The famous equation E=mc² didn’t belong to Einstein but to Olinto de Pretto, an Italian industrialist who published it on a science magazine in 1903, two years before Einstein did.
Wrong. Nikolay Umov pointed out Е = kmc², where 0.5 ≤ k ≤ 1, way back in 1873. And for the one hundred millionth time, Einstein gets credit because of the EXPLANATION he gave for the equation, and the DERIVATION, not because he was the first to write it.
@@Jacobsoetsrto3211 I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating fact. E=mc² wasn't unknown at the time. It was just understood incorrectly. The equation comes out naturally from the Lorentz transformation equations, which Lorentz and (and Poincaré to an extent) figured to explain the null result of aether measurement. Einstein just removed the needless fluff and derived it from first principles. That was both a simple AND brilliant move, and it's why he gets so much credit. You see, those other people working on the problem weren't trying to create a theory of relativity. They were trying to explain a null result for their presupposed aether rest frame. Einstein, on the other hand, extended Galilean relativity to explain the result. Hence why, again, it's _Einstein's_ theory of special relativity.
First thing I think people think in reaction to hearing this formula is...how can that bring me power, love and richdom? We need a concise formula like that for mankind to live in peace! Any genious out there?
@@trollelias663 Define “mass”. You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. 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. 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. By Frank DiMeglio
He tried pretty hard, but at the time only the electromagnetic force was really understood. The strong and weak nuclear forces were discovered in the 1930s, and it apparently threw him for a loop. He was interested in expanding on the idea of geometry of spacetime to explain unified field theories, and in so doing he kind of ignored the other two forces. Unless I'm misremembering. But I'm pretty sure he tried hard and failed because of his desire to make it a complex mathematical relationship similar to general relativity. The math was too hard. It's _still_ too hard, because the modern successor to that angle is string theory, which thus far is elusive mathematically.
@@eliteteamkiller319 Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. The following CLEARLY explains the fourth dimension. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains the cosmological redshift. I have ultimately AND CLEARLY (ON BALANCE) explained what is the “black hole". Perfect. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). TOTAL PERFECTION. Magnificent. By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 Literally NO IT ISN'T taken from F=ma. I will show you EXACTLY where E=mc². First of all, the key thing you have to understand is that space and time behave a little bit differently in special relativity, and it is from that difference-using kinematic equations from classical physics that take into account this difference-that we ultimately get to E=mc². But I'm getting ahead of myself. First you need to understand what a coordinate transformation is. Consider this example: you are standing on the road, and a car rolls by. A kid throws a ball up to hit the top of the car and catches it as it falls back down (he _does not move his hand out or in or side to side to catch it,_ because to him the ball falls straight down). What path does the ball take? To you, the ball follows a parabola. Now, you're standing on the road, and you throw a ball, straight up and straight down. What path does the ball take _according to a comet that the Earth is flying by?_ It follows a parabola. This is called the _principle of relativity,_ and has been known since Galileo. What it means at its core is that speed is entirely relative: how fast something goes is dependent upon your frame of reference. _Acceleration_ is universal, but speed isn't. That's why in a smooth plane ride everything feels normal, but if you crash, the _sudden deceleration_ is what kills you. With me so far? But in order to compare measurements, we need a way of _transforming_ your measurement of the ball's trajectory to the measurement preformed by the comet. And to get these _transformation equations,_ we make assumptions about how space and time work, and use math to get them. Prior to special relativity, we believed the equation to go from YOUR measurement of the ball's path (call each coordinate along that path x') to the measurement of what the comet makes (call those coordinates along the path x) was this: x' = x - vt, where v is the relative speed between Earth and the comet, x' is the distance coordinate you measure, x is the distance coordinate the comet measures, and t is time. Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, and many others showed that is very close but not accurate (and it gets less accurate the faster you go). But before we can get to that, we have to go back to the principle of relativity: remember, speed is RELATIVE. As long as you are moving in a way that Newton's 1st law holds (i.e., as long as your reference frame is _inertial_, or in other words, not being accelerated, jerked, etc), the laws of physics work the same for you as someone traveling steadily very fast, which ultimately means that speed has NO EFFECT on how things move in each reference frame. That is, no matter how fast you are moving according to someone else, as long as you are steady and there is no wind or outside forces, if you throw a ball up, it will fall down and you can catch it. Now take the principle of relativity described above, and add to it this quirk of reality: the speed of light doesn't depend on frame of reference (Not going to waste time explaining how we know this). _One_ speed appears to be an exception to the rule that speed is completely relative. Or, to say it in another way, the speed of light is _invariant._ And really, it's the speed of electromagnetic waves, gravity waves, and anything that has no mass. Anyway, what is the logical consequence of this? In order for there to be a speed that everyone agrees on, everyone cannot always agree upon these three things: length, time intervals, and simultaneity. With me so far? Now, because of this weird quirk of reality in which the speed of light is invariant, the aforementioned transformation equation is wrong. x' is NOT equal to x - vt. Instead, it's this: x' = y(x - vt), where y is 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]). There's nothing extra special about that. All it is is a formula which encodes that the speed of light is invariant, because the consequence of the speed of light being invariant is that _you can never reach the speed of light._ In other words, the speed of light by logical necessity is the maximum speed limit. _But there's an additional consequence!_ Instead of time being universal, that is, instead of t' = t, we end up with this: t = y(t' - [v/c²]x'). If you distribute the y, you have t = yt' - y[v/c²]x'. The yt term is called time dilation, and the y[v/c²]x' term is called the relativity of simultaneity. This is probably too much information, but suffice to say that space and time and simultaneity don't actually behave like we thought they did. But I'm here to show you E = mc², not divulge into all of special relativity. Moving on. Take that equation t = yt' - y[v/c²]x'. Now consider a situation where you are right next to the object you are measuring. That is, when x' = 0. What are you left with? You're left with t = yt'. This is, again, the time dilation formula. Dividing both sides by y gives t' = t/y, and is called "proper time." It's the time measured locally by the moving object (or by you; every frame of reference has it's own proper time. The point is, it is the LOCAL time). This is important for this derivation of E = mc². Now, suppose we want to consider a single coordinate in spacetime. And for simplicity, let's let the single direction of x represent all three spatial dimensions (or rather, we'll simplify the scenario so that the y and z directions aren't important for this analysis). Well, the single coordinate would be (x, t), except for one problem: x is in units of length, and t is in units of time. In order to make the units match, we'll multiply time by a speed, because distance = rate * time. And we'll choose units so that the speed that is multiplied on the time is the speed of light. So our coordinate becomes (x, ct). So, the coordinate is (x, ct). With me so far? Next, we'll take this single coordinate and apply the rules of kinematics to turn it into energy. How do we go from a coordinate to energy? First, we need speed, so we divide by "time." Next, we need momentum, so we multiply by mass. Then we need force, so we take the time derivative of that momentum. And finally, we need energy, so we integrate over distance. _This is exactly what we'd do in Newtonian physics, with ONE notable difference!_ Instead of dividing by t, "universal time," we choose what is called "proper time." And proper time is t/y. So the coordinate becomes (x/[t/y], ct/[t/y]), or, after simplifying, it becomes *(yv, yc).* Notice that the x is now a v, because x/t = v. It's a _speed_ now, not a distance or location. Because when you divide distance by time, you get speed. With me so far? We now have what is called "4-velocity." It is a type of "speed." The yv part is actual speed through space, the yc part is kind of "speed" through time, but not really. In fact, it doesn't really have much physical significance at this point with respect to moving through space (because it's actually related to energy and time, but that is a whole other topic). From here on out we will only focus on the "speed through space" part, the yv. So, we need to turn yv into momentum. How to you turn a speed into a momentum? All you have to do is multiply by mass. So, momentum is now myv. Very simple. Mass, times y (which is 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]) ), times v. myv. With me? Now we need to turn that momentum, myv, into force. How do we turn a momentum into a force? You take the time derivative of it. This requires calculus, but I won't bore you with the math. The result is this: F = m*([v²/c²]*y³a) + m*ya. That looks intimidating if you write out y = 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]), but it's easier to see when actually written on paper. In a sense it is _analogous_ to F = ma. But you have these extra things multiplying on the acceleration a. Last step, we want to take this "force" and turn it into energy. How? The work-energy theorem: the net work done on something equals the change in kinetic energy. By deriving an expression for work, we get an expression for kinetic energy. And that is found by integrating force over distance. So we integrate that huge mess over distance. Again, this is calculus, and it involves trig substitution (and integration technique), but I'll spare you the details and give you the formula: KE = (y - 1)mc² Or, KE = ymc² - mc². This is an expression for KINETIC ENERGY, but only one term depends on speed, v: the term with the y, which, if you recall, is 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]). So what is this other term, this -mc²? Well, kinetic energy is just total energy minus potential energy. *This is the key to this derivation!* TOTAL energy is then the first term, and POTENTIAL energy is the second term. So total energy is ymc², which is fully written out as mc²/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]). Which means POTENTIAL energy is mc². But isn't, you might ask, gravitational potential energy mgh? Yep. But this potential energy term mc² will still be there. It is _always_ there, in addition to whatever potential energy is there by virtue of position. Which means mc² isn't REALLY "potential" energy. It is the MINIMUM energy something can have. Anyway, this is one of the more convoluted ways to get E = mc². But what's important is HOW it was gotten: the normal kinematic equations were used, but the normal SPACE, TIME and SIMULTANEITY were NOT. It is the odd nature of spacetime itself that leads to this result, in the way derived here.
Mass and energy but both different, but the same manifestations for the average mind. He just found the GOD particle, what did Jesus say? Who was he? He stated him and the father are 1, lord Jesus. It’s the I AM. I’ve came up with how reality works through this concept to, and how a person can control it, willfully. E= human emotions, Mass= to mind or thoughts 💭, when married together you get a desired action, at the speed of light or what you can see. C = can also be referred to as consequences too, a byproduct of thoughts and emotions at work.
Ancient India scriptures, Brahma and Shakthi. Brahma is fundamental of everything. You see Brahma in everything. Brahma can be transformed to Shakthi(Energy).
@@HK-pp9ig What you know about Einstein's theory. Einstein says: Matter and Energy....only two concepts. Brahma is the fundamental entity. Shakthi is the Energy. YOU STUPID GO AND READ 'TAO OF PHYSICS' BY FRITJOF KAPRA.
He has an indian accent...
Exactly
🤣
@NA OMEGALUL L No, Indian(south indian accent)
Fvck off India shit!!!
U think u are good???🤮🤮🤮
Full of poor country!!!
uhh no
It a rare opportunity to hear the voice of the Genius
My teacher explained this formula very badly in class, so I went to the only one who could explain it correctly...
first time i've heard his voice!
E=(MC)² ernergia es igual a masa, por velocidad de la luz al cuadrado .
"E=MC²"
Me+Coffee²= Energy
👨+☕☕=⚡
-By Einstein
🤣
Whole heartedly agree
Don’t Forget to share the video at your friend
Don't forget to share the video on Facebook
Wow what A knowledge really great sirrrrr
SOMARI & SOMARI
Sono un artista metafisico (Formula di Einstein):
1) m. = E./C2
2) Energia = mc2
3) Spirito = mc2:
Sono la stessa cosa.
I have studied this equation at an engineering faculty in Brazil.
I wonder about your conclusions???
@@mikeibarra5843 mass is energy.
The famous equation E=mc² didn’t belong to Einstein but to Olinto de Pretto, an Italian industrialist who published it on a science magazine in 1903, two years before Einstein did.
@aliya sulfi Not a bright remark to say the least
Wrong. Nikolay Umov pointed out Е = kmc², where 0.5 ≤ k ≤ 1, way back in 1873.
And for the one hundred millionth time, Einstein gets credit because of the EXPLANATION he gave for the equation, and the DERIVATION, not because he was the first to write it.
@@eliteteamkiller319 nikolay umov are fool. Einstein Smarter. Don't claim please
@@Jacobsoetsrto3211 I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating fact. E=mc² wasn't unknown at the time. It was just understood incorrectly. The equation comes out naturally from the Lorentz transformation equations, which Lorentz and (and Poincaré to an extent) figured to explain the null result of aether measurement. Einstein just removed the needless fluff and derived it from first principles. That was both a simple AND brilliant move, and it's why he gets so much credit. You see, those other people working on the problem weren't trying to create a theory of relativity. They were trying to explain a null result for their presupposed aether rest frame. Einstein, on the other hand, extended Galilean relativity to explain the result. Hence why, again, it's _Einstein's_ theory of special relativity.
Industrialist... mmmm you mean like Thomas Edison and his fake-bulb theory
Great talent
Uncle casually called us average mind💀
First thing I think people think in reaction to hearing this formula is...how can that bring me power, love and richdom? We need a concise formula like that for mankind to live in peace! Any genious out there?
E=mc² ☢️
Very thick German accent
He was speaking british, he explained E=MC² on a video or a stage or something like that
My crush 🥰..
Chooo cute😍.. World famous scientist😎😎
He was quite the handsome fellow in his youth.
@@eliteteamkiller319 of course😎
@@sathwika1212 A bit of a womanizer, though. So the rumors suggest. But if you're looking for a discreet fling, Albert was your man.
lançou a braba
It's nice to hear his voice but I still don't understand what he is saying other than the "average mind".
I just realized how dumb i'am by watching this video😂😂cause I don't know what he is talking about
Same,😂
Well, the physics behind what he's talking about is WAY more complex, so feel even dumber. XD
0:07
A true genius doesn't need to read a piece of paper someone else wrote. FE
What do you think?
Glued notes , ??
So light velocity multiplies mass, great, I turn on the light and voila, mass is created out of nothing and vice versa, lol
World genius.
Wow!!
Professor Smurfitt Stones hero!!!!!!
Che i rapporto sia un numero infinitamente grande l'ho sempre intuito ma, perché proprio C quadrato?
he sounds funny
I,I is a monarch of the mind
Energy created by velocity and rotation and magnetism..
Doesn’t hold water for electrostatic energy..
woaa
I still didn't understand it
Bruh
You have 0iq
@@trollelias663 Define “mass”. You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
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.
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.
By Frank DiMeglio
this is what should shcool teach us litterally
If only he unified gravity with the other forces instead of dipping his wick and partying
He tried pretty hard, but at the time only the electromagnetic force was really understood. The strong and weak nuclear forces were discovered in the 1930s, and it apparently threw him for a loop. He was interested in expanding on the idea of geometry of spacetime to explain unified field theories, and in so doing he kind of ignored the other two forces. Unless I'm misremembering. But I'm pretty sure he tried hard and failed because of his desire to make it a complex mathematical relationship similar to general relativity. The math was too hard. It's _still_ too hard, because the modern successor to that angle is string theory, which thus far is elusive mathematically.
@@eliteteamkiller319 Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. The following CLEARLY explains the fourth dimension. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains the cosmological redshift. I have ultimately AND CLEARLY (ON BALANCE) explained what is the “black hole". Perfect.
E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). TOTAL PERFECTION. Magnificent.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 Literally NO IT ISN'T taken from F=ma. I will show you EXACTLY where E=mc².
First of all, the key thing you have to understand is that space and time behave a little bit differently in special relativity, and it is from that difference-using kinematic equations from classical physics that take into account this difference-that we ultimately get to E=mc². But I'm getting ahead of myself.
First you need to understand what a coordinate transformation is.
Consider this example: you are standing on the road, and a car rolls by. A kid throws a ball up to hit the top of the car and catches it as it falls back down (he _does not move his hand out or in or side to side to catch it,_ because to him the ball falls straight down). What path does the ball take? To you, the ball follows a parabola. Now, you're standing on the road, and you throw a ball, straight up and straight down. What path does the ball take _according to a comet that the Earth is flying by?_ It follows a parabola. This is called the _principle of relativity,_ and has been known since Galileo. What it means at its core is that speed is entirely relative: how fast something goes is dependent upon your frame of reference. _Acceleration_ is universal, but speed isn't. That's why in a smooth plane ride everything feels normal, but if you crash, the _sudden deceleration_ is what kills you.
With me so far?
But in order to compare measurements, we need a way of _transforming_ your measurement of the ball's trajectory to the measurement preformed by the comet. And to get these _transformation equations,_ we make assumptions about how space and time work, and use math to get them. Prior to special relativity, we believed the equation to go from YOUR measurement of the ball's path (call each coordinate along that path x') to the measurement of what the comet makes (call those coordinates along the path x) was this: x' = x - vt, where v is the relative speed between Earth and the comet, x' is the distance coordinate you measure, x is the distance coordinate the comet measures, and t is time. Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, and many others showed that is very close but not accurate (and it gets less accurate the faster you go). But before we can get to that, we have to go back to the principle of relativity: remember, speed is RELATIVE. As long as you are moving in a way that Newton's 1st law holds (i.e., as long as your reference frame is _inertial_, or in other words, not being accelerated, jerked, etc), the laws of physics work the same for you as someone traveling steadily very fast, which ultimately means that speed has NO EFFECT on how things move in each reference frame. That is, no matter how fast you are moving according to someone else, as long as you are steady and there is no wind or outside forces, if you throw a ball up, it will fall down and you can catch it.
Now take the principle of relativity described above, and add to it this quirk of reality: the speed of light doesn't depend on frame of reference (Not going to waste time explaining how we know this). _One_ speed appears to be an exception to the rule that speed is completely relative. Or, to say it in another way, the speed of light is _invariant._ And really, it's the speed of electromagnetic waves, gravity waves, and anything that has no mass. Anyway, what is the logical consequence of this? In order for there to be a speed that everyone agrees on, everyone cannot always agree upon these three things: length, time intervals, and simultaneity.
With me so far?
Now, because of this weird quirk of reality in which the speed of light is invariant, the aforementioned transformation equation is wrong. x' is NOT equal to x - vt. Instead, it's this: x' = y(x - vt), where y is 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]). There's nothing extra special about that. All it is is a formula which encodes that the speed of light is invariant, because the consequence of the speed of light being invariant is that _you can never reach the speed of light._ In other words, the speed of light by logical necessity is the maximum speed limit. _But there's an additional consequence!_ Instead of time being universal, that is, instead of t' = t, we end up with this: t = y(t' - [v/c²]x'). If you distribute the y, you have t = yt' - y[v/c²]x'. The yt term is called time dilation, and the y[v/c²]x' term is called the relativity of simultaneity. This is probably too much information, but suffice to say that space and time and simultaneity don't actually behave like we thought they did. But I'm here to show you E = mc², not divulge into all of special relativity.
Moving on.
Take that equation t = yt' - y[v/c²]x'. Now consider a situation where you are right next to the object you are measuring. That is, when x' = 0. What are you left with? You're left with t = yt'. This is, again, the time dilation formula. Dividing both sides by y gives t' = t/y, and is called "proper time." It's the time measured locally by the moving object (or by you; every frame of reference has it's own proper time. The point is, it is the LOCAL time). This is important for this derivation of E = mc².
Now, suppose we want to consider a single coordinate in spacetime. And for simplicity, let's let the single direction of x represent all three spatial dimensions (or rather, we'll simplify the scenario so that the y and z directions aren't important for this analysis). Well, the single coordinate would be (x, t), except for one problem: x is in units of length, and t is in units of time. In order to make the units match, we'll multiply time by a speed, because distance = rate * time. And we'll choose units so that the speed that is multiplied on the time is the speed of light. So our coordinate becomes (x, ct).
So, the coordinate is (x, ct). With me so far?
Next, we'll take this single coordinate and apply the rules of kinematics to turn it into energy. How do we go from a coordinate to energy? First, we need speed, so we divide by "time." Next, we need momentum, so we multiply by mass. Then we need force, so we take the time derivative of that momentum. And finally, we need energy, so we integrate over distance. _This is exactly what we'd do in Newtonian physics, with ONE notable difference!_ Instead of dividing by t, "universal time," we choose what is called "proper time." And proper time is t/y.
So the coordinate becomes (x/[t/y], ct/[t/y]), or, after simplifying, it becomes *(yv, yc).* Notice that the x is now a v, because x/t = v. It's a _speed_ now, not a distance or location. Because when you divide distance by time, you get speed.
With me so far?
We now have what is called "4-velocity." It is a type of "speed." The yv part is actual speed through space, the yc part is kind of "speed" through time, but not really. In fact, it doesn't really have much physical significance at this point with respect to moving through space (because it's actually related to energy and time, but that is a whole other topic). From here on out we will only focus on the "speed through space" part, the yv.
So, we need to turn yv into momentum. How to you turn a speed into a momentum? All you have to do is multiply by mass. So, momentum is now myv. Very simple. Mass, times y (which is 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]) ), times v. myv.
With me?
Now we need to turn that momentum, myv, into force. How do we turn a momentum into a force? You take the time derivative of it. This requires calculus, but I won't bore you with the math. The result is this: F = m*([v²/c²]*y³a) + m*ya. That looks intimidating if you write out y = 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]), but it's easier to see when actually written on paper. In a sense it is _analogous_ to F = ma. But you have these extra things multiplying on the acceleration a.
Last step, we want to take this "force" and turn it into energy. How? The work-energy theorem: the net work done on something equals the change in kinetic energy. By deriving an expression for work, we get an expression for kinetic energy. And that is found by integrating force over distance. So we integrate that huge mess over distance. Again, this is calculus, and it involves trig substitution (and integration technique), but I'll spare you the details and give you the formula:
KE = (y - 1)mc²
Or, KE = ymc² - mc².
This is an expression for KINETIC ENERGY, but only one term depends on speed, v: the term with the y, which, if you recall, is 1/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]). So what is this other term, this -mc²?
Well, kinetic energy is just total energy minus potential energy. *This is the key to this derivation!* TOTAL energy is then the first term, and POTENTIAL energy is the second term. So total energy is ymc², which is fully written out as mc²/(the square root of [1 - v²/c²]). Which means POTENTIAL energy is mc². But isn't, you might ask, gravitational potential energy mgh? Yep. But this potential energy term mc² will still be there. It is _always_ there, in addition to whatever potential energy is there by virtue of position. Which means mc² isn't REALLY "potential" energy. It is the MINIMUM energy something can have.
Anyway, this is one of the more convoluted ways to get E = mc². But what's important is HOW it was gotten: the normal kinematic equations were used, but the normal SPACE, TIME and SIMULTANEITY were NOT. It is the odd nature of spacetime itself that leads to this result, in the way derived here.
@@eliteteamkiller319 I agree
@@eliteteamkiller319 wrong dork
So it was vee se versa, not fais versa
That's what I thought too. I think I read it wrong my whole life
Ohhh süß
Francais
Mass and energy but both different, but the same manifestations for the average mind. He just found the GOD particle, what did Jesus say? Who was he? He stated him and the father are 1, lord Jesus. It’s the I AM. I’ve came up with how reality works through this concept to, and how a person can control it, willfully. E= human emotions, Mass= to mind or thoughts 💭, when married together you get a desired action, at the speed of light or what you can see. C = can also be referred to as consequences too, a byproduct of thoughts and emotions at work.
😂😂
His English pronunciation is not as good as his Maths skills.
I scrolled down after watching to see more suggestions and a scene from "Dumb & Dumber" was there.😄
MMMM MASS FIR SE BOLO ....
E=mc²
Yes i Know but i can’t Wright the littel 2
tengo un iq mayor al promedio
I proved this universe is inside another world.
I use magnetism to explain it better .
Magnetism is used to float worlds ..
Ancient India scriptures, Brahma and Shakthi. Brahma is fundamental of everything. You see Brahma in everything. Brahma can be transformed to Shakthi(Energy).
I can eat your cows and transform them into energy 🐄🍖
You worship my food, I'm your king.
Brahma is a doctrine for hindus. Einstein's theory is the highest scale f knowledge, it shows what humans are capable of. Keep brahma to yourself.
@@HK-pp9ig What you know about Einstein's theory. Einstein says: Matter and Energy....only two concepts. Brahma is the fundamental entity. Shakthi is the Energy. YOU STUPID GO AND READ 'TAO OF PHYSICS' BY FRITJOF KAPRA.
@@HK-pp9ig who is telling you to take it away?
For you Earth is Flat🤣🤣🤣
@@jethiya7990 India has a long way to catch with Europe... that's all.
I thought it would take a life time to study this universe... not .
Icthothere was more to life ... not .
He’s talking crap. What a dingus
Wow