mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
carstenw wrote:
contas wrote:
Non of you mentioned about moving object, so you don't understand of need that E=mc2.20N is static G.force and you already know it hard to handle, it becomes harder if you move it around the models, in short, you'll need to spend more force or your ENERGY to keep it right in moving not drop it to floor.Above formula of A.E tells the relationship among mass, moving speed and energy not energy alone as you thought.
Do you know how fast you would have to move for this even to become interesting? Do you just make stuff up as you go along? Just stop when you run out of knowledge, that is much more graceful.
Furthermore, once things get fast enough for relativity to "become interesting," Contas is using the wrong equation anyway. To calculate the "relationship among mass, moving speed and energy" you'll need to use the more complete form:
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
where p is the momentum (and the velocity is v = (p*c/E)*c). "E=mc^2" is just a simplification for the non-moving "rest frame" case, relevant in the limit where p^2 c^2 << m^2 c^4, i.e. when things are moving far too slowly for relativity to "become interesting" (which includes every case where the person holding the lens isn't disintegrating into an x-ray emitting plasma).
|
