Christophe Grandsire writes: > En réponse à Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>: > > > > > That is indeed so in most modern formulations of the Special Theory of > > Relativity. But I'm pretty sure that back when the expression first > > got popularized, m was used for the 'relativistic mass', i.e. > > > > m = \gamma m_0 > > > > where m_0 is the rest mass. With that definition, E = m c^2 is exactly > > correct. > > > > Except that it's misleading, because most people don't know about the > difference between rest and relativistic mass and everyone who quotes this > takes the mass to be the rest mass. So it stays a misquote, even if in the > mouth of some people it may not be. I may be anal about all this, but to me a > good scientific quote must be unambiguous and unmisleading. > No equation can be unambiguous without stating the meaning of the variables and constants, though, can it?