Changes

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance.  If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance.  If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:

:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>

:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>

In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:

In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:

:<math>D = dc</math>

:<math>D = dc</math>

where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map in}}</math>.  The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence.  Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>.  The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence.  Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy.  It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy.  Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances.  I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy.  It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy.  Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances.  I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)