<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html</link>
	<description>The best free cultural &#38; educational media on the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:01:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: socratus</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html#comment-24758</link>
		<dc:creator>socratus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:31:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oculture.com/?p=1142#comment-24758</guid>
		<description>Where does strange E= Mc^2 come from?
1.-
In 1905 Einstein asked:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?” 
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2 ” 
So, Einstein said that E= Mc^2 comes from inertia
2 -
In 1928 Dirac said that E= Mc^2 comes from vacuum 
and can be as positive as negative too
3 -
Sometimes E= Mc^2 can have ‘rest’ parameter and 
sometimes can be ‘active’ and  can destroy cities like
 Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Why E= Mc^2 is so stange?
Nobody gives answer
===.
Best wishes. 
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus
==============.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where does strange E= Mc^2 come from?<br />
1.-<br />
In 1905 Einstein asked:<br />
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”<br />
As he realized the answer was:<br />
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2 ”<br />
So, Einstein said that E= Mc^2 comes from inertia<br />
2 -<br />
In 1928 Dirac said that E= Mc^2 comes from vacuum<br />
and can be as positive as negative too<br />
3 -<br />
Sometimes E= Mc^2 can have ‘rest’ parameter and<br />
sometimes can be ‘active’ and  can destroy cities like<br />
 Hiroshima and Nagasaki<br />
Why E= Mc^2 is so stange?<br />
Nobody gives answer<br />
===.<br />
Best wishes.<br />
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus<br />
==============.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: socratus</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html#comment-24757</link>
		<dc:creator>socratus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oculture.com/?p=1142#comment-24757</guid>
		<description>Going back to the Einstein’s question.

In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper: 
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
Some months later he realized the answer :
‘ Yes, inertia  depends on its energy E= Mc^2.
The Electrodynamics Bodies in inertial movement have
 energy E= Mc^2 - ( hidden energy E= Mc^2)’ 
#
The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?” 
Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.
When new question arise:
How is possible to understand the connection 
between E=Mc^2 and the ‘ inertia of a body’ ? 
============== . .
P.S.
Someone wrote to me:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
! !
==========.
Best wishes. 
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Going back to the Einstein’s question.</p>
<p>In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:<br />
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).<br />
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:<br />
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”<br />
Some months later he realized the answer :<br />
‘ Yes, inertia  depends on its energy E= Mc^2.<br />
The Electrodynamics Bodies in inertial movement have<br />
 energy E= Mc^2 &#8211; ( hidden energy E= Mc^2)’<br />
#<br />
The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:<br />
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta<br />
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”<br />
Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.<br />
When new question arise:<br />
How is possible to understand the connection<br />
between E=Mc^2 and the ‘ inertia of a body’ ?<br />
============== . .<br />
P.S.<br />
Someone wrote to me:<br />
“An old professor of mine used to say<br />
that anyone who can answer that question<br />
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “<br />
! !<br />
==========.<br />
Best wishes.<br />
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus<br />
=========================. .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Jobs Narrates the First &#8220;Think Different&#8221; Ad (Never Aired) &#124; Open Culture</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html#comment-24480</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Jobs Narrates the First &#8220;Think Different&#8221; Ad (Never Aired) &#124; Open Culture</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:11:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oculture.com/?p=1142#comment-24480</guid>
		<description>[...] from the late 1990s, and particularly the legendary TV commercial that featured 17 iconic figures: Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Richard Branson, John Lennon, Buckminster Fuller, Thomas [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] from the late 1990s, and particularly the legendary TV commercial that featured 17 iconic figures: Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Richard Branson, John Lennon, Buckminster Fuller, Thomas [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 125 εξαιρετικά video σχετικά με τις επιστήμες &#124; φυσικές επιστήμες κ.α.</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html#comment-22622</link>
		<dc:creator>125 εξαιρετικά video σχετικά με τις επιστήμες &#124; φυσικές επιστήμες κ.α.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oculture.com/?p=1142#comment-22622</guid>
		<description>[...] Einstein Explains His Famous Formula – Audio – Original [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Einstein Explains His Famous Formula – Audio – Original [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: socratus</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html#comment-7953</link>
		<dc:creator>socratus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:36:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oculture.com/?p=1142#comment-7953</guid>
		<description>Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;According to SRT  rest mass and rest energy have equivalent&lt;br&gt;meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.  &lt;br&gt;Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘&lt;br&gt; and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy  E= Mc^2 ’ ? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . .  .’, then we&lt;br&gt;can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe &lt;br&gt;to have a cup of coffee . .  . . etc.&lt;br&gt;That a strange terminology the physicists use.&lt;br&gt; ========  .&lt;br&gt;My opinion.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and&lt;br&gt;  there is ‘ kinetic energy’.&lt;br&gt;And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of &lt;br&gt;Energy/ Mass&quot; connects  them together.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.&lt;br&gt;I think that there is problem here.&lt;br&gt;Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and &lt;br&gt;there is active / kinetic energy E=hf. But how „The Law of &lt;br&gt;Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass&quot;&lt;br&gt;can unite them together nobody explains.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In other words:&lt;br&gt;Dont  know how to explain transforms the potenial &lt;br&gt;mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf&lt;br&gt;the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words. &lt;br&gt;================== . .&lt;br&gt;Socratus.&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&amp;tab1=Display&amp;id=1372&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;===================== . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?</p>
<p>According to SRT  rest mass and rest energy have equivalent<br />meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.  <br />Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘<br /> and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy  E= Mc^2 ’ ? </p>
<p>When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . .  .’, then we<br />can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe <br />to have a cup of coffee . .  . . etc.<br />That a strange terminology the physicists use.<br /> ========  .<br />My opinion.</p>
<p>In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and<br />  there is ‘ kinetic energy’.<br />And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of <br />Energy/ Mass&#8221; connects  them together.</p>
<p>In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.<br />I think that there is problem here.<br />Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and <br />there is active / kinetic energy E=hf. But how „The Law of <br />Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass&#8221;<br />can unite them together nobody explains.</p>
<p>In other words:<br />Dont  know how to explain transforms the potenial <br />mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf<br />the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words. <br />================== . .<br />Socratus.<br /><a href="http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&#038;tab1=Display&#038;id=1372" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci&#8230;</a><br />===================== . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: socratus</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/07/emc_einstein_explains_his_famous_formula.html#comment-7952</link>
		<dc:creator>socratus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:32:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oculture.com/?p=1142#comment-7952</guid>
		<description>Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;According to SRT  rest mass and rest energy have equivalent&lt;br&gt;meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.  &lt;br&gt;Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘&lt;br&gt; and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy  E= Mc^2 ’ ? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . .  .’, then we&lt;br&gt;can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe &lt;br&gt;to have a cup of coffee . .  . . etc.&lt;br&gt;That a strange terminology the physicists use.&lt;br&gt; ========  .&lt;br&gt;My opinion.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and&lt;br&gt;  there is ‘ kinetic energy’.&lt;br&gt;And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of &lt;br&gt;Energy/ Mass&quot; connects  them together.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.&lt;br&gt;I think that there is problem here.&lt;br&gt;Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and &lt;br&gt;there is active / kinetic energy E=hf. But how „The Law of &lt;br&gt;Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass&quot;&lt;br&gt;can unite them together nobody explains.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In other words:&lt;br&gt;Dont  know how to explain transforms the potenial &lt;br&gt;mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf&lt;br&gt;the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words. &lt;br&gt;================== . .&lt;br&gt;Socratus.&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&amp;tab1=Display&amp;id=1372&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;===================== . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?</p>
<p>According to SRT  rest mass and rest energy have equivalent<br />meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.  <br />Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘<br /> and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy  E= Mc^2 ’ ? </p>
<p>When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . .  .’, then we<br />can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe <br />to have a cup of coffee . .  . . etc.<br />That a strange terminology the physicists use.<br /> ========  .<br />My opinion.</p>
<p>In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and<br />  there is ‘ kinetic energy’.<br />And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of <br />Energy/ Mass&#8221; connects  them together.</p>
<p>In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.<br />I think that there is problem here.<br />Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and <br />there is active / kinetic energy E=hf. But how „The Law of <br />Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass&#8221;<br />can unite them together nobody explains.</p>
<p>In other words:<br />Dont  know how to explain transforms the potenial <br />mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf<br />the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words. <br />================== . .<br />Socratus.<br /><a href="http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&#038;tab1=Display&#038;id=1372" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci&#8230;</a><br />===================== . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

