0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Except that F = ma, not ma^{2}, 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?

Quote from: Thebox liI 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 now want to know what is the acceleration of light if you are saying c is only a speed?

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....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

F=m1*aF=M2*aF=ma²does this not describe a collision?If not sorry my misunderstanding.

E=mc² is exactly the same as F=ma² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?

By the way "c" is speed whereas "a" is acceleration. Why did you think that the "c" in E = mc^{2} was acceleration?

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 = mc^{2} 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.

Quote from: alancalverd on 11/09/2015 22:09:49No. 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 = mc^{2} 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.

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^2Speed has dimensions distance/time, so mc^2 has the same dimensons as energy.

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...

Because kinetic energy is only defined if there is relative motion...

Energy is an abstract concept and not an entity of matter...

Quote from: mathew_orman on 15/09/2015 08:42:40Energy 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 ?

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?

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.

Motion is created by the action of a force on a mass.

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.

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?

air + energy = less mass of air

Quote from: Thebox on 27/09/2015 17:24:41You 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. QuoteIf 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.Quoteair + energy = less mass of air not in this universe.

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....

Why do you try to make everything more complicated than it is?

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?

Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

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.