E=mc2

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 159

  • @rafaelaprende
    @rafaelaprende 9 ปีที่แล้ว +35

    The best explanation I have seen so far.

  • @HpmelOne2
    @HpmelOne2 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    (I know this is old but) Fantastic video and explanation! Your voice is clear and engaging, and you clarify the meaning of E=mc2 very well. Subscribed

  • @frankstevenson4508
    @frankstevenson4508 10 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    That was very helpful, thank you for allowing guidance in science for various generations. Keep on keep on and have a merry and a very jolly day.

  • @MatheusSilva-dragon
    @MatheusSilva-dragon 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Super helpful! This video has infinite energy!

  • @SS8styles
    @SS8styles 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    in class I didn't quite get how the binding energy accounted for the seemingly lost mass of a complete atom (as opposed to the sum of its parts) but this tied it all together a bit more smoothly. Perfect timing for my physics final. Thanks.

  • @ASHMANNMCH
    @ASHMANNMCH 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A big thank you for all of your awesome videos

  • @sonalidas4330
    @sonalidas4330 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Hat's off to your teaching way Man 😀

  • @manojagravat2760
    @manojagravat2760 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There is evidence today from literature which states the law of conservation of energy may not really be supported in time where time is a parameter (Time correction or time correction relativity). Sean Carroll (Energy is not conserved) in a blog discussed such issues concerning the context of gravitational energy.

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      more academician bullshit.

  • @td3039
    @td3039 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    This is the best explanation I’ve seen by far. Thank you so much!

  • @flodde112
    @flodde112 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I have been looking around for a good and simple explanation for a while now.
    And here it is! Thanks :) finally I understand!

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Another shill.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@rstelzer2928 TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. News flash ! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @brandy2378
    @brandy2378 9 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I am a little bit confused about how a proton gains mass. Does that mean the proton becomes more dense or bigger? This question is probably silly but I can't seem to picture this in my mind. Can someone please help me to understand what is happening to the accelerated proton.

    • @Madmancer
      @Madmancer 8 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      +brandy curry In this case the mass means inertia mass, which is a resistance force that constrains the acceleration of the object. When the velocity of the proton approaches the speed of light, its inertia becomes so high that it requires impossible infinite force to accelerate it to the exact speed of light.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Madmancer TIME DILATION:
      ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting; as Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE). Therefore, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, GRAVITATIONAL force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes". Great.
      Therefore, the ULTIMATE BASIS of SPACE AND TIME is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETISM AND GRAVITY in balance; as PERPETUAL motion is the ultimate answer to what is then TIME DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to TIME AND SPACE. Accordingly, the relative end(s) of SPACE AND TIME are thus understood to involve gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy in balance. Balance and completeness go hand in hand.
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Madmancer TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. News flash ! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Madmancer THE MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS DIMENSIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH ONE AND WHAT IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE OR SPACE ON BALANCE, THEREBY PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY (ON/IN BALANCE):
      This also clearly proves ON balance that E=mc2 is directly taken from F=ma. Magnificent.
      Gravity is a property of SPACE ON BALANCE. It involves adherence or cohesion. So, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). What is the blue sky ON BALANCE? This IS the blue EARTH AS this is expressed on balance WITH (or equivalently by) what is the eye. The translucent AND blue sky is consistent with what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL (AND electromagnetic/gravitational) EXPERIENCE ON BALANCE, as touch AND feeling BLEND; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be electroMAGNETIC/gravitational ON BALANCE. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! I have explained why WHAT IS THE EYE beholds what is then (ON BALANCE) WHAT IS THE BLUE EARTH. Notice the associated black “space” AND DOME regarding what is the eye. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Very carefully consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE !! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Again, I have proven AND explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
      Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. What is quantum gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE.
      Define “mass". You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
      E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. GREAT.
      You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE.
      We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following.
      Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE.
      TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT.
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @NoNoahhhh
    @NoNoahhhh 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Good explanation. I understand more

  • @jesstran5940
    @jesstran5940 10 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    i'm still not very clear on why you need an infinite amount of energy to speed the proton up to the speed of light. Why is the last 3m/s taking an infinite amount of energy? And why would the proton's mass become infinite when it reached the speed of light, since photon, which moves at the speed of light, is massless?
    The video was really good, but i hope you can explain that a little further. Thanks!

    • @NazmulHasan-iz2ll
      @NazmulHasan-iz2ll 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Protons would have an infinite mass because of the energy and mass equivalence...as the proton comes closer to the speed of light more energy is needed to accelerate it therefore the mass increases and as the proton comes near the speed of light it would require an infinite amount energy to move it as the mass becomes infinite.
      Photons can move at the speed of light and also have no mass become they have no rest mass but they do have relativistic mass.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. News flash ! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @orion_222
    @orion_222 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    thank u for the explanation

  • @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
    @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time 10 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    why is it squared?

    • @pyrrho314
      @pyrrho314 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      good question

    • @Tschoo
      @Tschoo 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      pyrrho314 its a weird feeling to see a comment of a guy to whom I am subscribed too, lol. The internet is a village.

    • @pyrrho314
      @pyrrho314 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      MrJoeRedford I know, I get the same feeling. It's more common now that youtooble allows this plus notation and notifies the person referenced.

    • @othertestchannelbeta
      @othertestchannelbeta 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      It has to do with mass-energy equivalence. The speed of light is the same as saying the speed of *massless particles*. The more energy you put into matter, the more relativistic mass it will gain. A small amount of matter has a very large energy potential, which is what the speed of light squared represents.

    • @pyrrho314
      @pyrrho314 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      Verifed InTest why not cubed?

  • @seapearlie
    @seapearlie 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thanks for the video :) Very helpful :)

  • @sportcreativity7263
    @sportcreativity7263 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    What about rest Mass and the equation for a Massless object ??
    I also heard that Electromagnetic Radiation is a Form of Potential Or/And Kinetic Energy ?

    • @theodorearias8056
      @theodorearias8056 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      a massless object is energy...light is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation...think of the sun as a giant light bulb it using mass and converting into energy

    • @simonruszczak5563
      @simonruszczak5563 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nope, no mass = no existence.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@theodorearias8056 TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. News flash ! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@simonruszczak5563 TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. News flash ! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @bob3913
    @bob3913 10 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Hella true player right here, fat shout out to mr. A for hookin up this knowledge connect tighter than a cork!

  • @jayadewarajapaksharmjb
    @jayadewarajapaksharmjb 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    great explanation

    • @vedantsridhar8378
      @vedantsridhar8378 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Jayadewa rajapaksha no problem, I'm very happy to help you

  • @simonruszczak5563
    @simonruszczak5563 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's a conversion formula, converting Matter mass to Energy mass. °E = °M x ( c^2 )
    Converting Matter mass units into Energy mass units. Like a ºC to ℉ formula, and back.
    Matter mass = Energy mass / ( maximum speed of Energy mass ^ 2 )
    ℉ = ( ºC x 9 / 5 ) + 32, ºC = 5 / 9 x ( ℉ - 32 ), 0ºC = 32 ℉ , the temperature is the same.
    °M = °E ÷ ( c^2 ) , °M is Matter mass , the °E is Energy mass. The mass is the same.

  • @MrBlazingup420
    @MrBlazingup420 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Have you ever watch wood burn, the flame seems to never touch the wood, it floats on a pillow of air, which is the wood's ether that's released from the charring wood

  • @aadxb9493
    @aadxb9493 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    good job thanks

  • @keempeemeera4843
    @keempeemeera4843 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    thank u
    this is one of our topic in midterm
    now i got it ;)

  • @abaeza123
    @abaeza123 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm a little confused on how the units cancel out, can someone explain?

  • @shahabmarawat
    @shahabmarawat 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Awesome thanks :)

  • @karhukivi
    @karhukivi 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The Cockcroft-Walton experiment to bombard Li7 with protons and produce two alpha particles is a good validation of E=mc^2.

  • @fedorsykora272
    @fedorsykora272 8 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    but why is there speed of light

    • @kripashankarshukla4073
      @kripashankarshukla4073 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Because light has no mass so no inertia and thus no energy is required to accelerate. Photons have 0 mass which means no inertia and it can't resist changes in motion so it travels at 299,792,458 m/s

    • @simonruszczak5563
      @simonruszczak5563 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It's the maximum speed of energy mass.
      Photons are only energy, everything else is a mixture of masses, energy and matter.
      No mass, no existence.

  • @krishboy6827
    @krishboy6827 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    How the speed of light involves in conversation between mass and energy ?

  • @gasperkosmac7672
    @gasperkosmac7672 10 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Great

  • @pioneerwoman2310
    @pioneerwoman2310 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    How can we relate this equation to the law of thermodynamics?

  • @frankdimeglio8216
    @frankdimeglio8216 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    ON THE ABSOLUTE PHYSICAL EQUIVALENCY AND BALANCING OF E=MC2 AND F=MA:
    It is a very great truth in physics that the ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) INDEED, E=mc2 IS DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS time dilation proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
    By Frank DiMeglio

  • @Petercookintaiwan
    @Petercookintaiwan 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    If mass is converted to the binding energy of atoms that means that mass and electromagnetic charge must be two manifestations of the same thing.

  • @franzscheerer
    @franzscheerer 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    By far the largest part of the energy on our Earth is in the atomic nuclei. We can only partially convert this into heat by nuclear fission, but it is enough to secure the energy supply for humanity.

  • @Annibals
    @Annibals 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    this is better than vid 89

  • @BlackSmithStudi0
    @BlackSmithStudi0 ปีที่แล้ว

    why did 5kg went from 5 to 4.5 in here 5:22

  • @carlitos220
    @carlitos220 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    would someone be so kind to explain the law of conservation mass, in correlation to cremation. For example my grandma when she passed away weighted around 180 pounds but when we got her ashes they only weighted 3-4 pounds so i am a bit confused. For what I know humans are mostly water so maybe that has something to do with it???

  • @lorenzomarini5112
    @lorenzomarini5112 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza
    Albert Einstein: massa = E./c2
    Olinto De Pretta: Energia = mc2
    Lorenzo Marini : Spirito = mc2:
    Sono io che ho ragione nello scrivere la Formula:
    In modo esatto ed onesto.

  • @NoFrameHell
    @NoFrameHell 10 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    E^2=(pc)^2+(m0c^2)^2 should be the norm.
    Too bad mathematics is still treated as a 12 headed monster.

    • @doug44441
      @doug44441 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      if you point 2 beams of light at a 3 metre block of iron ,, how fast will it accelerate ?????

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    What you actually is saying mr. Anderson at 4.40 is, that´s the same amount of "free" energy is avaible in 5 kg of lead, copper or whatever, as it is in uranium 235! Do you know any nuclear scientist, that will share your view? In that case, why don´t we use copper as fuel in our nuclear plants?

  • @ryanlenosh2711
    @ryanlenosh2711 ปีที่แล้ว

    Good

  • @junaidmughal3806
    @junaidmughal3806 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    so what would be the energy of 5 kg wood? would it be same as 5 kg uranium ? i am confused

    • @sagemaster3408
      @sagemaster3408 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Junaid Mughal it would be the same. I’m assuming uranium breaks down easier. Unstable. That’s my guess

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sheeeesh... what hope do people with 10,000,000 gods have to understand anything?

  • @bsbhati
    @bsbhati 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    After see many videos i found real answer in ur video.... Just want to know how a man studied about mass and than use light speed in it? Albert was a normal human or allien??

  • @mikolajwojnicki2169
    @mikolajwojnicki2169 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Why is it the speed of light in particular?

    • @sagemaster3408
      @sagemaster3408 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Mikolaj Wojnicki because ur comparing 2 things. And the only thing the same between the 2 is the speed of light .

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@sagemaster3408 Light Speed is a misnomer. Even time is not constant, but passes at different rates based upon its distance from center of mass. And light slows down when going through (e.g.) glass. from where does it get the energy to speed up again after it leaves the glass? It doesn't! It's the medium light is passing through that determines its rate of propagation. Get a brain and use it. Stop listening to academicians who have no understanding but parrot theories based upon bullshit and political correctness. Real science is REPEATABLE.

  • @kathiravan45
    @kathiravan45 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    i understand the concept of E=mC2, but why we have to multiply with C and that too C2? this is the only area disturbing me?
    please help me to understand this one.

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Indians don't understand things. Choose another line of work, like making jewelry and ripping off other people. Or get an Orange Robe and work the airports.

    • @curt0571
      @curt0571 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@rstelzer2928 you have definately chosen another line of living and that would be "in-human." Remember "Inagination is more important than knowledge."
      Einstein
      Take a night course....or night courses times the speed of light squared in your arrogant case.

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@curt0571 Which one of your 10,000 gods told you that? HOW is it that you state "i understand the concept of E=mC2" and then you ask "why we have to multiply with C and that too C2?"? Have you no integrity? Heh heh heh!!!

  • @rajeshharsora5806
    @rajeshharsora5806 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Simple mean nothing goes out from world energy or mass sea water by sun heat fall as rain again by river goes to sea

  • @divjotkaurkalra505
    @divjotkaurkalra505 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yuppp...

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    But electrons also have charge, so why are they not accelerating those in CERN? Get the point?

  • @anastasiaanautodidact9856
    @anastasiaanautodidact9856 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    oh wow

  • @katelynwinge7187
    @katelynwinge7187 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    can you do a video on percent composition by mass?

  • @primemagi
    @primemagi 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    wrong, mass/energy equivalence is not e=mc2. E = M4/3pi(C+G) Cubed by Ferydoon Shirazi. e=mc2 is momentum energy. Einstein took Italian Olinto De Pretto formula (calories = mv2) = (energy= mc2) which was momentum of the body and presented it as mass energy equivalence.MG1

  • @simonjeanpierre682
    @simonjeanpierre682 ปีที่แล้ว

    I am Azor Maxo I invented E=mc2 in the year 2000

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Actually We Can Destroy Matter, it´s called dustification, but what do you know mr Anderson?

  • @lastfirst4246
    @lastfirst4246 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    pretty sure this is still theory... we got any proof of this?

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Academia wants you stuck in that fog where there is NO understanding. We cant have everyone flying their own saucers can we?

  • @memestolerx-1860
    @memestolerx-1860 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Before this video I thinks that 12.0000amu is written for just approximitty

  • @frankdimeglio8216
    @frankdimeglio8216 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Frank DiMeglio has surpassed Newton and Einstein.

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mass can be converted to SOME energy, it´s not the way you are trying to "promote" besides that have you ever heard of something called pure energy, mr Anderson? No, I didn´t think so...

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    And speed of light is not a constant and actually you should now that, b/c even a kid knows it after grade 6...

  • @mikolajwojnicki2169
    @mikolajwojnicki2169 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    But don't photons have energy? Since they are massless, this equation tells us they don't.

  • @roseb2105
    @roseb2105 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    i dont understand why we multiply the mass by the speed of light to get energy

    • @NazmulHasan-iz2ll
      @NazmulHasan-iz2ll 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      The reason is that energy, be it light waves or radiation, travels at the speed of light. That breaks down to 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second). When we split an atom inside a nuclear power plant or an atomic bomb, the resulting energy releases at the speed of light.
      But why is the speed of light squared? The reason is that kinetic energy, or the energy of motion, is proportional to mass. When you accelerate an object, the kinetic energy increases to the tune of the speed squared. You'll find an excellent example of this in any driver's education manual: If you double your speed, the braking distance is four times longer, so the braking distance is equal to the speed squared

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Uhhhh.... learn to think for yourself instead of taking answers from assholes. When LIGHT passes through glass it slows down depending on it's frequency, that's WHY the colors divide into a rainbow, based upon the relative freq of each color. So what makes them speed back up after they pass through the glass? THAT would require more energy input from somewhere, right? Yes. But you see, light does not have a "speed" rather the medium it passes through has a speed LIMIT (permittivity of ether). Got the picture now? Ditch these academicians, learn how to see for yourself. The speed of sound is also different depending on the medium it's flowing through, the denser the faster. Learn allegorically. REASON and SEE. See?

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Noah Joseph FENECH But you don't see much else, do you? Heh heh heh. Enjoy your crayons. Understanding things is NOT for you. Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Thanks for the laughs.

  • @Orrenmc2
    @Orrenmc2 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Hi

  • @beatrizfarias6956
    @beatrizfarias6956 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    cecifiae-m

  • @dineshbabu3306
    @dineshbabu3306 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The atomic bomb has nothing, absolutly nothing to do with Einstein. It was developed by Kirkeland a Norwegain in 1908, but used Nikola Teslas physics from 1893! Anything else I can help you with, mr Anderson?

  • @lorcresiakonopasek9793
    @lorcresiakonopasek9793 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    @polémica

  • @ວິລິຍາພົມມະປະເສີກ-ຫ7ຫ

    E=mc2😗

  • @tahirG2010
    @tahirG2010 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    i'm the only one. who knows what Einsteind meant. i don't care if you don't believe me. but you all say 1905? yes his essay = Bern Germany 1905.. Einstein said: ist der tragheit eines korpers von seinem energieeinhalt abhangig..Einstein: JA.. He did mean: if we put E in to M, should that SLOW (C) the shell/object.. it's MINUS. So if you calculate and want this to prove, the answer is less than..I know what he meant and i know why people did't understand him or his field of equation. He had a job, he did't like. This E=MC2 people did't understand it even then. It got famous a few years later. I can even calculate this.

    • @tahirG2010
      @tahirG2010 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      this is his essay: www.universoeinstein.com.ar/images/1905_18_639-641.pdf

  • @qewqeqeqwew3977
    @qewqeqeqwew3977 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A ot of things worng with this explanation. A proton does not get heavier by moving faster. Mass is a scalar, velocity independant quantity. E=mc^2 is only a special case of a more general formula and holds only for a mass at rest. Energiy of a moving proton is E^2=p^2+m^2 and not equal its mass. Wrong explanation is based on confusion in early 20th century and still persistent in ungraduated school books and older literature even though Einstein himself at his time tryed to clean it up.

    • @qewqeqeqwew3977
      @qewqeqeqwew3977 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +mirco de zorzi Is it a question or a statement? If it's about missing c, in theoretical physics c is usually set 1 for convenience, see "natural units".

    • @michaelbanasshak2730
      @michaelbanasshak2730 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Correct. Everybody mssses this up, even Michio and Tyson . Einstein forcefully warned against relativistic mass and rejected it later in life. E=mc2 is not even true written that way. Einstein's equation for objects sitting still was Eo=mc2. The correct notation. For objects moving energy is always GREATER than mc2.

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Silly boys. It's the SPIN. Not a magic pixie "particle".

  • @michaellamoreaux4402
    @michaellamoreaux4402 ปีที่แล้ว

    Math is not physics. Mass is a property of matter and energy. This equation is just the conversion factor which gives the mass of a quantity of energy. A property is not the equivalent of the thing of which it is a property. Redness is not equivalent to an apple. Mass is always conserved.

  • @michaelryd6737
    @michaelryd6737 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    And missing mass has nothing to do with Albert either....

  • @difmasika6858
    @difmasika6858 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    False! It was développed by Henri Poincaré in 1900. He's also who gave the theory it's name: "relativité".

    • @rstelzer2928
      @rstelzer2928 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Ahhhh there IS hope! But it is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo rare.

  • @anandrover
    @anandrover 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Malayali undo 😁

  • @moses777exodus
    @moses777exodus 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    🌟😄 Thanks for sharing. Wishing you a Happy New Year Lord-Jesus-Christ dot 😄🌟

  • @franzscheerer
    @franzscheerer 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's complete nonsense, energy and mass are the same, they're different manifestations of the same thing. Einstein already said it. So we can't convert mass into energy, nonsense!

  • @metaworldpeacetoday
    @metaworldpeacetoday ปีที่แล้ว

    Too bad Einstein plagiarized E = mc2 from Italian scientist

    • @AMC2283
      @AMC2283 ปีที่แล้ว

      Oh obviously Einstein was a big dummy yet managed to con the entire world into thinking he was a genius for all time

  • @tiborvarga4588
    @tiborvarga4588 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    E =m x c2 Hogy lehet ezt elhinni?!!!!!! Tehát a foton ami 300 000 kilométert tesz meg egy másodperc alatt, ezt veszem még háromszáz ezerszer és veszem az anyag tömegszeresével. Egyáltalán, hogy lehet sebességet sebességgel szorozni? Ennyi erővel azt is írhatta volna, hogy az energia egyenlő a mai dátum szorozva a villanyoszlop magasságával és ezt szorozd meg a testsúlyoddal!
    Az energia nem más mint az anyag mozgása, a nyugalomban lévő nem mozgó és nem forgó anyagnak nincs energiája - mivel nem mozog, nem forog.

  • @user-tp5uz9ed3v
    @user-tp5uz9ed3v 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    blablablabla=NERD

  • @ilguidos
    @ilguidos 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    M= EC