A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Relativity question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 12th 05, 09:00 PM
Doink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 09:23 PM
Hilton Evans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 09:52 PM
Doink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 09:55 PM
Sam Wormley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 10:09 PM
Skywise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 10:13 PM
Paul Winalski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 10:23 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 10:40 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 11:16 PM
Sam Wormley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 12th 05, 11:33 PM
William Hamblen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.