Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
388 bytes added ,  05:00, April 4, 2012
→‎Matter-light relationship: people are not defending E=mc<sup>2</sup> by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.
Line 385: Line 385:     
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)
 +
 +
:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example.  If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc<sup>2</sup>, then I think your analogy would work.  But people are not defending E=mc<sup>2</sup> by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,619

edits

Navigation menu