Sir Isaac Newton, has originated, inter-conversion of mass and energy, (E=mc2 )

"oldcoot" wrote in message
oups.com...

...And for that matter, "E=mc^2" was accepted as hard fact by academia
long before it was proven empirically. Very sloppy science. Tsk
tsk. :-) oc

Actually, the equation *still* hasn't been
proven empirically, Bill. Weapons up to
now have only been able to muster about
1/10th the energy that the equation would
predict. So as of today, it should read...

E = mc²/10

Not nearly as elegant, but closer to reality!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Ask the stars
along the way,
What good is Love?
and stars will say...

On your world
so full of Hate
A little Love
must always wait.

A lot or not,
come what may,
A little Love
goes a long, long way.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

On Jul 22, 8:23 am, "Painius" wrote:

Actually, the equation *still* hasn't been
proven empirically... Weapons up to
now have only been able to muster about
1/10th the energy that the equation would
predict. So as of today, it should read...

E = mc²/10

Not nearly as elegant, but closer to reality!

Ha. So it's really just an *expression* denoting emphasis rather than
a real, bona fide equation huh?.. just as "E=mc^3" and "E=mc^4" are
simply expressions denoting ascending orders of energy density.

Incidently, uncle Albert was not the originator of his most famous
equation. He appropriated it. A quick Google under "Origin of E=mc^2"
would quickly confirm this.

Damdest thing - the keyboard of this fancy new DSL rig will not do the
'square' and 'cube' symbols, but the old Webbie rig does them just
fine.
oc

"Painius" wrote in message
...
: "oldcoot" wrote in message
: oups.com...
:
: ...And for that matter, "E=mc^2" was accepted as hard fact by academia
: long before it was proven empirically. Very sloppy science. Tsk
: tsk. :-) oc
:
: Actually, the equation *still* hasn't been
: proven empirically, Bill. Weapons up to
: now have only been able to muster about
: 1/10th the energy that the equation would
: predict. So as of today, it should read...
:
: E = mc²/10
:
: Not nearly as elegant, but closer to reality!


You and any one else that comes up with an incorrect answer are not
considering relativity correctly..

2~Duh~Loo!,
--


Pete.
________________________________________
May the Universe return
100 Fold of your output.

oc best to keep in mind C^2 was used by Einstein only to express a
big number. He could just as well used C^3 Maybe I could use "C^39 as
to be the great compression force when a black hole reaches its critical
mass? Scherk and Schwaz would agree that it fits bert