5 ms·
I don't need Einstein's equation. Momentum is already assumed in kinetic energy and kinetic energy assumes massive bodies. This is the reason for using mass in
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I don't need Einstein's equation. Momentum is already assumed in kinetic energy and kinetic energy assumes massive bodies. This is the reason for using mass in the formula. I have no idea why you want the kinetic energy to be 0. The equation assumes a moving body. Thus v cannot be equal to zero.
- eesmith 5y agoYou need Einstein's equation to have a "striking analogy". You used Einstein's equation for v=0; the rest-mass/energy equivalence. If you use Einstein's full equation, there is no "striking analogy." Your definition of kinetic energy excludes photons, which have kinetic energy and momentum but no mass.
- SirIsaac 5y agoIn my opinion, it is not Einstein's equation. It's Newton's equation applied to the speed of light. It's not v=0 but v=c. It just so happens that mc² is also the potential energy of a body at rest. Yes, a photon's energy is all kinetic but so what? Newton's equation specified massive bodies. Again, the 1/2 is BS but the winner of this debate is still to be determined.
- eesmith 5y agoA photon has no mass. Newton's equation specified massive bodies. Ergo, Newton's equation does not apply to photons. Einstein's equation does apply to photons. Ergo, Einstein's equation is not Newton's equation. For velocities much less than the speed of light, Einstein's equation is well approximated by Newton's equation.