Jupiter insofar as most scientists at the
| time were occupied with finding terrestial longitudes.In other words
| close attension was paid to the motion of the satellites when they
| appeared and dissapeared behind Jupiter.
|
| It became apparent that the innermost satellite - Io proved an
| exception for sometimes it appeared to move slower and then would
| speed up as determined by when it reappeared behind Jupiter.

Today we would refer to that as doppler-shift, but Doppler had yet to be
born.

|
|
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/a...s/bigjupio.jpg
|
| What Roemer did was assume that Io's motion in reality is constant and
| attributed the anomalous motion to a widening and shortening of the
| distance between Earth's and Jupiter's heliocentric orbits.

As the distance between Earth and Jupiter decreases, the period of the
orbits of its moons seems to be reduced.

|
| http://history.nasa.gov/SP-349/p6c.jpg
|
| As the planets shorten the distance between each other,Io appears to
| speed up and likewise as they widen Io appears to slow down.The effect
| is witnessed as an illusion for the cause and effect is not a property
| of light itself nor of the motions of Io but simply a matter of
| turning your gaze to the orbits of Jupiter and Earth where it is
| resolved geometrically.

1/t (apparent) = 1/t (true) * (c+v) / c

where (c-v) = dx/dt in the line of sight between the satellite and the
observer, relative to the observer, and c is the velocity of light along the
same line, relative to the satellite.

|
| You cannot square the speed of light,nor add to it nor subtract from
| it,it is a wonderful expression of clear thinking on the part of
| Roemer and it should be understood as such.

We have of course added to the speed of light in the equation above,
giving the lie to "you cannot".
Also we can square it.
1/t (apparent) = sqrt( 1/t (true)^2 * (c+v)^2 / c^2)
However, there is no need in this case.

1/t (apparent) = 1/t (true) * (c+v) / c
is a wonderful expression of clear thinking on the part of Doppler
and it should be understood as such.



|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| This represented the highest form of refinement that astronomy had up
| to then attained,within a year of the discovery in 1676 things fell
| apart,first owing to Flamsteed,then Newton building on Flamsteed's
| error and finally Bradley's poor reasoning in respect to finite light
| distance.

And with that nonsense Gerald Kellerher departs from the remainder
of humanity and embarks on his own agenda, trying to convince the world that
he alone is correct, the universe revolves around the Earth once a year and
a sidereal day lasts 24 hours.
To date, not one person has yet accepted Kellerher's geocentric universe,
akin to Tycho Brahe's theory of a solar system that revolved around the sun
but the sun revolved around the Earth.
Were Kellerher not so stubbornly obtuse and were prepared to listen it could
be explained to him, but alas his mind is made up and he alone will continue
to believe his own fallacy to the end of his days.
Androcles.

"andreas" wrote in message
...
hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula
was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response

There is no need for a conversion factor because you can always get Newton's
energy by:
W = F*D = M*A*A*T^2 = M*(AT)^2 = MV^2 = MC^2
to within a constant. You need the dynamic effect of M*A and the kinematice
one of AT^2 and no other help.
John C. Polasek

In sci.physics.relativity, andreas

wrote
on Tue, 07 Sep 2004 05:52:49 GMT
:
hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.

Yes, the Newtonian gravitational constant, about
6.674215 * 10^-11 m^3/(kg * sec^2).

Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?

But there is. c^2.

I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response

Your question isn't all that clear; perhaps you can rephrase?

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

thanks to all for the responses but my question is in more detail :
why not f.e. e= 0.1574864...mc^2
where 0.1574864... is a constant that is mesured


"andreas" schreef in bericht
...
hi,
In the formula F=GM1M2/R^2 there is the multiplier G.
Why is there no one in the formula E=MC^2 ?
I presume that the units of E,M and C already existed before the formula
was
known.
Maybe this is a stupid question but i like to know the answer.
Thanks for any response