It's a result of a calculation. For a simple calculation seebozo the clown said:Whas wondering what has the speed of light squared got to do with the production of energy what is this convienient relationship or is it in fact a number close to c2 and in fact has nothing to do with c2 but its used to make the equation look good ?
Certainly c doesn't represent the speed of the mass itself. It represent the speed of circulation of energy inside mass.quartodeciman said:It is not an easy deduction from relativity; it is a somewhat tough deduction. The simple result E=mc2 just tumbles out from the math at the end. It often happens that simple-looking results require a heavier investment in math. There is a special case or two where the result comes out more easily.
As for the dimension of energy:
energy is equivalent to work; work has dimension force*distance; force has dimension mass*distance/time2; so work has dimension mass*distance2/time2;so work has dimension mass*(distance2/time2);(distance2/time2) is velocity2;so work is mass*velocity2;so energy is mass*velocity2.
Therefore E = mc2 is at least viable, consisting of a mass and a velocity2. But this is NO proof that the equation is actually true. Notice from the previous paragraph that the velocity2 factor came NOT from the force or the distance separately, but from the combination of the two, somehow intricately joined. So c in this case doesn't represent the speed of the mass.