Misconceptions of E=MC^2

What do you mean it cannot be done?Energy is proportional to the square of the speed of light just like the intensity of a signal is propotional to the square of the amplitude.Just because you cannot concieve of the speed of light being squared or the amplitude of a signal being square doesn't mean that other properties cannot be proportional to them.It has been experimentally verified so what's the beef!?

The word comes from a joke....Rumsfeld and Bush are talking in the Oval Office and Rumsfeld looks to Bush and informs him: "Three Brazilian soldiers died in Iraq today...". Bush burries hid head in his hands almost in tears. He looks up and asks: "How many is a brazillion!?"Now-a-days, in the internet world, the word brazillion has become to mean just "a lot". What's wrong with the experiment that Modulus linked too?How much effort have you actually put into looking up the experiments that verify that E=mc²?

We're cross-posting... The speed of light would be an asymptote on a plot of a mass's velocity, as energy is related to it.If/when mass reaches that speed, it becomes light.Take your arms and point them outward at 90^o angles to the direction you are facing. These represent the direction of momentum that you can have. At rest, you can go left, right, or straight ahead. As your velocity theoetically increases in the direction you are facing, we can represent this by slowly bringing your arms together in front of you to the direction you are facing. As you speed up, and as the angle of your arms gets less and less, your momentum in the left and right directions is less and less. At the point when both your arms are pointing in the direction you are facing, you have become light and your momentum can go nowhere but forward. You mass has tranformed into energy. The energy available from this trasformation is proportional to the amount of mass that was available (obviosly) and is also exponentially proportions to the veocity. This exponent is 2. Its proportional to the speed squared.Does that help at all?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Ahh, more cross-posting. Oh well, then, did you at least think the joke was funny? What conceptions are those? Do you think my conception is erroneous?

Never!!Actually, not a bad idea. I'll go smoke a cigarette....

Hrm. I thought that, theoretically, if (the big IF) mass did travel at that speed, then it would be light. I.e. it would become light.If I'm wrong then its prolly because of a misunderstanding of some analogy somewhere.

Thanks guys.

cavediver already did in Message 80 where he linked to this page.

But back in Message 69 you said:

quote:

---

As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse.

---

The "proof" of that theory exists, it is just not going to be simple. This is one of those cases where you're going to have to trust the experts. I'm sorry, but I am not perfectly capable of doing a simplified version.