[dleviwing]

Then again, the little “m” in the equation does not stand for “MATTER”. It stands for “rest MASS” and is based on inertia; thus both energy and mass are states of motion of a physical substance.

[theunify]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Matter and energy are not exactly equivalent otherwise Einstein's equation E=mc would become E=m, that is without the c factor.

I question whether you understand general relativity. Does not E=m when we regard C^2 to be the constant of the Universe?

This to me is what seperates hobbyist like yourself Antonio and Careerists, like myself, Hobbyist feel loyal to the system, Careerists feel loyal to the system of systems.

For a mathematical approach...

Speed = Distance/Time, C^2 is generally a speed or a speed squared.

E=MC^2 is rhetorically saying energy is, and forever will be maximised by the limit of C.

If we regard Space-time as one whole, then we can disregard Distance/Time, and simply call that space-time.

THerefore E=m (space-time), where we can equate space-time to M, and E to M.

Simple statements not quite perfect, but suitable for the purposes of field dynamics.

You see Antonio, speed is an illusion in current textbooks, an object can travel at the speed of sound? and object can travel so slow we cannot notice it? In reality since space is equal to time, Space=Time, and Speed is equal to Space divided by Time Space/Time=Distance/Time, we can essentially label speed = C = Constant.

E=M with an ever increasing value of concurance.

[theunify]

At the very least, C^2 is a stab at the consience of every scientist; prodding him to answer the question, is C^3, or C^4 more accurate, or does C^1 simply leave to much error to calculate.

YOu notice that 1/C^2 is a very small number, small enough in fact to be considered infinitesimal.

Therefore C^2 is a formal attempt, and not a practicle display, of this infinite and infinitesimal nature of Universal expansion.

He could have very well used C^3, C^4, C^5, the only error that occurs is when someone else uses a different "infinitesimal" scaler in their equation arriving at "preliminary" errors.

In physical reality...C=Infinity, 1/C=Infinitesimility, it's just a shame that's we think in terms of Miles per, or Kilometers per...instead of thinking in a different abstract manner.

[dleviwing]

Theunify;
Where the hell did you learn physics; JC Penny’s??? I have never heard any explanation so dumb.

[theunify]

Well, David, I've grown quite fond of you :0)..

I live in Massachusetts, but don't have access to the likes of Harvard or MIT; although I do live near and climb the haystack observatory of MIT-Groton.

As for my explanation all I have to back up my statement is Einstein, he uses (V^2/C^2).
"The expression approaches infinity as the velocity c approaches the velocity of light c." Relativity The Special and General Theory Albert Einstein Page 50. General Results of the Theory.

Sorry for the late post, I swear I typed this an hour ago.