Christophe Grandsire nevesht: > >En réponse à Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>: > > > > > How is E=mc^2 misquoted? > > > >It doesn't mean anything when quoted this way. The correct formula is >E=gamma*mc^2, and it's this gamma which is the most important for >Einstein's >Relativity Theory. It's equal to 1 over square root of 1 minus v^2/c^2, v >being >the speed of the object, c of course the speed of light. The formula E=mc^2 >is >valid only when v=0 (for that reason, E0=mc^2 is called the resting energy >or >mass energy of the object. If it was quoted as E0=mc^2, I wouldn't have >anything against it, because E0 and E are different things), which is a >very >specialised case of the correct formula, and a stupid one at that, since if >the >object is at rest you don't need Relativity to explain its behaviour >(actually, >it would be stupid to do so! Restricted Relativity is only interested in >the >behaviour of objects whose speed is near the speed of light). > >In that sense E=mc^2 is a misquote: it refers to a special case of the >correct >formula where it is nonsensical to use this formula at all! > Also in the original he used "S" not "E" -Wayne Chevrier _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail