Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 09/09/2015 17:26:32
-
E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?
-
Except that F = ma, not ma2,
F is a vector, not a scalar,
c is a speed, not an acceleration.
In other words, no, not at all.
-
Except that F = ma, not ma2,
F is a vector, not a scalar,
c is a speed, not an acceleration.
In other words, no, not at all.
I did not ask any of the above Alan , I asked
E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?
If m=m and c=a would this not give the same answer?
and curiosity, I now want to know what is the acceleration of light if you are saying c is only a speed?
-
I did not ask any of the above Alan , I asked
E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?
No. Those aren't the same. In fact F = ma^2 is dimensionally incorrect and not an equality.
-
I did not ask any of the above Alan , I asked
E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?
No. Those aren't the same. In fact F = ma^2 is dimensionally incorrect and not an equality.
F=m1*a
F=M2*a
F=ma²
does this not describe a collision?
If not sorry my misunderstanding.
-
An acceleration is metres per second squared. Whereas c is in meters per second. Acceleration is a derivative of velocity. Is shows how the velocity changes over time. Velocity is a vector and is directional whereas speed isn't. It can be in any direction. Thus the speed of light is not a velocity. The useful thing about velocity is that it relates to energy. E=mc^2 can be thought of as the rest energy. For motion velocity can be used to derive the kinetic energy, or energy of motion. The equation is 1/2mv^2 where v is always less than c. I hope this helps.
-
I now want to know what is the acceleration of light if you are saying c is only a speed?
Light doesn't accelerate. c is a universal constant.
Obviously you can write a = bc2 and x = yz2, and if b = y and c = z, then a = x. But the symbols you used have particular conventional meanings.
-
Take a simple situation where a = b + c. Say a = 10, b = 4 and c = 6. We can square both sides of the equation as in a^2 = (b + c)^2. To expand (b + c)^2 we first have (b + c)(b + c). This multiplied out gives b^2 + 2bc + c^2. Working this out we get a^2 = 10^2 which is 10 times 10 so that is 100. Now we have to find a value of 100 from b^2 + 2bc + c^2. b^2 is 4^2 which equals 16. c^2 is 6^2 which equals 36. So from those we get 16 + 36 which equals 52. Now we get to 2bc which is 2 times 4 times 6. So two times 4 is 8 and 6 times 8 = 48. Then adding 52 to 48 hey presto we get 100. Squaring values on both sides of an equation can be very useful when solving some types of equation.
-
As a good first step in advancing your understanding of probability a well known real life example is useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_mathematics
-
Hi Alan, taking you back to E=mc² , I thought this was a velocity ? and from what I understand a Photon smashing into the side of a virtual box and moving the box?
how is that not the same as force if that is correct?
-
Take a simple situation where a = b + c. Say a = 10, b = 4 and c = 6. We can square both sides of the equation as in a^2 = (b + c)^2. To expand (b + c)^2 we first have (b + c)(b + c). This multiplied out gives b^2 + 2bc + c^2. Working this out we get a^2 = 10^2 which is 10 times 10 so that is 100. Now we have to find a value of 100 from b^2 + 2bc + c^2. b^2 is 4^2 which equals 16. c^2 is 6^2 which equals 36. So from those we get 16 + 36 which equals 52. Now we get to 2bc which is 2 times 4 times 6. So two times 4 is 8 and 6 times 8 = 48. Then adding 52 to 48 hey presto we get 100. Squaring values on both sides of an equation can be very useful when solving some types of equation.
Thank you Jeffrey , can you please explain E=mc² to me, and post an example of this works?
-
As a good first step in advancing your understanding of probability a well known real life example is useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_mathematics
Isn't there now 59 balls? I do not play or watch the lottery but I heard they added an extra ten balls
-
F=m1*a
F=M2*a
F=ma²
does this not describe a collision?
If not sorry my misunderstanding.
It's not possible to scratch down equations without stating their meaning and expect it to represent what's going on. I.e. you can't simply write down equations and ask what's going on in the lab. In fact all you've done here is scratch out equations without stating what the variables mean. If we assume that F = force and m, m1, M2 represent the mass of something then F=ma² is dimensionally incorrect and therefore wrong. E.g. Force has dimensions
[F] = Newton's = [kg][m/s2]
The right side of your equation has dimensions
[kg][m2/s4]
So dimension wise your last equation reads
[kg][m/s2] = [kg][m2/s4]
which is obviously incorrect. You have to keep in mind that you can't just write down expressions and expect them to mean something. If you thought that's what physics was all about then you were seriously mistaken.
By the way "c" is speed whereas "a" is acceleration. Why did you think that the "c" in E = mc2 was acceleration?
-
E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?
No, c is a constant and a is a variable...
Also, one models energy and the other one, force...
-
By the way "c" is speed whereas "a" is acceleration. Why did you think that the "c" in E = mc2 was acceleration?
The speed a photon travels from the instant of emittance is c?
So from a to b , light travels at instantly c, c being the speed and acceleration?
and
[kg][m/s2] →F← [kg][m2/s4]
a collision?
-
No. c is a speed, not a velocity nor an acceleration.The speed of light does not vary in a vacuum. No variation = no acceleration.
E = mc2 has nothing to do with photons colliding with the walls of a box. It is the energy released when masses annihilate, or the mass of particles produced when a photon interacts with a nucleus, or a whole lot of other stuff that Pete will go on about, bit nothing to do with momentum transfer.
-
No. c is a speed, not a velocity nor an acceleration.The speed of light does not vary in a vacuum. No variation = no acceleration.
E = mc2 has nothing to do with photons colliding with the walls of a box. It is the energy released when masses annihilate, or the mass of particles produced when a photon interacts with a nucleus, or a whole lot of other stuff that Pete will go on about, bit nothing to do with momentum transfer.
I should stress to people not to watch youtube videos of science , the thought experiment to Einstein's E=mc² shows a photon hitting an imaginary box. You mention annihilation of mass, do you mean like a Neutron star I think it was, that crushes protons?
I do not understand why E=mc² has a speed attached to it, or uses massless light when you say it is mass related.
Why would Energy be related to a speed and not a compression?
''The speed of light does not vary in a vacuum. No variation = no acceleration.''
So are you saying that if I had a vacuum tunnel that was 299 792 458 meters long, light would take one second to travel the distance and this never alters?
A clock constant that does not alter to a said time dilation like the materialistic values of the Caesium atom shows a frequency offset by gravity influence.
-
No. c is a speed, not a velocity nor an acceleration.The speed of light does not vary in a vacuum. No variation = no acceleration.
E = mc2 has nothing to do with photons colliding with the walls of a box. It is the energy released when masses annihilate, or the mass of particles produced when a photon interacts with a nucleus, or a whole lot of other stuff that Pete will go on about, bit nothing to do with momentum transfer.
I should stress to people not to watch youtube videos of science , the thought experiment to Einstein's E=mc² shows a photon hitting an imaginary box. You mention annihilation of mass, do you mean like a Neutron star I think it was, that crushes protons?
Youtube can be good and bad. I recommend finding lecture videos where they write examples on a white board and discuss what they mean. I would start simply with algebra first. Being shown something is 1000 times better than reading about it. Don't get discouraged because there will be points where you suddenly get an understanding of something. Then it starts to get interesting.
I do not understand why E=mc² has a speed attached to it, or uses massless light when you say it is mass related.
Momentum is mass times velocity mv. That is how far a mass moves in a particular direction in a certain period of time. Mass tends to resist change hence inertia. It either wants to stay in one place or move at a constant velocity. The direction of this velocity will be a straight line. E=mc2 relates to rest mass which since it is at rest is not moving in any direction. This is why the speed of c is used and not a velocity. Kinetic energy, the energy of motion through space, has to be directional and is given by Ke = (1/2)mv2. Here the mv2 represents motion with velocity because it is directional. The formula E=mc2 uses the speed of light simply because we are concerned with energy that is not moving and has no direction.
Why would Energy be related to a speed and not a compression?
Ask yourself what energy is. If something is completely still then the energy of motion is absent and only rest energy remains. If energy related to compression then everything at rest would be feeling that compression. Objects would tend to compact and get smaller which we do not see in the real world.
''The speed of light does not vary in a vacuum. No variation = no acceleration.''
So are you saying that if I had a vacuum tunnel that was 299 792 458 meters long, light would take one second to travel the distance and this never alters?
A clock constant that does not alter to a said time dilation like the materialistic values of the Caesium atom shows a frequency offset by gravity influence.
The statement that light travels at c through a vacuum does not take into account any forces. Once you introduce a force, or some kind of medium that light has to travel through, then this changes.
-
Why would Energy be related to a speed and not a compression?
Energy = force x distance. In the case of adiabatic compression, the kinetic energy expended in compressing a hysteresis-free body resides as potential energy.
But since force = mass x acceleration and acceleration = distance /time^2, so energy has the dimensions of mass x distance^2/time^2
Speed has dimensions distance/time, so mc^2 has the same dimensons as energy.
-
Energy = force x distance. In the case of adiabatic compression, the kinetic energy expended in compressing a hysteresis-free body resides as potential energy.
But since force = mass x acceleration and acceleration = distance /time^2, so energy has the dimensions of mass x distance^2/time^2
Speed has dimensions distance/time, so mc^2 has the same dimensons as energy.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, however energy can not be associated with Photons, photons are a product of a process, are you saying without photons energy would not exist? if this is the case then where did the energy come from for the big bang to create things in the first place?
E=mc² makes no relative sense.
Energy can only be formed under a space compression such as plasma and magnetic bottling, otherwise space just ''dissolves' the energy.
The energy will expand into space has energy has no ''physical body'' or glue, gravity is like a glue that holds matter together, this allows the matter to store energy and to contain energy.
P.s I think I might be Bi-polar so thank you for your patience.
-
E=mc² makes no relative sense.
Pity about that! My colleagues in the nuclear medicine department use it every day, and 20% of your electricity comes from that equation, so you will just have to accept that it is magic, or study physics with more humility and less preconception. Expect to have your common sense violated frequently.
-
E=mc² makes no relative sense.
Only if you miss use it with photons...
It was meant to be used with particles which have properties of mass...
-
Only if you miss use it with photons...
It was meant to be used with particles which have properties of mass...
I still can not understand why a speed has anything to do with energy, lightning forms with no speed and lightning is energy is it not?
-
Because kinetic energy is only defined if there is relative motion...
-
Because kinetic energy is only defined if there is relative motion...
surely energy exists with no motion required?
-
Yes, potential energy. But it has the same dimensions as kinetic energy or any other energy, includng relativistic mass-energy. If you lift a mass m through height h in a gravitational field characterised by acceleration g, the work you do is mgh. If you then drop it, it will hit the ground with velocity v where mgh = ½mv2.
Likewise chemical energy. You can measure the energy of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen, then mix them in a rocket engine and convert it to kiinetic energy.
Or you can convert the kinetic energy of your car into chemical energy (using regenerative braking in an electric car) or heat (using brakes).
And there's no "misuse" with photons. The annihilation of an electron and a positron produces two photons of 511 keV - exactly the mass-energy equivalent of an electron or positron.
-
Energy is an abstract concept and not an entity of matter...
-
Energy is an abstract concept and not an entity of matter...
So what? Who said otherwise that you need to correct someone?
-
Energy is an abstract concept and not an entity of matter...
Well, you said that better than I was trying to explain. I think the calculation fails of the first value E=m, energy does not have to be of matter. So why does energy = matter ?
-
E=∑m/2
m=[-=+]
-
Energy is an abstract concept and not an entity of matter...
Well, you said that better than I was trying to explain. I think the calculation fails of the first value E=m, energy does not have to be of matter. So why does energy = matter ?
First read my webpage on what energy is: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm
I'll look for an article I have in mind that will help you understand it better or I can just explain it to you myself. Which do you prefer?
-
I'll look for an article I have in mind that will help you understand it better or I can just explain it to you myself. Which do you prefer?
Thank you for the link Pete, it was an interesting read. I would prefer you to explain energy to me in your own words. I understand energy is the generalised term of set for several subsets.
My definition would be energy is a product of process?
-
Energy is a scalar that is conserved. Nothing to "understand", but you can expect in all physical processes that the sum of terms such as mv^2/2, mgh, msdT, etc., is constant.
-
Energy is a scalar that is conserved. Nothing to "understand", but you can expect in all physical processes that the sum of terms such as mv^2/2, mgh, msdT, etc., is constant.
Energy is a scalar but does energy not create action which then creates motion ?
-
The idea of "creating" motion is not helpful. Motion is created by the action of a force on a mass. Two parameters are always conserved: energy (a scalar) and momentum (a vector). Using these conservation laws we can predict the outcome of any such interaction (at least in principle - it becomes very complicated wen several bodies interact).
-
Motion is created by the action of a force on a mass.
What if motion is being denoted by the masses polarity output v another masses polarity output if both masses where of the same polarity?
-
Your question is meaningless. Mass does not have polarity, and polarity is not output. Motion is denoted by change of position.
-
Your question is meaningless. Mass does not have polarity, and polarity is not output. Motion is denoted by change of position.
You say mass does not have polarity, if this is not the case then how come mass is attracted to mass? do opposite polarities not attract equally and proportionately.
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/can-it-be-this-simple/
If we take two atoms and placed them side by side touching in space, and add energy to one of the atoms, does this atom not become polaritiesed by the energy and charge output being greater than the other atom?
would the other atom not gain motion by the simplicity of the same polarity pushing it away from each other?
m+E=<m?
air + energy = less mass of air
m=∑+&-
m1=-&+
m2=-&+
m1 is equally and proportional to m2
what is mass? mas is energy and all that of a substance that is negative and positive. Experimental results show us that positives are attracting to negatives.
m1+E=m1 not being proportional to m2 .
what is mass? mass is energy and all that of a substance that is negative and positive. Experimental results show us that positives are attracted to negatives.
-
You say mass does not have polarity, if this is not the case then how come mass is attracted to mass? do opposite polarities not attract equally and proportionately.
Think about this. Suppose you have three masses, say the sun and two planets. If you assign + to the sun and - to earth, what is the polarity of mars? Or the moons of either planet? All masses attract each other.
If we take two atoms and placed them side by side touching in space, and add energy to one of the atoms, does this atom not become polaritiesed by the energy and charge output being greater than the other atom?
no. energy does not induce or confer polarity.
air + energy = less mass of air
not in this universe.
-
You say mass does not have polarity, if this is not the case then how come mass is attracted to mass? do opposite polarities not attract equally and proportionately.
Think about this. Suppose you have three masses, say the sun and two planets. If you assign + to the sun and - to earth, what is the polarity of mars? Or the moons of either planet? All masses attract each other.
If we take two atoms and placed them side by side touching in space, and add energy to one of the atoms, does this atom not become polaritiesed by the energy and charge output being greater than the other atom?
no. energy does not induce or confer polarity.
air + energy = less mass of air
not in this universe.
The earth has two masses, the core a more positive mass that is repelled by the suns more positive mass, then the ground which is more of a negative mass than a positive.
the ground is attracted to the core and the sun, the moon is attracted to the core but the moons core keeps the moon in orbit.
Think about it.
negative mass and positive mass.
air positive mass and negative mass,
water the same.
Consider expansion a more negative mass entropy galaxy will be attracted to a more positive mass entropy galaxy. the laws of attraction.
-
Poppycock. Consider three billiard balls. There is a mutual gravitational attraction between all three and they are all made of the same material right through. What determines the polarity of the red, black and white balls?
Or a neutron star. Zillions of identical uncharged particles all held together by....er....
-
Poppycock. Consider three billiard balls. There is a mutual gravitational attraction between all three and they are all made of the same material right through. What determines the polarity of the red, black and white balls?
Or a neutron star. Zillions of identical uncharged particles all held together by....er....
All 3 snooker balls are at a perfect equilibrium, they absorb and release energy at the same rate, the ground absorbs the energy output of the balls, the balls will reach a room temperature, if the temperature is increased and increased the balls will eventually fail to release more energy than gain and eventually have quantum state failure.
The polarity of the balls is neutral, an equilibrium, negative cancelling positive out ,by an equal balance.
And when talking negative and positive polarity I do not mean like a battery or a magnetic, but something different , something new maybe.
I get, gravity is the negative mass of matter,an unobservable negative flow attracted to the positive mass of matter.
My reason is because + repels + so + can not attract + but can attract -.
Yes I am saying that mass is the set and - and + are the subsets.
added- imagine the core is subset (a)+
imagine the ground subset (b)-&(a)
imagine the ocean subset (a)&(b)
imagine ice subset (b)
imagine air subset (a)&(b)
the ice will float because the ice is attracted to the core and the ground but the water pushes back and the air pulls it.
-
There is a gravitational attraction between all three billiard balls. Nothing to do with temperature .
Why do you try to make everything more complicated than it is?
-
Why do you try to make everything more complicated than it is?
Not more complicated, more advanced in the knowledge. To just say mass does not say what mass is. What is mass? mass is the negative and positive of matter?
p.s i think it is more simpler personally.
-
Mass is what gives a body its gravitational field. Charge is what gives a body its electrostatic field.
As far as we know there is only one type of mass, but two types of charge. It also turns out that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical to a very high degree of confidence.
The force between masses m1 and m2 is proportional to the product m1m2 and is always positive. The force between charges is proportional to -q1q2 and is therefore positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive) depending on the sign of each q.
Now what could be simpler than that?
-
Mass is what gives a body its gravitational field. Charge is what gives a body its electrostatic field.
As far as we know there is only one type of mass, but two types of charge. It also turns out that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical to a very high degree of confidence.
The force between masses m1 and m2 is proportional to the product m1m2 and is always positive. The force between charges is proportional to -q1q2 and is therefore positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive) depending on the sign of each q.
Now what could be simpler than that?
edit - The forces between masses m1 and m2 is proportional to the product m1m2 and is always positive and negative. The forces between masses is proportional to -q1q2 and is therefore positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive) depending on the entropy proportion of q1q2 of a mass.
Consider a ''lifter'' Alan, we add electricity creating a positive electrical field, this field repels off the earth's core positive field that denotes lift.
We already know that a positive can not attract a positive but can only attract a negative, mass is the negative of an object . positive is the energy of the object.
-
Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.
-
Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.
What you think is buoyancy is not buoyancy. My example I will give is air, when air has less energy it ''sinks'', when air has more energy it rises. More energy meaning more of a positive and repels itself of the earth's positive.
I would also add the lifter, creating a field equal and opposing to the earth's positive field.
I would also add that matter only contains positive and negative and this can be the only mechanism of matter that has any repulsive or attractive qualities.
I can add ice, but I am still a bit uncertain of how to word the explanation.
I would also add metal expansion, polarised atoms repelling each other causing expansion,
Is this what you mean? I could present it in full detail with all the ins and outs, would take me a while to write.
It explains almost everything including the expanding universe ,
Andromeda has more negative mass than the milkyway, consider the effect of force when both galaxies are in passive space.
And the main thing, all matter has negative mass that is attracted to positive mass.
The best example is H²O
3 stages
liquid - equilibrium of mass
gaseous-greater positive mass
ice-greater negative mass
at this stage you are thinking ice floats and if was a negative mass would be pulled to the ocean floor towards the positive mass core, but when you consider air is more of a positive mass than water and the negative mass ice is attracted to the positive mass air, it makes sense why it floats.
Added thought, this may sound a bit wacked out, but if the sun was in a specific position closer to us , we could walk on water.
-
Utter poppycock throughout.
Please learn some basic physics, such as the meaning of "density" and Archimedes Principle before I waste any more time with you.
-
Utter poppycock throughout.
Please learn some basic physics, such as the meaning of "density" and Archimedes Principle before I waste any more time with you.
It is not poppy cock, consider matter, made of atoms, the only mechanism of matter that has any capabilities of attraction or repulsion is negative and positive properties. There is no other mechanism of matter leading to only one conclusion.
I have explained it well, it may seem far fetched and futuristic sci-fi, but this is what advancing on something means, to strive forward to a future of more knowledge. New does not mean poppy cock.
To just say mass is not saying what mass is, negative mass and positive mass explains very well what mass is. It completes gravity.
Science can not detect a gravity wave because it is negative.
We know negative is attracted to positive and we also know positive repel positives, so why deny basic physics that we know already exists?
P.s I understand density, xyz^-xyz=0 if you remember. I do not have to be a scientist to understand compressed molecules and decompressed molecules.
I.e an apple is not as dense of an equal shaped piece of metal.
If I can explain why present gravity theory is wrong and show an example of why it is wrong would you take me serious then?
-
Never mind theory. Show me an example of two masses that do not attract one another. And don't confuse yourself with buoyancy, because that necessarily involves a third mass for which even you can't assign a polarity!
-
Never mind theory. Show me an example of two masses that do not attract one another. And don't confuse yourself with buoyancy, because that necessarily involves a third mass for which even you can't assign a polarity!
All mass is attracted to mass because all mass contains both positive mass and negative mass, there is no mass that is not attracted to other mass. Polarity of mass is variate, thermodynamics allows this, Atoms have a stable equilibrium of negative and positive mass, add energy and the atom excites producing a greater positive mass repelling other atoms greater positive mass, this is why metal expands and contracts, when the energy gained is lost the atoms return to an equilibrium state of mass.
Ok below is a diagram courtesy of google and a bitmap edit.
1.The ball rotates around the pole on a string , it does not matter what speed the ball rotates at , the contraction mechanism will always contract the length of the string to a point where the ball is touching the pole. In earth's example almost touching the pole.
2.
The ball rotates around the pole on a fixed pole , it does not matter what speed the ball rotates at , the contraction mechanism will never contract the length of the fixed pole to a point where the ball is touching the pole.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
More drivel Please provide an instance of gravitational repulsion.
-
More drivel Please provide an instance of gravitational repulsion.
When energy is added to air, the air becomes under an instant of gravitational repulsion, the earth is under constant gravitational repulsion off the Sun, the moon is under gravitational repulsion from the earth.
Metal expands because of gravitational repulsion, a lifter lifts because of repulsion.
The earth does the exact same thing in orbit of the sun as air does in our atmosphere and circulates by thermodynamic absorption and thermodynamic extraction having effect of the equilibrium off setting the positive and negative mass.
It is really simple to show , we already know what happens to a gas or air if we add energy, the gas expands, molecules pushing molecules away from each other.
By adding energy to air , the air gains positive mass that in effect cancels out the negative mass flow that is attracted to the positive mass of the core and ground.
Fire rises, fire is positive mass, burning embers rise.
A Thermocline will rise or sink dependent on input of energy.
-
By adding energy to air , the air gains positive mass that in effect cancels out the negative mass flow that is attracted to the positive mass of the core and ground.
My hot air balloon weighed exactly the same hot or cold, but only flew when it was hot.
Fire rises, fire is positive mass, burning embers rise.
Lavoisier showed that this was wrong.
-
Lavoisier showed that this was wrong.
I thought Lavoisier proved nothing is ever lost?
Have you got a link to show that fire does not burn ''upwards'' and rises before it is dispersed?
A candles flame always points up even if I angle the candle. Fire does not burn horizontal , the flames are always vertical, a bit like a vertical spirit level. [ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.
When it is trapped behind an event horizon and pointing inward toward a singularity?
-
When it is trapped behind an event horizon and pointing inward toward a singularity?
asteroids in an asteroid belt or satellites?
-
The equation E = mc2 stands for the total energy of an object at rest where m stands for mass and c is the speed of light., which is approx 3 x 108 m/s
Newton's formula for the kinetic energy of an object is e = 1/2(v2 m) . Einstein's equation for kinetic energy of an object was E = (mc2 ) / (sqrt(1 - (v2 / c2 ))). According to this equation as the object reaches close to the speed of light its mass increases asymptotically. Therefore the equation E = mc2 represents the total energy of an object at rest. To calculate the energy of an object in motion it is possible to use : E = (mc2)2 + (pc)2
Since light has the unique property of being the limiting speed of the Universe, it is possible to denote the speed of light as 1 and to calculate all other speeds relative to it. Therefore, a man walking along at 4kmh would have a speed of 3.7 x10-9 c and the speed of the earth through space would be 2.7 x 10-5 c and so on. When used in the equation E = mc2 it is possible to see that E = m . That is energy is equal to mass. Since momentum p = mv, then it follows that the mass is equal to the speed of light squared: or approx 9 x 1016 m/s. Thus a Joule has a mass of approx 9 x 10-16 Kg and a mass of 1Kg has an energy of 9 x 1016 J.
The Box : E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?
Since c = 1 ; is it possible to write F = mc2 if a = c ?