On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:47:46 -0700, K7ITM wrote:

On Sep 5, 5:02 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
...

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

73, ac6xg

A link is worth a thousand words (perhaps 10k-100k of Richard's...):
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00332.htm
(in particular the first paragraph of the second response).

Hi Tom,

Your link is over valued (there is no second response), but it
maintains the standard of excellence here in the tradition of 10k-100k
more words than quantifiables - and someone else doing the work.

Care to walk us through your proffered math?

Well, I doubt it. Others may be interested in the curious form of
argument offered to a 15 year old however.

"For a particle with no mass, the relation reduces to E=pc."

The long and short of it is that there is no discussion of mass for a
photon (it is simply defined not to exist) and instead there is a
shuffle of math that youngster must imagine this bozo is pulling the
wool over his eyes through substituting p for Planck's constant h, and
c for Planck's energy formula variable v. This wool pulling is
another favorite past time here too.

Of course, there may be other meanings behind
"E=pc."
but in the model of thorough work, the description of terms is sadly
poor.

The typical legacy of offering links. It has all the appeal of a
Physicist's joke:
"How many milliseconds does it take to do a 5 minute car wash?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC