yes of course it's true to say the c squared factor isn't intrinsic to understanding the meaning of the formula, and that's easiest seen by rescaling the units of c to equal 1 - so that we then have E = m alone and mass-energy equivalence is seen stark-naked ..
however that doesn't explain how the speed of light gets into the formula in the first place; that's best addressed IMO by showing how E=mc^2 is a reworking in 4D flat space, of the Newtonian kinetic energy relation K = 1/2 mv^2 - so that in both cases energy is seen to be determined by speed-squared. (The difference is the Newtonian version deals with kinetic energy only, or energy of motion, whereas the relativistic version includes rest energy as well, and allows for mass changing with speed.)
In turn, one can explain the Newtonian v-squared by pointing to the connection between Kinetic energy (K) and work, between Work and Force, between force and acceleration, thus between force and velocity - and hence ultimately between K and velocity.
Off Topic » in reply to One of Einstein's greatest gifts...
re: c squared
The whole thread (39 posts)
- To RL. Continuation from, but posted---NOT on Space/Science---
- will get back to Johannes and Rob by the weekend ... (n/t)
- Thread is fixed
- "Could you point out where I confused energy and power or velocity and momentum?"
- Your confusion stems...
- re: To RL. Continuation from, but posted---NOT on Space/Science---
- Whoa. Better you than me, R.L. (n/t)