Or in XXX++, it activates the money shot function.

Hehehehe....you talked physics, now I HAVE to join in. The formula you provided Daemon is the complete matter/energy theory. E=mc^2 is the rule to convert matter into energy, and the formula you used is the same to go both ways. Matter to energy and vice versa. Well, not how to, but the energy produced/required. If you start plugging in solid numbers into that equation, you'll find that it takes a shitload of energy to produce 1 freakin proton, and that 1 proton produces enough energy to power a whole city for a month or something obscene like that.

Yar.

Yes and no. The first formula, "E = mc^2" was a general formula. It was accepted for a time, but the truth is that "E" does not equal "mc^2". That's what the second formula is - the correction.

It's not so much the forumla for accuracy, rather proof that matter/energy can go back and forth.

It's the stone wheel, while yours is the steel-belted radial tyre with the blinging hubcaps that we can actually use...but really...the basic one works too, just it doesn't expand on the applications.

Accuracy is what matters in physics. Have you seen what happened when NASA used bad conversions to metric? ^_^ Still, the fact that the formula states "=" - as in, "is equal to" - yet is not equal makes it false even if it is close. Even the revised formula is technically false because it's not 100% accurate, but it is more accurate than what they used to have.

Mathematical masturbation. It's like calculating the mass of a planet down to the exact gram. When dealing with the scales e=mc^2 deals with, accuracy isn't that important except dealing with the smallest of scales. I.E. a single atom.

No disrespect intended, mind you.

Exactly. The E=mc^2 is the proof that matter/energy conversion exists. The complete theory shows you how.

"Earth is Heavy" VS "This is how much Earth Weighs"

For something so useless, it's certianly easy for everyone to understand. I know 10 year olds that, when told how E=mc2 works, they understand it completely. Not how to build a nuke or something, or generate subatomic particles, but they understand that mass and energy are related.

It's not the difference between "Earth is heavy" and "Earth weighs 5.976x10^24 kg", it's the difference between "Earth weighs 1x10^25 kg" and "Earth weighs 0.5976x10^25 kg". The first is rounded off to a slightly higher decimal place. Sure, it can still be considered accurate within it's limit, but the earth doesn't weigh that much, therefor it is wrong. The second case is more right, like the second energy conversion formula, but it is still not absolutely right. You can say "the formula proves it can be done" but that doesn't make the formula right.

Seriously though, but that's why quantum physics came about - E=MC2 couldn't account for specifics at fine resolutions. From all that, we got string theory.

btw, just in case you guys are interested... I'm writing LSATs for fun this summer. If I get a high enough score I might get full scholarship offers. So yeah. Teacher-lawyer-Toze. ^___^