3 ms·

It tells people that (because it's such a huge number) "a little" mass contains "a lot" of energy. The actual number and unit isn't really important to get that

by brazzy 16y ago

It tells people that (because it's such a huge number) "a little" mass contains "a lot" of energy. The actual number and unit isn't really important to get that point across.

lutorm 16y ago
Any number can be huge if you put it in suitable units. Without units, the number is meaningless.
- brazzy 16y ago
  Again: the number is big by most people's standard, and that gets the point across. It doesn't need to be any more meaningful, and it most definitely does not matter that one could convey a false impression by choosing an even larger unit.
zokier 16y ago
The point was that as mph is quite arbitrary unit it is practically impossible to see the amount of energy. If the speed of light was given in m/s then the amount of energy would have been easy to see. ie E = mc². c = 300 × 10^6 m/s, c² = 9 × 10^16 (m/s)², so with that equation 1kg of mass actually contains approximately 9 × 10^16 joules of energy which is a lot. What would the equivalent thought process be in imperial units? Lets say you have 1 lb of mass and want to figure out the amount of energy contained in it with the equation E = mc² and c² being 3.47 × 10^10 miles per second, just to know the scale of things (which was kinda the point in the article imho). How would you do that? edit: Another point of view: velocity and kinetic energy. E = 0.5mv², that should be familiar to anyone familiar to physics. So with a velocity of 5.5 × 10^9 inches per year you don't need a lot of mass to have a lot of energy, because the multiplier is so huge, right?
- brazzy 16y ago
  The point was that the text is intended to be understandable by people who are not necessarily familiar with physics, who don't have the faintest idea what a joule is and who wouldn't even understand scientific notation.

3 ms·

It tells people that (because it's such a huge number) "a little" mass contains "a lot" of energy. The actual number and unit isn't really important to get that

by brazzy 16y ago

It tells people that (because it's such a huge number) "a little" mass contains "a lot" of energy. The actual number and unit isn't really important to get that point across.

lutorm 16y ago
Any number can be huge if you put it in suitable units. Without units, the number is meaningless.
- brazzy 16y ago
  Again: the number is big by most people's standard, and that gets the point across. It doesn't need to be any more meaningful, and it most definitely does not matter that one could convey a false impression by choosing an even larger unit.
zokier 16y ago
The point was that as mph is quite arbitrary unit it is practically impossible to see the amount of energy. If the speed of light was given in m/s then the amount of energy would have been easy to see. ie E = mc². c = 300 × 10^6 m/s, c² = 9 × 10^16 (m/s)², so with that equation 1kg of mass actually contains approximately 9 × 10^16 joules of energy which is a lot. What would the equivalent thought process be in imperial units? Lets say you have 1 lb of mass and want to figure out the amount of energy contained in it with the equation E = mc² and c² being 3.47 × 10^10 miles per second, just to know the scale of things (which was kinda the point in the article imho). How would you do that? edit: Another point of view: velocity and kinetic energy. E = 0.5mv², that should be familiar to anyone familiar to physics. So with a velocity of 5.5 × 10^9 inches per year you don't need a lot of mass to have a lot of energy, because the multiplier is so huge, right?
- brazzy 16y ago
  The point was that the text is intended to be understandable by people who are not necessarily familiar with physics, who don't have the faintest idea what a joule is and who wouldn't even understand scientific notation.