• Sections
e=mc2

# e=mc2

Posted in the Physics Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
TruthWalker

Australia

#1 Sep 6, 2007
e=mc2

What does the m stand for? matter or mass?

And what does the c2 mean?

Thanks
israel benitez
#2 Sep 8, 2007
the equation e=mc2 means
e(energy)is equal to m(mass) multiplied by c(the speed of light) 2(squared). So energy is equal to mass accelerated at the speed of light(186,000 miles a second)squared or 34,596,000,000 miles a second.
TruthWalker

Brisbane, Australia

#3 Sep 12, 2007
israel benitez wrote:
the equation e=mc2 means
e(energy)is equal to m(mass) multiplied by c(the speed of light) 2(squared). So energy is equal to mass accelerated at the speed of light(186,000 miles a second)squared or 34,596,000,000 miles a second.
So if we use a writing pen as an example. How does this formula apply to the mass and atoms that make up the pen?
israel benitez
#4 Sep 14, 2007
TruthWalker wrote:
<quoted text>
So if we use a writing pen as an example. How does this formula apply to the mass and atoms that make up the pen?
Take the mass of the pen(lets say for the sake of argument that the pen weighs a pound) so the matter made up by the atoms in the pen combine to weigh a pound. Take that pound and accelerate from a state of rest(0 miles per second) to the speed of light squared or 34,596,000,000 miles per second and then according to einstein any mass moving at that speed will convert into pure energy.
TruthWalker

Australia

#5 Sep 14, 2007
israel benitez wrote:
<quoted text>Take the mass of the pen(lets say for the sake of argument that the pen weighs a pound) so the matter made up by the atoms in the pen combine to weigh a pound. Take that pound and accelerate from a state of rest(0 miles per second) to the speed of light squared or 34,596,000,000 miles per second and then according to einstein any mass moving at that speed will convert into pure energy.
This is not correct!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#6 Sep 15, 2007
Convert 1 gram of matter (any matter) to energy, you will get 90 trillion joules. (.001 Kg x 300,000 km/s ^2) This is about 10 kilotons in terms of nuclear explosions. Thus, a 1 megaton nuke converts about 100 grams of matter to energy.
israel benitez
#7 Sep 15, 2007
TruthWalker wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not correct!
no offense, but you didn't even know the basic mathematical components of the equation such as "m" standing for mass and "c" standing for the speed of light ,so now, how do you have enough insight into the field to know I'm wrong when you had to be told the basic symbols of the formula?
TruthWalker

Australia

#8 Sep 19, 2007
israel benitez, because I do know that much that your comment was in error.

You don't even know what truly causes gravity, no human does, yet you know that if you jump off a building, you fall down.

So how is that any different?

You do not need to fully understand the whole mathematical components of the equation of gravity to understand that!
bikaram kumar

Wollongong, Australia

#9 Sep 24, 2007
I am bikram from delhi now i am doing bca from smu
israel benitez
#10 Sep 24, 2007
TruthWalker wrote:
israel benitez, because I do know that much that your comment was in error.
You don't even know what truly causes gravity, no human does, yet you know that if you jump off a building, you fall down.
So how is that any different?
You do not need to fully understand the whole mathematical components of the equation of gravity to understand that!
Oh, so in other words you feel the theory of Einstein's is incorrect not my explanation of it because, once again, no offense but GRAVITY yes is still quite a mystery however Einstein's theories of light, space-time, and accelerating bodies have all been proven in rigorous tests since their conception. Einstein said that a body moving at near factors of the speed of light or near the speed of light will experience certain abnormalities such as an increase in mass, time dilation, and others that have been proven through experimentation. Time slowing down the faster you go has been proven hundred of times, the fact that large bodies warp space time around them has been proven so even though I do respect skepticism because any good scientist must scrutinize and scrutinize until you arrive at an infallible truth but, in my opinion, if a physicist's work has never been disproven and proven by hundreds of scientists all over the world time and time again and through this research has revolutionized technology, science, our understanding of the universe then,for me, if he says mass moving at light speed squared will convert into energy then I think there is a good chance it does.
israel benitez
#11 Sep 24, 2007
TruthWalker wrote:
israel benitez, because I do know that much that your comment was in error.
You don't even know what truly causes gravity, no human does, yet you know that if you jump off a building, you fall down.
So how is that any different?
You do not need to fully understand the whole mathematical components of the equation of gravity to understand that!
no offense but that statement is like saying I do know that 1+1=2 but I dont know what the symbol "1" means.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#12 Sep 27, 2007
israel benitez wrote:
<quoted text>Take the mass of the pen(lets say for the sake of argument that the pen weighs a pound) so the matter made up by the atoms in the pen combine to weigh a pound. Take that pound and accelerate from a state of rest(0 miles per second) to the speed of light squared or 34,596,000,000 miles per second and then according to einstein any mass moving at that speed will convert into pure energy.
Sorry, Isreal, but you ARE incorrect.

E=mc^2 is the REST energy of a mass. Velocity relative to a frame of reference will add kinetic energy to that.

BTW, a particle with the property of mass can NEVER travel at the speed of light. It can approach it, but never reach it.

Also, as a mass approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity. It would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it TO the speed of light.
TruthWalker

Lutwyche, Australia

#13 Sep 29, 2007
israel benitez wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so in other words you feel the theory of Einstein's is incorrect not my explanation of it because, once again, no offense but GRAVITY yes is still quite a mystery however Einstein's theories of light, space-time, and accelerating bodies have all been proven in rigorous tests since their conception. Einstein said that a body moving at near factors of the speed of light or near the speed of light will experience certain abnormalities such as an increase in mass, time dilation, and others that have been proven through experimentation. Time slowing down the faster you go has been proven hundred of times, the fact that large bodies warp space time around them has been proven so even though I do respect skepticism because any good scientist must scrutinize and scrutinize until you arrive at an infallible truth but, in my opinion, if a physicist's work has never been disproven and proven by hundreds of scientists all over the world time and time again and through this research has revolutionized technology, science, our understanding of the universe then,for me, if he says mass moving at light speed squared will convert into energy then I think there is a good chance it does.
Proof? Show me this proof! It's called a THEORY because its NOT proof!
TruthWalker

Lutwyche, Australia

#14 Sep 29, 2007
israel benitez wrote:
<quoted text> no offense but that statement is like saying I do know that 1+1=2 but I dont know what the symbol "1" means.
What exactly does 1 mean? Explain it to me.
israel benitez
#15 Oct 2, 2007
TruthWalker wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof? Show me this proof! It's called a THEORY because its NOT proof!
Look up the Hafele and Keating Experiment.

J.C. Hafele and R.E. Keating Science 177, 166(1972)
israel benitez
#16 Oct 2, 2007
TruthWalker wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly does 1 mean? Explain it to me.
"1" or one is a number, numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number. It is a natural number following 0 and preceding 2. It represents a single entity.
israel benitez
#17 Oct 2, 2007
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Isreal, but you ARE incorrect.
E=mc^2 is the REST energy of a mass. Velocity relative to a frame of reference will add kinetic energy to that.
BTW, a particle with the property of mass can NEVER travel at the speed of light. It can approach it, but never reach it.
Also, as a mass approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity. It would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it TO the speed of light.
You are correct. I knew that at factors of light speed the mass of an object increases and that at 99.99999 percent of light speed your mass would be infinitely large requiring an infinite amount of energy to be pushed over the threshold, however, what I DID NOT know was that E=mc2 IS the rest energy of mass. Also multiplying the mass by the speed of light and then again is a measurement of the mass to energy ratio.
TruthWalker

Australia

#18 Oct 3, 2007
israel benitez wrote:
<quoted text> "1" or one is a number, numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number. It is a natural number following 0 and preceding 2. It represents a single entity.
Can 1 ever represent more than a "single entity"?

For example, I can give you one rope. However, if you take it apart, you will notice 3 smaller ropes that make up "one rope"
Le Van Cuong

Hanoi, Vietnam

#19 Oct 26, 2007
e=mc2
As I know about Einstein's relative theory, a formula: E=m.c2 is the rest energy of mass and a formula: Er=mo.y.c2 is the energy of mass when it moves rapidly with changes its mass, space and time.(Of which mo=m is the rest mass and y is dilation coefficient of Lorrenzt. The mass is increased when it moves with extreme speed to become m'=mo.y ).
I think that Einstein's formula: Er=mo.y.c2 is incorrect. This is because why does the mass when it moves with rapidly speed have the coefficient: y, but not the km/s of the light speed: c ? It means that there is no calculation of physical factors of the space: km and time: s and Einstein's formula: Er=mo.y.c2 only shows a change of mass but does not change the space: km and time: s. I think it has to be revised by Er=mo.y.c'2 ,( of which c'=co.y , because 300,000(km.y/s.y)=300,000(y.km /s)= 300,000.y.km/s and co=300,000km/s). The light speed: c' is similar with light speed:c, but not equal, km.y/s.y can't be km/s, km.y/s.y= y.km/s.
socratus

Rehovot, Israel

#20 Dec 30, 2007
==========
Quantum Theory says mass increases with speed increase
and becomes infinite when a mass reaches speed of light: c=1.
Which is against the
“Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”.
But we know the quantum of light is real particle and
its mass is particular and not infinite.
And the scientists invented an artful way: the quantum
does not possess the mass of rest and it is always in motion.
==========
The quantum of light has not mass of rest equal to zero.
But…….
==========
The Soviet/Russian academic S. Vavilov suggested an
interesting idea. In his book ' Isaac Newton' he wrote.
The force, according to the Newton’s Second Law,
is equal to : F= ma.
This force is possible to consider as absolute independent
quantity - impulse. When in case with light quanta
the impulse is equal to: mc.
He continued.
Let us now imagine that light quanta falls on a black body,
and it absolutely absorbs this light quanta
( it means light quanta stops).
Then, according to the Lebedev,s law, light quanta
renders pressure on the black body: E/c.
Therefore it is possible to write: mc=E/c.
It means that light quanta has not mass of rest equal to zero,
but it has potential energy/mass: M=E/c^2.(E=Mc^2).
==========
Of course the potential energy/mass of light quanta
can transform in its kinetic energy.
==========
Quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only the speed of a light quantum in Vacuum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse.
1) Under one internal impulse ( Planck’s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse (Goudsmit - Uhlenbeck's spin h = h / 2pi)
a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse h =h/2pi.
So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
==========
The secret of words 'God','soul ','religion',‘ Existence’,
‘Time’,'dualism of consciousness','human being'
hide in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
==========
http://www.socratus.com

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

### Physics Discussions

EM drive uses the equation E/c^2 = mass? May 12 TRquestion 1
Newton's gravitational equation May 10 mich 1
Why is it ( do you think ) ..... Apr '17 Charlie Brown 1
Standing Waves Feb '17 Aquamarisa 1
Is Inertial Force not a Real Force ? Feb '17 nakayama 9
Science Shock: Electromagnetic fields from mobi... (Jan '16) Feb '17 samvila 4
Definition of Inertial Frame : A Proposal Feb '17 nakayama 7

#### Physics News

More Physics News from Topix »

More from around the web