The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why C squared?  (Read 10995 times)

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« on: 26/05/2010 07:22:43 »
It is very well known that E=mc².

Why is it precisely c squared rather than c to the power 1.93, or some other power?

Is it squared because of some sort of two dimensional relationship?


 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3810
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #1 on: 26/05/2010 08:17:58 »
While I cannot quote the detail from memory I recall that special relativity is largely a matter of geometry solving right angled triangles as modified by Lorenz contraction and the limited speed of light.
Special relativity is fairly simple compared with GR and I am sure an account can be found on the net how these equations are derived. 
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #2 on: 26/05/2010 08:48:16 »
E has units (SI) of kg m2s-2
m has units of kg
Therefore you have to multiply m by a m2s-2 to equate it to E or the units won't match, which is units of velocity 2.  If you raised it to any other power you'd have an equation that didn't make sense, units-wise.

As for why it's c as opposed to another velocity, you can derive it from the equations of SR (Lorentz contractions).  A hand-waving alternative to justify it is that for an object at rest (which is where that equation holds), you'd expect the only meaningful velocity in the theory to be the speed of light (or zero, but zero is trivial). 
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #3 on: 26/05/2010 09:04:15 »
E has units (SI) of kg m2s-2
m has units of kg
Therefore you have to multiply m by a m2s-2 to equate it to E or the units won't match, which is units of velocity 2.  If you raised it to any other power you'd have an equation that didn't make sense, units-wise.

As for why it's c as opposed to another velocity, you can derive it from the equations of SR (Lorentz contractions).  A hand-waving alternative to justify it is that for an object at rest (which is where that equation holds), you'd expect the only meaningful velocity in the theory to be the speed of light (or zero, but zero is trivial). 

While I'm sure that any gods who happen to be out there would obviously gravitate towards le Système international d'unités (how could they possibly resist?) it's not entirely clear to me that nature would pick on an integer for our convenience.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #4 on: 26/05/2010 09:49:22 »
You don't need to use the SI system.  You can use any units or no units (substitute in length, time and mass) for dimensional analysis.  The units on both sides of the equation have to match or the equation won't make physical sense.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Why C squared?
« Reply #5 on: 26/05/2010 13:30:15 »
E has units (SI) of kg m2s-2.

???   the SI unit for energy is the Joule.  What you've done there is to try to express it in terms of a combination of three other SI units i.e. mass (kg), size (m) and time (s).

I have a pet speculation 'theory' that E= mc2 may represent the energy required to raise a two-dimensional order object to a three-dimensional order object (or conversely, the energy liberated by collapsing a three-dimensional order object down to a two-dimensional order object).  Note that this is purely speculation though, and shouldn't be regarded as science; I only mention it here because it does seem to be along similar lines to what Geezer was thinking.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #6 on: 26/05/2010 13:55:18 »
Joule is a derived unit of SI - the base units are as JP stated kg m2s-2.  the only base units are kg metre second mole ampere and kelvin - all other units are derived units. 

a newton is the force required to accelerate a kilogram at a rate of one metre per second per second (ie all base units) this means the dimensional analysis of a newton is kg.m.s^-2.  the joule is defined as the energy provided by a force of one newton over distance of one metre - thus the dimensional breakdown is that of the newton multiplied by metre ie kg.m^2.s-2
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #7 on: 26/05/2010 21:27:41 »
E has units (SI) of kg m2s-2
m has units of kg
Therefore you have to multiply m by a m2s-2 to equate it to E or the units won't match, which is units of velocity 2.  If you raised it to any other power you'd have an equation that didn't make sense, units-wise.

As for why it's c as opposed to another velocity, you can derive it from the equations of SR (Lorentz contractions).  A hand-waving alternative to justify it is that for an object at rest (which is where that equation holds), you'd expect the only meaningful velocity in the theory to be the speed of light (or zero, but zero is trivial). 

Doh! I went over your explanation again JP. I get it now.
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #8 on: 07/06/2010 12:40:08 »
I had thought that the energy unit was the 'Erg'.
Seems now any unit will do?
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3810
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #9 on: 07/06/2010 12:54:12 »
Indeed there is such an unit as the Erg but since the introduction of the SI system of unit the measure in common use is the Joule, 1 Joule = 10000000 Ergs, any self consistent system of units can be used, you could work out a system using feet and ounces if you really wanted to.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #10 on: 07/06/2010 18:57:12 »
you could work out a system using feet and ounces if you really wanted to.

Personally, I prefer roods and scruples.

Units are a bit like standards. The great thing about them is that there are so many to choose from  ;D
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 20:05:16 by Geezer »
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #11 on: 08/06/2010 13:47:35 »
Very, very interesting.
So what, if any, units did Einstein himself use in his original papers, written in German I think, re his Special and/or General theories of Relativity, re E=Em C Squared? To know that would be similarly interesting. :) 
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #12 on: 08/06/2010 14:30:23 »
It seems that Albert used cgs - centimetres grammes seconds - and erg (not joules) in his paper

in original
http://www.zbp.univie.ac.at/dokumente/einstein4.pdf

in English
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #13 on: 13/06/2010 00:18:21 »
It is very well known that E=mc².

Why is it precisely c squared rather than c to the power 1.93, or some other power?

Is it squared because of some sort of two dimensional relationship?

It is precisely C2 as a result of reflection. If i hold a flashlight and shine it into empty space the speed of the light is constant ( 186000) so long as it is not relative to a reflective source. As soon as the light from the flashlight comes into relativity to  a reflective plane the speed of the light is duplicated( squared relative to light being reflected). The point of squaring occurs at the plane of reflection. Light is invisible energy that "flows" throughout the universe. When light is NOT relative to reflective planes( tier or stratum)the speed of light is always C-speed constant with no squaring of the speed of light. However when light "colides" with a reflective medium( plane, brane,aether,)its speed is squared relative to an observer. Thus if a relative observer saw a light source in one part of the universe( "out in space") and was not aware that a mirrored"substance" was relative to the path of light yet many light years away, it would appear that the light was in "two places at the same time." But this phenomenon of "light squared" is illussionary and occurs as a result of the light source being reflected at another "point" in space. Thus the concept of C2 though parroted in the books is actually an illusion and a matter of "relative observer perspective". That is to say when the speed of light is squared it is actually being reflected. Thus in the strictest sense the "actual" speed of light is ALWAYS constant( 186000). When light speed "seems" to speed up this is a result of the "progenitor light source speed" being reflected and thus its speed being "equivalentized" at another location in space. This duplication (reflection) of the speed of light leads to the false presumption that the speed of light is being "exactly" squared.

Thus the reason why the ideal is that light is either constant or "exactly squared"( not less than 186000 X 186000)is because the light speed is "exactly" reflected as it is. Thus reflection= C2! or: If i hold my hand ( from a physics standpoint....invisible space /atomic energy) in front of a mirror my 5 fingers are exactly duplicated. The mirror image of necessity exactly communicates the shape and number of fingers to a "dual form". The principles of reflection mandate that the object being reflected ...so long as the space of the mirror is large enough to reflect the whole object...will be reflected exactly as it is fully. Thus my hand represents light when i hold my hand in "parallelsism" to the reflective plane mirror it is exactly reflected as it is.

Further more if i stand in front of a mirror and then begin to move away from the mirror the distance from me to the mirror represents the distance between a light source and its reflection. This distance can be represented as "A". However as i move away from the mirror at such and such speed my reflected image also moves away from the "surface of the mirror"(" back into the mirror).....opposite the direction of the light source(my body). Thus if i am moving away from the mirror at 5 miles an hour( to the left) ...my reflected image is moving at exactly the same speed ( 5 miles an hour)( to the right). Thus the "relative point" that squares my speed is the mirror. Or! The "relative point" of REFLECTION! Light reflected. Light speed reflected( exactly squared).

Thus the illusion of the squaring of the speed of light is explained only by the principles of reflection. That is to say light traveling in space is constant C speed. When light (constant speed) passes "along or relative to" a reflective plane its speed as well quality is exactly "squared" (mirror imaged). Thus: When a "relative observer" who is not aware of a reflective medium relative to light sees light speed "seemingly" squared he is seeing light invisible being transferred or transformed to a "dual image" of itself.

Thus: Mass= reflected light
      Grey matter= reflected of light
      C2- light speed reflected

conclusion( postulate) Mass=light reflections! reflection dictates the constant relativity of mass as to energy.

E(c)=M(Ec divided by 1/2)= (m) x 2(ecr)=E

Where E= energy; Where C= constant speed of light: where M= reflective plane or aether: where...ecr= energy light reflected: and where m= "mass". Th

Thus: m=M via Ec squared. Or: Ec divided by ecr= M(m)
Or: M(m)(mcr) x M(m)(ecr)= Ec
Or: ecr(M=m)divided by ecr(M=m)= E   

This does not represent a "two dimensional relationship". However it does represent the "relationship" between light and light reflected. Thus: The word "relationship" would be synonymous with "relativity". That is to say the "relationship" is defined by the principles of relativity. Light relative to light reflection= relationship between higher dimensional light photon and its refracted reflected "dual form". The reflective plane inherently also refracts light photon thus this refraction though seemingly communicating all of the quality of light in reality "obscures" or relegates the full quality of light. This relegation of light quality represents "mass"(reflected forms of light-energy)
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #14 on: 13/06/2010 00:30:39 »
E has units (SI) of kg m2s-2.

???   the SI unit for energy is the Joule.  What you've done there is to try to express it in terms of a combination of three other SI units i.e. mass (kg), size (m) and time (s).
I have a pet speculation 'theory' that E= mc2 may represent the energy required to raise a two-dimensional order object to a three-dimensional order object (or conversely, the energy liberated by collapsing a three-dimensional order object down to a two-dimensional order object).  Note that this is purely speculation though, and shouldn't be regarded as science; I only mention it here because it does seem to be along similar lines to what Geezer was thinking.

E=mc; represents: (E)-light-photon energy and quality( myriad) being LOWERED to "a" 3-dimensional reflected plane (=M )with refractive and reflective qualities. The  qualities of refraction/reflection (of M)relative to E. This refraction/reflection of white light photon produces.... (m)=mass
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #15 on: 13/06/2010 07:26:09 »
mirormimic, what you're claiming about reflection has nothing to do with the theory of relativity and physics in general.  Reflection certainly doesn't square the speed of light.
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #16 on: 13/06/2010 16:38:33 »
The accompanying picture demonstrates the irrefutable principle law that reflection does indeed "square" the speed as well distance of light photon.

Followed by this illustration is the following:

<--------------------------------------------->

Albert Einstein…………………“Genius“?

--->(g)EINSEIN(g)<--- Where the (t) in the word “Eins(t)ein has subtracted relative to the phonetic “point”

EIN= eye+in+es!  Add the letter “g” to the phonetic spelling (eyeines) and we arrive at the word: geeyeines(genius)----------------------------------------->forward.

NIE= in+eye+e(s)!  Add the letter “g” to the phonetic spelling (ineyees) and we arrive at the word: geineyees(genius) <--------------------------------------Backward.

THUS: Albert……………(g)EINS…(t)….EIN(g)

“Albert genius ein (where Albert is Albert; Where Einstein phonetically reads backward and forward the word genius. “AND” where EIN is the German word for “to be”.

Albert is(was, to be, a, an) Genius.

Note: Albert, though not fully realizing it, was comprehending subliminally the principles of Reflection. He called these unperceived principles….RELATIVITY! He was not fully aware that the principles he was gleaning through “observation”, such principles he termed “relativity; were in reality representative of the “relationship” between light and THAT light REFLECTED.  That “relative relationship,”( between E and mc of E) as well, the definitive and Universal Principle Law,  was The: Universal Principle Law of REFLECTION.

E=M(E2)=(mc of E)/M(E2=mc X 2; or: C2)=E

A stein ( as in Ein- stein) is a beer mug. The word “beer” could read “be ER”. Where “be”= Is. Where ER= Energy Reflected. And where “mug”= em+you+ge…………..”Image”.

the mathematical term "mc"(mass-"light") represents an "IMAGE"(reflected of E)of E. Thus Ec( light from E as well speed of light of E)X mc(of E)=C2. Where C= light speed; where "2" equals light speed reflected. A "dualizing" of the speed of light verses any "real squaring" of the speed of light.

 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #17 on: 13/06/2010 17:48:38 »
However perspective is necessary.

Though Einstein has been labeled a “genius” his genius was used( by others)  to the detriment of mankind. As is typical of mankind , man always seems to use knowledge irresponsibly. Knowledge is only effective if used in a wise way. Thus the difference between knowledge and wisdom is what separates man from God. God is the source of all power and energy and always uses it in a good and wise way. When man aspires and due to such “seeking” acquires LIMITED knowledge of energy he has been proven to frivolously and without restraint misuse such knowledge.( Biblical Quote: “ man dominates man to his own injury”) Knowledge represents the mere accumulation of facts gained through observation, experience or study. Wisdom on the other hand represents the proper use of knowledge.

Albert realized something about energy as well its relativity to mass. Man took this knowledge and used the energy to “mass” destroy “mass”. Was Einstein at fault?

(reference: AISH.COM) ….“Einstein expressing his profound fear and ambiguity about one of the greatest discoveries of mankind. Here was one of the most famous pacifists in history, and he had created the formula for weapons of mass destruction.  But with misty eyes, Einstein explained how sometimes a person has to create tools of war for the sake of peace. And as I ran after my toddler, who quickly lost interest in the film, I couldn't shake this image from my mind. In the last picture, I saw the genius of the 20th century with that far away look in his eyes, speaking of the unfathomable burden of responsibility that will forever haunt him.

August 6, 1945
First atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan
"Woe is me."—Albert Einstein, upon hearing the news of the Hiroshima bombing

Einstein and the Nuclear Age
Although he never worked directly on the atomic bomb, Einstein is often incorrectly associated with the advent of nuclear weapons. His famous equation E=mc2 explains the energy released in an atomic bomb but doesn't explain how to build one. He repeatedly reminded people, "I do not consider myself the father of the release of atomic energy. My part in it was quite indirect." Nevertheless, Einstein was frequently asked to explain his role—as he was when a Japanese magazine editor asked him, "Why did you cooperate in the production of atomic bombs, knowing full well their...destructive power?"( End quotes)

Einstein stated: “ I do not consider myself the father of the release of atomic energy.”
He was correct. The true father  of “energy” is God.  God uses  his inexhaustible energy responsibly. Man in contrast almost NEVER does.

What Albert “discovered” led to horrible consequences. Much heartache and suffering occurred. Much trouble! Is it coincidence that as his last name phonetically reads “genius” his first name reads “terrible (and) trouble”?

Indeed the name “Albert” spelled backward= trebla (te+are+e+be+el+e): Trouble/Terrible!

The bible speaks of a time that is fast approaching that “unless those days(times) were cut short no flesh would be saved”. The Bible also says of this time “…There will be Great Tribulation such as has not occurred since the worlds beginning until now…”


It is hard to imagine that through mans thousand of years of tumultuous “events” as well 2 catastrophic world wars killing possibly 100,000 million that this “Great tribulation “ could eclipse so many centuries of “terrible trouble.” However, as the first 7 letters of the word tribulation ( “ tribula’=( trouble/ terrible)) remind us….As Albert reminds us……The misuse of power , the thirst for domination and the greed that accompanies mans lust for sovereignty inevitably leads to “trouble/terrible”. Thus the 7 letters( tribula) in the word tribulation spelled backward says: ALUBIRT( Albert!). It is interesting that the letter “b” in Hebrew is used interchangeably with the letter “v”. If we replace the “B” in the word “tribulation” with the letter “V” what word is formed? This: RIVULATION! Revelation!
 
 As to Einstein. His supposed “genius” has been demonstrated to be NO genius at all! Despite many placative  comments that Albert was supposedly regretful the following quote suggests that he rationalized things:

.
“Einstein explained how sometimes a person has to create tools of war for the sake of peace.”

This absurd comment is parroted by the nationalistic masses of mankind. If all men chose to be unreservedly peaceful there would be NO NEED for instruments of war. As Albert obviously “downplayed” the seriousness, so does man today.

The true Genius of the universe…God HIMSELF( excluding all others) says that soon he will put an end to all war. How will he accomplish this. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. God will put an end to the  non- peaceful, warmongering ones who perpetrate , plan for, execute, then rationalize the consequences of WAR.

Biblical quote: “ They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation WILL NOT lift up sword against nation….Neither will they learn war any more. The former things have passed away.”
 
Indeed Armageddon will remove the “former Things” ( war, people who make war, people who rationalize warfare). Only peaceful people who acknowledge bad and seek to not be “repeat offenders” ( warmongers …unyieldingly propagating war) will remain. 
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #18 on: 13/06/2010 19:45:03 »
i'd guess that when a nucleus explodes, 2 emitted particles would travel in opposite directions. whereas C cant be exceeded, each particle can only accelerate to C as its maximum velocity. when the acceleration of the 2 particles is analyzed, C2 is the maximum allowed acceleration if C cant be exceeded?
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #19 on: 13/06/2010 23:22:52 »
Firstly, the concept of C2 is a ‘concept”. Not dissimilar to most of physics(theoretical) the concept of C2 has not been proven to ever occur. In my posts I have drawn attention to the reality that if there is some “suggestion” of any C2 occurring such would be an illusion.

This illusion of the squaring of the speed of light is a result of a “relative observer” perceiving such to be the case though in reality the perceptions are in error.

The principles of reflection indeed demonstrate HOW or WHY  a relative observer would come to the conclusion that the speed of light is being squared. To reiterate: As is true, mirror reflection can produce an “image” of objects. Whether object “mass” or object space. As well reflection produces the illusion of expansion. Thus: The idea that the universe is expanding can be equally explained by understanding the universe as reflecting thus causing the illusion of expansion to a “relative observer.”

If I were to hang a light(E) in a dense forest(space) in the black of night(dark matter) a relative observer could see the light and conclude that there is a light in the darkness. However if I were to place 1,000 mirrors sporadically throughout the forest and conceal most of the reflective surface behind shrubbery, as well place these mirrors in such a way that they could reflect from one to the other………What would the “relative observer see? He would see 1,000 points of light! Now lets say that the original light is coming from a flashlight and that the person holding the flash light is hidden behind a tree. That is to say : The observers “relative view” is NOT relative to the light coming from the flashlight. What conclusion would the relative observer come to? He would perceive that there are 1,000 lights located at distinguishable places throughout the forest. Question: If the person behind the tree turned off the flashlight what would the relative observer “see”? The relative observer would see 1,000 lights simultaneously disappear.

Physical Universe application:

The myriad lights that are “observed” sprinkled throughout the universe are representative of a smaller number of real light sources being communicated to a larger number of places throughout the universe. Or: One light could be communicated to a myriad of places if parts of the universe( or the bulk of the universe…as in an ether flowing throughout and within) were reflective relative to the real light sources. If a relative observer( on top of a mountain peering through a telescope) was not aware of this phenomenon( of the universe being light relative to reflected light) he would perceive that there are millions of “stars, galaxies, or clusters of stars” existing throughout the universe. He would also conclude that each light was distinguishable …one from the other. However in the case of a reflective universe it could in reality be one ( or a hundred) “real” lights being reflected at a myriad of points throughout the universe. Each light would be reflected differently( clearer, more distorted, more stretched, more compact, more dense) relative to the “nature” of the reflective plane( or aether) the light is being reflected off of or refracted “through”.

If a relative observer were watching this what would he see if the original light or one hundred lights “turned off”. The relative observer would gasp as he would witness  millions upon millions of “supposed distinguishable lights” disappearing instantly and simultaneously.

What of the speed of light squared as representative of real light being communicated to “image reflection”. Through mathematics it has been discerned that there is some sort of “sibling star”(twin star) phenomenon occurring in the universe. That is that it seems that a light source in one part of the universe is exactly behaving like another star in another place in the universe though separated by millions of LIGHT YEARS . The only difference between these seemingly “same” stars is the difference in spin and ( exactly reversed). Scientists have proposed that this represents light traveling “so fast“( “C2“) as to be in “two places at the same time” though separated by millions of light years. What would explain this.

This: Light speed at point A is being reflected to point B. As light A travels at the speed of light so to the reflected light(B) travels equally at the speed of light. However because the relative observer is watching both( and is not aware or does not ascribe to the principle of reflection as relevant or occurring)  at the same time he observes such an affinity between the two that he concludes that light must be traveling so fast as to be able to occupy two places at the same time. The relative observer would be in error. What is occurring is NOT C2 rather the light of E being exactly (dualized-twin) communicated to another place in space.

As well: Light rays from a flashlight 2 inches in diameter  would continue to expand( grow) as its light is communicated through space. If that light travels one million light years its rays grow tremendously. If its rays upon traveling one million light years reaches a reflective plane its “image light” would appear gigantic to a relative observer( who was watching the light from the flashlight as well the light when it collides with the reflective medium out in space. ) Thus indeed “all things are made up of miniscule light-energy atoms. The energy and light of a “grain“-atom can expand infinitely and be communicated as a larger form of itself anywhere within the universe. Or: Every light we see in the universe ( micro/macro) represents small atoms being communicated to larger forms of itself through reflection. The distance between the real atoms and the reflective medium( it is reflected to)  dictates how large or “small” the “mass” organism light(form of E) is. ‘Everything is made up of atoms’ The closer a “mass” is to its reflector light the smaller it is as well the closer the potentiality of conversion( cease to reflect and return to real light singular… non-dualized; of light). The farther a “mass”(mc) object-light is from its reflector light(Ec) the larger the diameter of the “mass” object- light reflected from real light atom.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why C squared?
« Reply #20 on: 14/06/2010 07:17:31 »
Do you understand that the number in the equation is c squared, not twice c?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Why C squared?
« Reply #20 on: 14/06/2010 07:17:31 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums