|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq.
I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen energy. Stipulated. By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10 grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the explanation be simplified? Doink. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
"Doink" wrote in message ...
OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq. I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen energy. Stipulated. By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10 grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. First if your multiplying by just speed then you're using the formula incorrectly. Is there a scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the explanation be simplified? 1 erg (cgs unit of energy) = 1 gram x cm^2/sec^2. Notice this has the same units as kinetic energy i.e. mass x speed^2. 10 grams x c^2 = 10 x (2.997925x10^10 cm/sec)^2 = 9.0x10^21 ergs, or 9000 billion billion ergs. Don't try this conversion at home. -- Hilton Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 04' 35.3" Lat +42° 11' 06.7" --------------------------------------------------------------- Webcam Astroimaging http://home.earthlink.net/~hiltoneva...troimaging.htm --------------------------------------------------------------- ChemPen Chemical Structure Software http://www.chempensoftware.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
That's what I was looking for....A sort of scientific conversion unit. For
my purposes, I don't need to carry out the formula, just be able to understand the relationship between what's expressed as speed figuring into a formula involving mass. Your explanation was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! Doink "Hilton Evans" wrote in message ink.net... "Doink" wrote in message ... OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq. I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen energy. Stipulated. By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10 grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. First if your multiplying by just speed then you're using the formula incorrectly. Is there a scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the explanation be simplified? 1 erg (cgs unit of energy) = 1 gram x cm^2/sec^2. Notice this has the same units as kinetic energy i.e. mass x speed^2. 10 grams x c^2 = 10 x (2.997925x10^10 cm/sec)^2 = 9.0x10^21 ergs, or 9000 billion billion ergs. Don't try this conversion at home. -- Hilton Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 04' 35.3" Lat +42° 11' 06.7" --------------------------------------------------------------- Webcam Astroimaging http://home.earthlink.net/~hiltoneva...troimaging.htm --------------------------------------------------------------- ChemPen Chemical Structure Software http://www.chempensoftware.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
Doink wrote:
OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq. I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen energy. Stipulated. By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10 grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the explanation be simplified? Doink. Nothing to do with velocities-- The conversion factor is c^2, which does not have units of velocity. Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy-content? http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
"Doink" wrote in
: OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq. I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen energy. Stipulated. By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10 grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the explanation be simplified? Doink. You can't mix metric and non-metric units without conversion. One way to express the formula with comparable units is: energy in joules mass in kilograms speed of light in meters/sec (299,792,458) One conversion is 1kg mass = 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules. From there, you should be able to convert to any other units you like. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2 Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:00:33 -0800, "Doink"
wrote: OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq. I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen energy. Stipulated. By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10 grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the explanation be simplified? Doink. It all comes from the definition of energy. Let's start with speed. The speed of an object is the distance it travels in a unit amount of time. In standard MKS units, it's thus measured in meters/sec (m/s). Speed is equal to distance traveled divided by the time it took to cover the distance. Note we're dividing meters by seconds and there's nothing strange or odd about it. Acceleration is the change in speed of an object per unit time. It's thus measured in meters/second-squared (m/s**2). The force required to produce a particular acceleration is proportional to the mass of the object being accelerated. (F=ma). Hence the MKS unit for force, the Newton, is one kilogram*meter/second-squared (Kg*m/s**2). Energy is a force applied over a distance. Hence the MKS unit for energy, the Joule, is one Newton-meter, or one kilogram*meter-squared/second-squared (Kg*m**2/s**2). Power is energy expended per unit time. Hence the MKS unit for power, the Watt, is one Joule/second (Kg*m**2/s**3). Utilities sell electricity in energy units (power applied over time), which is why it's sold in kilowatt-hours (one kilowatt-hour is 3600000 Joules). So now go back to Einstein's formula: E=m*c**2. The MKS unit for E is the Joule, for m is the kilogram, and for c is meters/second. So you can see it all works out--we get Kg*m**2/s**2, the correct units for a Joule. -Paul W. ---------- Remove 'Z' to reply by email. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
To Sam
The so-called 'genius' of reducing the astronomical effect due to finite light speed to mathematical notation 'c' is just another way to conceal the geometrical roots of the insight byOle Roemer. Like Kepler,Roemer made his observations of the anomalous motion of Io from an orbitally moving Earth and resolved the anomaly by attributing a variation in distance between the heliocentric orbits of Earth and Jupiter.The anomalous motion is not an illusion in the true sense for the effect is observed. Everybody's problems begin with Isaac for the resolution for retrogrades is made from the Earth's annual orbit (Copernicus) and variations in orbital speed are likewise resolved directly (Kepler).As Isaac makes no allowances for the Romerian insight,that little jewel remains hidden within Newton's mangling of the Copernican insight. "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm Behind all the linguistic tinsel is the original Romerian insight on finite light distance,observed from a moving Earth and resolved by the orbital motion of Earth and Jupiter - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif That garbage in 1905 represents the temporary interruption of geometry from astronomical principles in favor of theoretical guesswork,an interuption that began with Newton and snowballed into relativistic homocentricity. Perhaps astronomers will again re-discover Roemer's insight for the tiny light effect seen within the solar system is almost total at the scale of the Universe in terms of the position of galaxies to our home galaxy. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
Try the original geometric principles behind finite light distance -
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/...emer-1677.html Finte light distance is an astronomical effect that is neither an illusion nor does it represent an actual physical motion,it can't be added,divided or squared and it remains an astronomical principle hijacked by dumb theorists who do not know the value of the Mora Luminis. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
oriel36 wrote:
To Sam The so-called 'genius' of reducing the astronomical effect due to finite light speed to mathematical notation 'c' is just another way to conceal the geometrical roots of the insight byOle Roemer. For Gerald -- Measuring the Speed of Light http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...es/jupiter.jpg http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000..._evidence.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:00:33 -0800, "Doink"
wrote: OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq. You do have to use consistent units (j, kg, m/sec). The reasons are the speed of light in a vacuum being constant for all observers and the principle of equivalence. You can work it out using a little algebra. See a textbook on modern physics for the details. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Putting relativity to the test, NASA's Gravity Probe B experimentis one step away from revealing if Einstein was right (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 7th 05 05:09 AM |
GravityShieldingUpdates1.1 | Stan Byers | Research | 3 | March 23rd 05 02:28 PM |
A Question For Those Who Truly Understand The Theory of Relativity (Was: Einstein's GR as a Gauge Theory and Shipov's Torsion Field) | Larry Hammick | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 26th 05 03:22 AM |
Foundations of General Relativity, Torsion & Zero Point Energy | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 7th 04 04:32 AM |
Beginner question about gravity | Ed L. | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | November 12th 03 05:19 AM |