Re: What would the end velocity be if...?

: finite guy <adamlewis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: Most assuredly though, there are 2 different directions of 'time'.
: Lateral Time through the spatial plane and Axial Time from spatial
: plane to spatial plane.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by those terms.

: Even neglecting time momentarily, why is E=mc^2 a purely planar
: equation for spatial (cubic) reality...? 

Sorry, I don't understand your obsession with calling a squared term
"planar".
If it's a bad thing to have a squared term to define a quantity in 3d
space,
then newtonian mechanics is just as guilty.  Shrug.

: I am curious as to how this is commonly expressed? 

You mean, how is E=mc^2 commonly expressed?  Hrm.  Well, it's actually
a simplification of the relativisitic expression for total energy; it's
what the expression gets simplified to if you set v=0.

But I expect that's not what you wanted to know, and wanted to know how
planes normally come into it.  I must say, they most commonly don't.
It doesn't get expressed in that way.  Hm.  Possibly "integrating an area
under a curve" would come close to an answer to your question; but that's
area on a graph, not in the real world.  To consider a simpler case to
illustrate this, the corresponding notion for deriving d=(1/2)at^2 is
to plot v vs t on a graph, and then the distance is represented by the
area under that line.  The two-dimentional-ness of it is just because
v is a linear function of t.

Again, not a matter of the physics, but of a visual aid for the math.


Wayne Throop   throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://sheol.org/throopw