E=MC². What does formula E=MC² really mean?

Excellent, well done, you got it right at last. I’m impressed at how you overcame the cognitive dissonance. It’s the hardest thing. What bothers me more is mine, which operates on the next level. You’ve made me identify that, thanks. Compulsions eh!?

Oh and it’s a law. Otherwise Ohm’s isn’t.

How long will this take? :wink:

1 Like

Of course not. It is theoretically and experimentally proven to the bone.

c^2 is definitely not a speed. ‘c’ denotes the speed of light, so its dimension in SI unities is ‘m/s’. So c^2 would be (m/s)^2. What would that be?


There is no "it’s light speed’. The speed of light is a universal invariant. And pure energy or pure mass has no meaning: it is always the energy or mass of something.

What does that even mean??

More nonsense. To be exact, light speed is not just the speed of light, it is the maximum speed of causality. All massless particles can only travel at this fixed speed. So light cannot ‘approach’ light speed, it has physically necessarily this speed.


No, it is about how to transform physical parameters (lengths, time, momentum, energy, electrical fields etc) from one inertial frame to another, and on what invariants observers in different inertial frames agree upon.

And nonsense again.

What E = mc^2 really means is that when a material object loses energy, it also loses mass, or when it gains energy its mass increases. A full electrical battery is more heavily than an empty one; a stretched string has more mass than a relaxed one; a hot cup of tea has more mass than a cold one; a U-235 nucleus has more mass than its fission products, etc. It is just so that the strong nuclear force is the strongest force in nature, so the biggest energies are involved. But E = mc^2 applies to all physical processes.

So no, write4u, there is no special mechanism for E = mc^2. In the explosion of dynamite there is also a mass loss, it is only much smaller than by nuclear processes.

Obviously it isn’t. Not at all.

No. It says that a part of the mass of the nuclei is converted to energy, i.e. kinetic energy and radiation.


[quote=“gertdeboer, post:22, topic:8651”]
So no, write4u, there is no special mechanism for E = mc^2. In the explosion of dynamite there is also a mass loss, it is only much smaller than by nuclear processes.

Right, that’s what I said.

I claimed no special mechanism for E =mc^2

I claimed that the conventional explosion generated the energy to compress the nuclear material sufficiently to affect an instantaneous criticality for nuclear fission.

But even conventional explosions are expressions of E = mc^2 , no?

SRT is about how to transform physical parameters (lengths, time, momentum,
energy, mass etc) of quantum light-particle from one inertial frame (Descartes 3D)
to another system - an absolute 4D spacetime reference frame or vice versa.

@gertdeboer. This is you on the left.

No, no and another no. SRT applies to all physical events, and surely not just to photons or other quantum particles. You should start reading what SRT is really about.


It’s good to hear from you again gertdeboer.
Fascinating as usual.

It describes the maximum energy (potential to do work) which can be observed to be produced with an object of a given mass.

1 Like

yeah, but don’t forget that, according to Dirac, it has a dualistic nature: E=±MC²

That only applies for negative mass. Or imaginary lightspeed.

I am not a physicist, but I remember something I read (perhaps by Asimov?).
The initial explosion merely gets the fissionable material in a dense enough configuration that a chain reaction of fission can happen. That is, once one atom fissions some of the products (e.g., neutrons) can strike other atoms and initiate that to fission, which produces more neutrons, in an exponentially growing process. The energy is produced by the “packing fraction”. A nucleus masses less than the individual protons and neutrons mass separately. That is a C12 nucleus has less mass less than 6 protons and 6 neutrons have individually. If you plotted the ratio for each element (atomic number vs nucleus mass/sum of individual masses) you would see a very shallow V, with the minimum at iron. So when a uranium atom fissions, the masses of the resulting pieces is less than the mass of the uranium atom because it’s “moving down” along that V towards iron. (Fusion moves along the V too, but in order of increasing atomic number.)

That tiny change in mass, a fraction of the mass of a proton or neutron per fission, is the source of the energy. The amount of energy is given by e=m*c^2.

I hope I remembered correctly and haven’t messed up too badly.

1 Like

Even after all that above somebody missed the topic
E = Energy
M = mass or weight
C = light speed squared
For some odd reason somebody said that as mass speed up time slows down
in order for Energy to remain constant as time slows down the formula must have a incorrect relation to everything real. therefor the speed of light must be squared ( the is 186000 times 186000 miles per second. ) WAIT - didn’t somebody say nothing can go faster than the speed of light ) So C - squared times mass makes this non-sense work. That is how physics works - E=mC><2
depending on the point of view of incoming or outgoing travel to the mass or weight but on the other hand as time slows down mass increases in weight in order for the E=Mc2 to work depending on the story told by whatever person tell the best lie. C2 is the key to the meaning ( as mass speed up time slows down ) That is the real story, unless electrons come into the story because 1 Watt = 10 million electrons 1 volt = 100 million electrons and 1 amp = neg. 10 electrons ( this is in the Electronic Engineering Hand Book. Is somebody smart enough to notice that W= E*I but - physics of electrons said there is W = 10 E = 100 and I = nothing and void minus 10 ( What is wrong with this formula?)
So What does E=mC2 really mean? It has not meaning, It is a theory based on a idea on what happens to light going in one direction only ( never to be used as a real thought of a workable formula, If people understood how stupid the whole concept is of E=Mc2 — Whatever? never try to stop people from believing the world is Flat. Ignorance is bliss.

Hmmm, not sure what you said up there.
Except I do notice a flaw, it’s not that reaching the speed of light “slows down time” per se,
it slows down time in relation to someone who isn’t traveling at said speed.

Do you appreciate the error?

Hmm 9.003 times 10 to the - 28 power.
M = mass or weight or people too.
I do appreciate the error.
A formula should be able to relate in all directions
E= M2 C or E/2 = MC or M/2 = EC, But non of these work
like Ohms laws.
But where is the proof that time slows down. There is speculation from items that can be made to slow down in time but speed does not need to be to only factor.
Atomic Energy is not what E=Mc2 is about.
The weight of electrons to the output of mass is the relation to Atomic energy.
1 Watt = 10 million electrons. 1 electron weighs 9.003 to the -28 power gram.
Or 1 lb. of electrons = 10 million watts, how much weight is in a simple A-bomb?
The electron mass per power output per weight of the mass.
But in view of that most people don’t understand simple Atomic physics, most could not understand the error of any part of this topic ( What Does that mean?)
Ok: Then: How smart are you really?
If time slows down as mass speeds up, how can time speed up to make up the difference when Mass moving away from each other at 1/2 the speed of light
because at moving 1/2 the speed of light each mass has its time slowed down to 1/2 but the view of each should not change how each time is viewed. each is only moving 1/2 light speed but viewed time has stopped from the viewpoint of each.
but time has not stopped for each.
This is why I made a new concept to replace Time as a factor. and does not effect how fast something goes and the view point of each remains normal as viewed.
Also allows for faster than light speed travel. Works so much better. And it has been published so somewhere there is a link to this Concept by Tom Wlazlak
What were you talking about?

Giving you the benefit of doubt, I tried googling various Wlazlak related search terms for some information, brought up very little, and what little there was evaporated behind paywalls, or links simply not opening.

… but it’s somewhere, but you don’t know where, or are you just keeping it secret?

Dude I’m just trying to figure what you are trying to talk about. That’s why I pointed out relativity of time, depending on frame of reference. Earth or on the lip of a black hole, or speeding through near empty space.

That’s also relative. I have spent a lifetime casually learning and thinking about physics, so have some ideas in my head about the concepts, but I don’t understand the advanced math, nor do I pretend to, it’s why I’m always looking to see what others who actually spend their lives studying these questions have to say.

With me, it’s more a matter of knowing what I know and my limitations, and more importantly I have nose for red herrings - and believe I need to call them out.

Red herrings: That is a misleading statement. somewhere on this forum I place the replacement concept to the theory of relativity. and because some of the things that I have said on this forum get deleted it may or may not remain on this forum.
And because of the above being true. if you want to know for sure who I am, I am attending the Energy, Science, Technology Conference in Spokane WA. in July, I will be presenting Energy Technology, Science related subjects and just plane Fun stuff. The administrator of the event wanted me to do a prestation in the main event, but maybe next year. I am doing a side show at that event in order to keep it simple. Or if you are interested in learning concepts outside the normal realm of given poop poo. Email me direct, - if I was a red herring as said, I would hide using a fake name, but — Tom Wlazlak - wlazlakt@gmail.com
No need to hide, I am not a red herring. But thanks for asking.

We’re on this thread right now. I’ve had a lot of comments of mine deleted too, and it’s pretty consistently my own fault. Used to happen much more often, if you weren’t careful, but those were program ticks and not selective editing by some secret cabal.

If you understand your topic, you should be able to discuss it afresh and not tease me with demands that I search for your profundities some other place (or lost in the ether).

I didn’t accuse you of being a red herring, read those words, I said I’m okay at recognizing red herrings. Simple as that. Then I was curious to hear what you were on about. Instead I get a deluge of words (your second paragraph, that don’t say anything about anything. I don’t care about where you’re presenting, you are commenting on this thread and I was curious about your comment.

I’m only here because of the title on this thread, why don’t you just try to explain what it is you want people to think about it. Save all the self-defensive stuff for someone that cares about facades, I only care about your words and ideas and trying to follow what you were trying to say somewhere back in the beginning of this thread.

I am sorry if you feel I have been Teasing you. that is never my intent.
But on the other hand I am a red Herring, A cracked pot, and many other points to ponder. Without being confusing, interesting is lacking mostly everything.
I am curious on what comment you were curious about. but not required.
As to the meaning of E = Mc2
first point and mostly the whole point is ( it can not be a workable formula )
Simple because time is not relevant. relevant means changeable.
The Physics that was not understood from my statements above were taken from a Electrical Engineering hand book of Electrical Physics from the development from the beginning of the design of electrical physics this has not changed from then tell now. this is also a believe it or not statement.
I am also sorry that you became angry. the intent was to show what E=mc2 really was intended to show that time of c2 - or light speed time itself - makes the result of constant E=1 = mass = 1 where time is reduced by speed = itself - only because time is slowed because someone said so. not because it is real.
Or as mass speed up at the speed of light no more energy can make it go faster than the speed of light - So at the speed of light Energy = 0, and for the same reason. somebody said this happens. not because it really happens.
Here is the catch - Research has shown faster than light speed is possible.
link it yourself if you don’t believe. or not as you choose.
So if faster than light speed is possible that E=mc2 is faults
That is all I was commenting on.
There was one more comment about electrons having weight that had to do with why a small amount of atoms can produce a big bang.
Thank you for your interest, No more need to return to this topic.
it can not be made more simple. without becoming more technical.
Din-ma ( tom

Question: If 2 photons approach each other head-on, does the distance between them close @ c x 2 or @ c^2 ?

Eisenstein warned that E=mc2 the mass-energy equation he came up with is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. It will fail in all other cases Its a mass-energy-momentum relation in reality there really is no such thing as a mass-energy relation. His equation is true but can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation.Einstein’s theory of relativity has stood the test of time and its correctness is beyond any doubt.Whats wrong with the equation is there is no such thing as a mass-energy relation.