network profile
| bio | website | geocities.com/xijhing |
|---|---|---|
| location | New Haven, CT | |
| age | 24 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 7 months |
| seen | Apr 25 '12 at 19:22 | |
| stats | profile views | 3 |
Pennies for my thoughts add up, I hope you bring change
|
Nov 15 |
awarded | Student |
|
Nov 15 |
comment |
The time component is $\gamma m c$, so shouldn't $E=mc$? oh okay. in the question i had it differentiated as time and spatial components. now I see they are all subsumed by the label momentum component. more intuitive just means using many more words to support and explain your equations |
|
Nov 15 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Nov 15 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Nov 15 |
accepted | The time component is $\gamma m c$, so shouldn't $E=mc$? |
|
Nov 15 |
comment |
The time component is $\gamma m c$, so shouldn't $E=mc$? I'm going to wait for a more intuitive explanation. Also $\gamma m v$ is momentum. $\gamma m c$ is time component. |
|
Nov 15 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Nov 15 |
comment |
The time component is $\gamma m c$, so shouldn't $E=mc$? so what makes $mc^2$ energy? just multiplying by a constant... |
|
Nov 15 |
revised |
The time component is $\gamma m c$, so shouldn't $E=mc$? added 17 characters in body |
|
Nov 15 |
asked | The time component is $\gamma m c$, so shouldn't $E=mc$? |
|
Oct 1 |
awarded | Autobiographer |
