what is another equation that can describe relativity as in relation to time travel v.s., the e=mc(squared)?
535317
I think what you're looking for is\n\nt' = t * sqrt (1 - (v/c)^2)  where c is speed of light, v is the velocity of the observer, t is time external to the observer and t' is the observer's experienced time.\n\nThe problem with this equation is that when v>c, t' goes negative.  This is thought to believe that one can go backwards in time if the speed of light is exceeded.  However, there can also be the interpretation that the speed of light is an asymptotic limit.  In this case, backward time travel is not possible as one could not exceed the speed of light.\n\nIn terms of traveling to the future to go to the past, I'm not sure what exactly you mean.  An early theory posited a cyclic universe so that by traveling far enough in time, you would indeed end up in the past but it would be the past of the universe after the next cycle.
342507
E=mc^2 is a version of Einstein's famous Relativity equation. Specifically, it means that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared. In essence, it states that there is an equivalence between mass and energy. This simple statement has many profound implications... such as no object with mass can ever go faster than the speed of light!\n\nThe Energy:\nEnergy is measured in joules (J). How much energy is one joule? Not very much really. If you pick up a large apple and raise it above your head you will have used around one joule of energy in the process. On the other hand we use up huge amounts of energy every time we switch on a light. A 100 watt light bulb uses 100 joules of energy every second, i.e. one watt is one joule per second.\n\nThe Mass :\nMass is a measure of a body�s resistance to acceleration. The greater the mass the greater the resistance to acceleration, as anyone who has ever tried to push a heavy object knows. For our purposes here, we can also think of mass as the amount of matter in an object. Mass is measured in kilograms (kg), 1 kg is about the same as 2.2 pounds. Note that we haven�t said what the mass is composed of. In fact it could be anything. It doesn�t matter if we use iron, plastic, wood, rock or gravy. The equation tells us that whatever the mass is it can be turned into energy (whether it is practical to actually do so is another matter and will be dealt with in later pages in this series).\n\nThe speed of light:\nThe speed of light is close to 186,300 miles per second (300,000 km per second). In order to make the equation "work" we need to convert these numbers into units that are more suited to our purposes. In physics, speeds are measured in metres per second. This is usually abbreviated to ms-1; that is "metres times seconds to the minus one". Don�t worry if you don�t understand this notation. We could equally write m/s but using ms-1 makes the mathematics easier in the long run. Likewise, we could either say that the speed of light is 300,000,000 metres per second, or, as is more usual, express the same figure in scientific notation: 3 � 10^8 ms-1.\n I think the mass is dont increase the enrgy is relative with light speed and the mass is constant\nE=constant*C^2\n\nFor a long time the concept of "mass" had been like the concept of energy before the 19th century. There were a lot of different material substances around, but it was not clear how they related to each other, if at all.\n\nAntoine-Laurent Lavoisier, as much as anyone else, first showed that all the seemingly diverse bits of tree and rock and iron on Earth�all the "mass" there is�really were parts of a single connected whole. Through decades of meticulous experiments, aided by his able wife Marie Anne, Lavoisier proved that the substances that fill our universe can be burned, squeezed, shredded, or hammered to bits, but they won't disappear. The different sorts floating around just combine or recombine. The total amount of mass, however, remains the same. This principle�the law of conservation of mass�was one of the great scientific achievements of the 1700s.
1173471
Time travel is the concept of moving backward or forward to different points in time, in a manner analogous to moving through space. Additionally, some interpretations of time travel suggest the possibility of travel between parallel realities or universes.\n\nSome theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or certain types of motion in space, may allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible. Concepts that aid such understanding include the closed timelike curve. The Keiser/Hart theory of propulsive length contraction sets forth a theoretical schema by which an instantaneously massless vessel may reach a distance x in a time that is less than the amount of time light would require to travel the same x.\n\nAlbert Einstein's special theory of relativity (and, by extension, the general theory) very explicitly permits a kind of time dilation that would ordinarily be called time travel. The theory holds that, relative to a stationary observer, time appears to pass more slowly for faster-moving bodies: for example, a moving clock will appear to run slow; as a clock approaches the speed of light its hands will appear to nearly stop moving. The effects of this sort of time dilation are discussed further in the popular "twin paradox".\n\nA second, similar type of time travel is permitted by general relativity, where a distant observer sees time passing more slowly for a clock at the bottom of a deep gravity well, and a clock lowered into a deep gravity well and pulled back up will indicate that less time has passed compared to a stationary clock that stayed with the distant observer.\n\nThese effects are to some degree similar to hibernation or hypothetical suspended animation (which slow down the rates of chemical processes in the subject), and only allow "time travel" toward the future: never backward. They do not violate causality. This is not typical of the "time travel" featured in science fiction (where causality is violated at will), and there is little doubt surrounding its existence. "Time travel" will hereafter refer to travel with some degree of freedom into the past or future of proper time.\n\nMany in the scientific community believe that time travel is highly unlikely. This belief is largely due to Occam's Razor. Any theory which would allow time travel would require that issues of causality be resolved. What happens if you try to go back in time and kill your grandfather? Also, in the absence of any experimental evidence that time travel exists, it is theoretically simpler to assume that it does not happen. Indeed, Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes a strong argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox, with time travelers instead of alien visitors. However, assuming that time travel cannot happen is also interesting to physicists because it opens up the question of why and what physical laws exist to prevent time travel from occurring.\n\nThe "presentist" view\nSome theorists have argued that the matter of the universe only exists in the present moment. Thus, if one were to travel back from the 'present' to an earlier time, none of the material universe would be found there, because it will have remained in the present: the traveller alone is the only part of the universe to have gone back to the earlier time. In terms of a 4-dimensional spacetime, the traveller (or, more generally the atomic particles that comprise the traveller) would have travelled 'back' to an area of spacetime corresponding to an earlier value of 't'; but none of the other particles that form the universe will have done so, so the traveller finds precisely nothing when arriving back at the earlier time. This viewpoint eliminates all of the supposed paradoxes about time travel.\n\nThe
697320
newton....and u better take care,..its not just any velocity ^2 but the velocity of light^2 which is a constant\nhey,...just sum extra info...if u like\nAccording to Einstein, matter and energy are just different forms of the same thing. In Einsteins theory a mass cannot be accelerated to a speed greater than that of light, hence if a mass is traveling at the speed of light and energy is added it must be converted to mass, hence any mass can be converted to energy equal to that mass x velocity squared with Vc=1. this formulae shows a relationship of the quantities of mass and energy, A conversion factor. \n\nThis is actually a restatement of F=MV^2 with a special relativity to c to describe the equivalence of mass and energy.
791590
E = m x c^2,\nso \n\nmass = Energy / c^2 (speed of light squared)
83538
E=m*c*c is one of the most famous formulae that exist. It is actually not the full formula, which is \n\nE^2= (m^2)( c^4) + (p^2 )(c^2)\n\nbut for an object at rest, momentum p=0, so we get the familiar equation. Here c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is the speed limit for our universe (nothing can go faster than the speed of light, according to the special theory of relativity). \n\nThe equation E=mc^2 describes the amount of energy that can be released when matter of mass m is converted to energy E, as in a nuclear power plant or nuclear weapon. \n\nIt arrived as a consequence of Einstein (and other physicists at that time) considering what would happen if you moved very fast, close to the speed of light. This lead to the special theory of relativity, which made all kinds of wild predictions:\n\n1. As you go faster, your mass increases\n2. As you go faster, you shrink, front to back\n3. As you go faster, time travels slower. \n\nThe details get pretty complicated, but I have attached a PBS web site where you can listen to some interviews with famous physicists about what they think about E=mc^2.
384756
Yup, relativity and qunatum mechanics work together nicely.  You'll need to account for the switch to using spacetime quantities instead of space and time quantities, and the fundemental equations get kind of hairy, but they still work out fine.
471151
another one of einstein's equations is as follows:\nrelative mass = original mass divided by the square-root of "1-(velocity squared/speed of light squared)"\n\nyou can better picture the equation by going here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy#Relativistic_mass\n\nexplained:\nas the object's velocity squared approached the same value of the speed of light squared, the phrase "v2-c2" would approach '1'. causing the entire bottom mathematical phrase to approach '0' because 1-1=0 :) \nas the bottom phrase approaches '0' the relative mass becomes almost infinite because anything divided by something so close to zero would experience a massive increase in value. example: 1/.01=100.  as .01 becomes smaller (approaches zero), the '100'(our hypothetical relative mass) goes -way- up (approaches infinity). \n\nremember that mathematics does not allow division by zero therefore anything having mass cannot attain the speed of light. because the energy required to accelerate near-infinite mass would itself be near infinite.
635609
E=MC2 describes the potential energy in all matter. Since C is the speed of light, and C squared is a HUGE number, there is lots of potential energy stored in all matter.\n\nThere isn't really a practical application unless you're building an atom bomb or a time machine.
103856
Newton' and Einstein's on relativity
249306
Ask Einstein, the famous E=mc2 formula directly relates to your question.
624995
Energy = mass x speed of light squared
612415
Time is currently one of the few fundamental quantities. These are quantities which can not be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present. Thus, similar to definition of other fundamental quantities (like space and mass), time is defined via measurement. Currently, the standard time interval (called conventional second, or simply second) is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133caesium (Cs) atom.\n\nThis definition of time coupled to the current definition of space in physics makes our space-time to be Minkowski space-time - and thus makes special relativity absolutely correct simply by definition.\n\nPrior to Albert Einstein's relativistic physics, time and space had been treated as distinct dimensions; Einstein linked time and space into spacetime. He said that time was basically what a clock reads; the clock can be any action or change, like the movement of the sun. Einstein showed that people traveling at different speeds will measure different times for events and different distances between objects, though these differences are minute unless one is traveling at a speed close to that of light. Many subatomic particles exist for only a fixed fraction of a second in a lab relatively at rest, but some that travel close to the speed of light can be measured to travel further and survive longer than expected (a muon is one example). According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle's frame of reference, it exists for the same amount of time as usual, and the distance it travels in that time is what would be expected for that velocity. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seems to shorten. Even in Newtonian terms time may be considered the fourth dimension of motion; but Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion.\n\nEinstein (The Meaning Of Relativity): "Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously."
385849
i was gonna suggest my physics book. it dedicates one chapter to relativity and Lorentz transformation equations are there.\nIt's University Physics by Young and Freedman.
933949
Theory of relativity.
154286
Hound, did you intend this:\nE=Ea+Eb = (m^2) * (c^4) + (p^2) * (c^2)\nThis makes E = Ea^2 + Eb^2, no?\n\nAlso, an alternate, simple-minded, non-relativistic answer to why does KE = .5MV^2:\nE=F*D (Energy, Force, Distance)\nF=M*A (M is Mass, A is Acceleration)\nE=M*A*D \nD=.5*A*T^2 (T is time)\nV=A*T\nE=M*A*.5*A*(V/A)^2=.5*M*V^2
809521
E=MC2, so universe = infintie mass, Energy= infinite times. \n\nSpeed of light squared is will power.