Welcome to Junkyard Physics - Learn & Teach Here!

[MrREC]

I am new to this forum, and I hope that my presence will be accepted. My degrees are in Eng/Pol-sci so I am not trained in classical or theoretical physics, just general science.

My point is that there are some of us that are unable to read formulas, or to prove points with high tech equipment. We can only rely upon what I call "Junkyard Physics".

I am here to learn as well as teach. I feel as that I might be able to contribute by translating some of the more interesting topics into a "common" example for those of us that are "dumb" in physics, but not so "dumb" in other areas.

I hope that the more learned members will tolerate us meddlers as we try to understand highly technical ideas out here in the "junkyard".

Thank you.

 

[Naty1]

I don't think "junkyard physics" will go over well here.

Before translating it's a good idea to have knowledge of both "languages".

You will find the physicsts are very capable of "translating" themselves. Absent popular and simplistic explanations such as those of Michio Kaku on tv for example, you'll come to find that physicsts take great care in expressing themselves with great precision. People like Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind, for example, have a depth of understanding the enables them to carefully qualify their insights.

 

[MrREC]

I don't think "junkyard physics" will go over well here.

Before translating it's a good idea to have knowledge of both "languages".

You will find the physicsts are very capable of "translating" themselves. Absent popular and simplistic explanations such as those of Michio Kaku on tv for example, you'll come to find that physicsts take great care in expressing themselves with great precision. People like Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind, for example, have a depth of understanding the enables them to carefully qualify their insights.

So....I gather then that the air here is too rarified for us mere gnats, and thus reserved only for mighty Eagles?

I have read Hawking and others and they do distill their complex thoughts into a format that the "average" reader can understand.

That is my point. I see several answers to questions that either say the same thing in different forms, or are so technical that they soar out of the reach of the though processes of us mere gnats.

I was just wondering if there is room for us.

 

[Doc Al]

We can only rely upon what I call "Junkyard Physics".

What do you mean by 'junkyard physics'? Common sense? That is often wrong.

I am here to learn as well as teach. I feel as that I might be able to contribute by translating some of the more interesting topics into a "common" example for those of us that are "dumb" in physics, but not so "dumb" in other areas.

All are welcome here, but attempting to 'teach' things that you don't quite understand yourself will be a problem, if that's what you mean.

 

[K^2]

The point is that you shouldn't be trying to explain physics to someone if you don't understand it yourself. It doesn't mean that you can't participate in the discussion otherwise. People here do try to simplify explanations to Joe Average level when asked.

 

[Gordianus]

I don't know what "Junkyard Physics" means, but if refers to simple and proper explanations I like it. I believe Richard Feynman made a point of finding simple explanations.
On the other hand, I strongly reject wrong statements, conceived to give a false sense of simplicity.

 

[MrREC]

The point is that you shouldn't be trying to explain physics to someone if you don't understand it yourself. It doesn't mean that you can't participate in the discussion otherwise. People here do try to simplify explanations to Joe Average level when asked.

I don't believe that I said that I don't understand some physics, but that I had not been trained in it enough to understand equations and some terminology. I have probably read as much, or more than many of you here on a wide variety of subjects (including physics). My contintion is that "junkyard physics" is to classroom and textbook physics as engineering is to the junkyard fabricator. One can draw it the other can build it, or in some cases both can do the same thing through different means.

I don't need a Piled Higher and Deeper to understand the basics.

 

[Integral]

We have several of what I would call "junkyard" physicists here, they do pretty well. The key is knowing your limitations. As long as you stick to topics you are truly knowledgeable in then there will be no issues.

 

[Gordianus]

I still don't get the gist of this thread. Are we discussing whether a higher degree is necessary to enjoy Physics?

 

[dlgoff]

...there are some of us that are unable to read formulas, ...

I still don't get the gist of this thread. Are we discussing whether a higher degree is necessary to enjoy Physics?

To enjoy?, no. To understand?, yes.

 

[A.T.]

I still don't get the gist of this thread. Are we discussing whether a higher degree is necessary to enjoy Physics?

I'm disappointed too. I hoped this would be about the super strong electromagnets they use on junkyards to lift cars.
:zzz:

 

[Doc Al]

Just another 'bait and switch'.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Here's a math formula: e=mc^2
It encodes the equivalence of energy and mass and gives the conversion factor between units of the two. But away with formulae, what is the junkyard explanation of this equivalence?

 

[MrREC]

By some of these replies I am wondering whether some of the posters are deliberately trying to be obtuse, are generally puzzled, or are attempting wit.

I'm trying to say that not all of use have advanced degrees in physics. For those that don't, but still have a rudimentary knowledge, it is helpful to have "intermediaries' to help explain things.

It seems that a lot of folks want to "show off' their advanced knowledge. Which is fine if your "preaching" to the upper levels of the forum.

My point is that some of us are interested in asking questions, and maybe even answering questions without having to go dig up Einstein for private tutoring.

Think of us "Junkyard physicists" as the people that ride the short bus.

 

[OmCheeto]

We have several of what I would call "junkyard" physicists here, they do pretty well. The key is knowing your limitations. As long as you stick to topics you are truly knowledgeable in then there will be no issues.

I'll take that as a compliment, thank you very much.

 

[MrREC]

Here's a math formula: e=mc^2
It encodes the equivalence of energy and mass and gives the conversion factor between units of the two. But away with formulae, what is the junkyard explanation of this equivalence?

The formulation gives you the stucture to calculate how to move an object (m)mass to a certain velocity (C) using a quantity of energy(E).

How much nitro methane do I need to move a dragster down a quarter mile strip (at 300 mph) without having to carry any extra weight in fuel.

Similar is it not?

edit:sp/structure

 

[Doc Al]

The formulation gives you the stucture to calculate how to move an object (m)mass to a certain velocity (C) using a quantity of energy(E).

Not even close. Well, so much for 'junkyard physics'.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The formulation gives you the stucture to calculate how to move an object (m)mass to a certain velocity (C) using a quantity of energy(E).

How much nitro methane do I need to move a dragster down a quarter mile strip (at 300 mph) without having to carry any extra weight in fuel.

Similar is it not?

edit:sp/structure

I say he gets banned within 4 hours. Any takers?

 

[Integral]

The formulation gives you the stucture to calculate how to move an object (m)mass to a certain velocity (C) using a quantity of energy(E).

How much nitro methane do I need to move a dragster down a quarter mile strip (at 300 mph) without having to carry any extra weight in fuel.

Similar is it not?

edit:sp/structure

LOL, good one.

So much for knowing limitations.

 

[MrREC]

Not even close. Well, so much for 'junkyard physics'.

An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/e-mc2#ixzz1WFn8RkvZ

Where am I not close?

I said basically the same thing other than using (C2) as the speed of light. Where was I wrong?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The definition that you quoted says that the equation is an equation. While it explains what the letters mean, it doesn't explain what the equation means. I asked what the equation means. You gave an explanation that is "not even wrong". That means that it isn't even coherent enough to argue against. You are a menace to anyone who doesn't understand and comes to you for an explanation.

 

[dlgoff]

LOL, good one.

So much for knowing limitations.

The definition that you quoted says that the equation is an equation. While it explains what the letters mean, it doesn't explain what the equation means. I asked what the equation means. You gave an explanation that is "not even wrong". That means that it isn't even coherent enough to argue against. You are a menace to anyone who doesn't understand and comes to you for an explanation.

Thank you, thank you. I didn't know what to say.

 

[OmCheeto]

The formulation gives you the stucture to calculate how to move an object (m)mass to a certain velocity (C) using a quantity of energy(E).

How much nitro methane do I need to move a dragster down a quarter mile strip (at 300 mph) without having to carry any extra weight in fuel.

Similar is it not?

edit:sp/structure

ps. You forgot the question mark in your second sentence. I would drop the English major if I were you, and stick with poli-sci. I have the feeling that you will be a natural, politician.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Will this work for a layman explanation?

E=mc^2 tells us (among other things) that one gram of mass can be (theoretically) converted to approximately twenty five million kilowatt-hours of energy (assuming 100% efficiency).

 

[dlgoff]

Will this work for a layman explanation?

E=mc^2 tells us (among other things) that one gram of mass can be (theoretically) converted to approximately twenty five million kilowatt-hours of energy (assuming 100% efficiency).

I don't believe it. Show me.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Will this work for a layman explanation?

E=mc^2 tells us (among other things) that one gram of mass can be (theoretically) converted to approximately twenty five million kilowatt-hours of energy (assuming 100% efficiency).

I don't believe it. Show me.

Only crackpots don't believe main stream physics. So I'm going to have to report your post.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hmmmmm. I have the feeling MrRec is a sock puppet of sorts: someone pretending they are more ignorant than they actually are. It's too easy to google up a "plain language" explanation of E=mc² for someone to be so off. Unless they're trying to be off.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Here's a math formula: e=mc^2
It encodes the equivalence of energy and mass and gives the conversion factor between units of the two.

Hmmmmm. I have the feeling MrRec is a sock puppet of sorts: someone pretending they are more ignorant than they actually are. It's too easy to google up a "plain language" explanation of E=mc² for someone to be so off. Unless they're trying to be off.

You may be right. If you look at my post #13 quoted above, I actually gave the 'junkyard' physics. I expected him to say so and I intended to ask him what his valued added could possibly be. Instead it took a turn for the bizarre.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You may be right. If you look at my post #13 quoted above, I actually gave the 'junkyard' physics. I expected him to say so and I intended to ask him what his valued added could possibly be. Instead it took a turn for the bizarre.

I picture some bored engineer in a cubicle, or maybe a physics teacher entertaining himself while waiting out the hurricane in an inland motel.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I think the op is being honest with us. Like he said, he is new to the forum and has not gotten the "feel" for it yet. My first posts were even worse.

 

[S_Happens]

I think the op is being honest with us. Like he said, he is new to the forum and has not gotten the "feel" for it yet.

These were my thoughts as well.

 

[MrREC]

Most of you seem to be trying to flame me.

I've been beaten up by worse than you lot.

If ignorance of a subject is an excuse to dismiss someone then by all means dismiss me as a crackpot or a gnat.

All I was hoping for was to find someplace to kill some time in an entertaing way.

I am disabled both mentally and physically, and have never had the chance to study physics to the degree that I would have liked.

If most of you would rather make fun of me than to help me learn then you are really no different than the punks that picked on y'all in school for being nerds.

Just my view from the back of the short bus.

Also NE Tn. is not exactly a hotbed for the study of physics. (My high school didn't even offer algebra). Anyway...most of the people that I am forced to interact with on a daily basis cannot even spell physics let alone understand any of it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I ... have never had the chance to study physics to the degree that I would have liked.

You'll get flamed a lot less if you learn some more physics before you take it upon yourself to explain it to others. In all things, not just physics, there is only one correct answer when you don't know: "I don't know." In your OP you said you came to PF to learn. You've come to the right place. I recommend that you start a thread in the Special and General Relativity forum and ask people for a layman's explanation of e=mc^2. I would put down the term 'junkyard' for the time being. When you've got your footing you can pick it up again.

 

[MrREC]

You'll get flamed a lot less if you learn some more physics before you take it upon yourself to explain it to others. In all things, not just physics, there is only one correct answer when you don't know: "I don't know." In your OP you said you came to PF to learn. You've come to the right place. I recommend that you start a thread in the Special and General Relativity forum and ask people for a layman's explanation of e=mc^2. I would put down the term 'junkyard' for the time being. When you've got your footing you can pick it up again.

Physics incorporates more than just general relativity.

My point being that I can read Hawking, and understand him just fine, even though I can't do the formulas to prove, or disprove his theorems.

I can however explain what he is saying to "laymen" in some cases.

In here if I can't "talk the talk or walk the walk" then I am dismissed as a crank.

That is the reason for the term "Junkyard physics".

There has always been a disconnect between the "ivory towers" and the "junkyard".

The "junkyard" being made up of pieces and fragments of physics that have been consigned to more contemporary reading, and of people that may have actually worked in a junkyard.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Physics incorporates more than just general relativity.

That formula comes from special relativity, not general. Here's a more fundamental one: F = ma. It encodes the fact that the net force (F) on an object is proportional to the net acceleration (a) that the object experiences. The mass (m) of the object is the constant of proportionality. Again, forget the formula, what is the layman's explanation of this phenomenon?

 

[MrREC]

That formula comes from special relativity, not general. Here's a more fundamental one: F = ma. It encodes the fact that the net force (F) on an object is proportional to the net acceleration (a) that the object experiences. The mass (m) of the object is the constant of proportionality. Again, forget the formula, what is the layman's explanation of this phenomenon?

If I hit a nail with a big enough hammer, and hard enough, then it will drive into a board ?

edit: with a loss of acceleration of the nail due to friction?

also: If the nail bends, or the board wood is too dense to insert the nail you physics types will form three commitees made up of many undergrads. One to create a formula to study the nail and find out why it bent. The second will do the same to find out why the board was so hard. The third will study the hammer and then all of you will get together and argue about how to fix it for a month.

In the junkyard we just go get a stronger nail and a bigger hammer. Works every time.

 

[HeLiXe]

Welcome MrREC It is great to want to learn physics and to be enthusiastic. When you begin to study physics with the equations, math and all, it is quite different from reading popular books and watching documentaries etc. I was attracted to physics when I encountered it in chemistry in high school, my high school did not offer it. The popular representation of physics is very romantic and eerie, but when you begin to study it, it can be very fundamental and exacting so this is why three scores of undergrads may study the nail and this is why many are asking specifically what you are meaning by appending the word "junkyard" to physics. When you begin to study more I think you will appreciate why others are saying you should not really teach until you have a better understanding...until then people may seem pompous. Don't get me wrong there are some people who are pompous, but they usually do not have extensive knowledge. Many of the people who responded here I have found are not the pompous type...but just be careful with your answers combined with wanting to teach because you may end up banned.

 

[Gordianus]

If I hit a nail with a big enough hammer, and hard enough, then it will drive into a board ?

edit: with a loss of acceleration of the nail due to friction?

also: If the nail bends, or the board wood is too dense to insert the nail you physics types will form three commitees made up of many undergrads. One to create a formula to study the nail and find out why it bent. The second will do the same to find out why the board was so hard. The third will study the hammer and then all of you will get together and argue about how to fix it for a month.

In the junkyard we just go get a stronger nail and a bigger hammer. Works every time.

Many years ago I visited Kennedy Space Center where I enjoyed a nice computer game: "Design your own rocket". I could choose the number of stages, engines, amount of fuel, etc...
Let's say my first ten "designs" (made by trial and error) were horrible. Whenever I tried a bigger something, things got worse. Finally I read a bit about rocket design and discovered not always a bigger "nail" solves a problem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If the nail bends, or the board wood is too dense to insert the nail you physics types will form three commitees made up of many undergrads. One to create a formula to study the nail and find out why it bent. The second will do the same to find out why the board was so hard. The third will study the hammer and then all of you will get together and argue about how to fix it for a month.

This isn't about how you can explain physics at all is it? It's about how you know more physics than the physicists do.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I find this thread amusing. Physics is much more pleasing and much, much, much more elegant if you learn the associated mathematics. If you like physics so much I don't see why picking up a textbook of the appropriate caliber and working your way up is an impossible task. Hell of a lot more productive than endorsing "junkyard physics" that's for sure.

 

[bp_psy]

If I hit a nail with a big enough hammer, and hard enough, then it will drive into a board ?

edit: with a loss of acceleration of the nail due to friction?

also: If the nail bends, or the board wood is too dense to insert the nail you physics types will form three commitees made up of many undergrads. One to create a formula to study the nail and find out why it bent. The second will do the same to find out why the board was so hard. The third will study the hammer and then all of you will get together and argue about how to fix it for a month.

In the junkyard we just go get a stronger nail and a bigger hammer. Works every time.

Well those dumb physics undergrads will figure exactly how big that hammer and how strong that nail should be in order to not break the board or hurt themselves.

 

[edward]

If I hit a nail with a big enough hammer, and hard enough, then it will drive into a board ?

edit: with a loss of acceleration of the nail due to friction?

also: If the nail bends, or the board wood is too dense to insert the nail you physics types will form three commitees made up of many undergrads. One to create a formula to study the nail and find out why it bent. The second will do the same to find out why the board was so hard. The third will study the hammer and then all of you will get together and argue about how to fix it for a month.

In the junkyard we just go get a stronger nail and a bigger hammer. Works every time.

Forming committes seems to be a part of human nature. The comittees may possibly determine that the nail must be hit squarely and more than once.

You may enjoy this game based on physics.

http://fantasticcontraption.com/

And here is the newest version.

http://fantasticcontraption2.net/

 

[MrREC]

Thanks for the support from some of you.

I may be too old and intellectually incapable of learning calculations and formulas. (I failed 0800 algebra 1 and then failed part 2). That was 20 years ago.

As far as "value added" goes don't discount a lifetime of wisdom, knowledge, adventure and yes teaching.

I was once told that physics is the study of the universe big and small. No one person can understand it all though and added knowledge can come from some supprising places.

I was once at the funeral of a dear friend of my mothers. The deceased's brother in law was there. This brother in law is a top notch physicist. I spent an hour discussing some topics and books that I had read on physics related material. His later comment to my elderly mother was that he was suprised that I had read material that even he hadn't had a chance to get too.

I had an interesting conversation with a forensic scientist/ rocket scientist the other day at my phyciatrists office. Same feedback. The guy was impressed.

My point is still this...We are not all alike in our abilities. My use of the nail and the commitee analogy was saracasm and I do apologize.

"Value added", "Junkyard physics" it all comes down to give and take and a bunch of folks looking at the universe and wondering why....

 

[HeLiXe]

Yes I sort of felt you were coming from this angle. It is just that here (on this site) there are a lot of students and people learning physics, so when you say "teach" it is taken very seriously because a lot of care is taken to give quality info on this site...which is why I was saying to be careful. I was the same way for most of my life...looking at the universe and wondering why. I still am that way and am happy that I am finally getting a chance to study it.

Have you ever tried to learn algebra again?

 

[MrREC]

Yes I sort of felt you were coming from this angle. It is just that here (on this site) there are a lot of students and people learning physics, so when you say "teach" it is taken very seriously because a lot of care is taken to give quality info on this site...which is why I was saying to be careful. I was the same way for most of my life...looking at the universe and wondering why. I still am that way and am happy that I am finally getting a chance to study it.

Have you ever tried to learn algebra again?

No I've been pretty sick for the last 12 years. I'm generally not allowed to do things that get my blood pressure worked up. (like antagonizing folks that might "smoke" my computer ).

If I use analogy to try and "teach" a point it might lead to a breakthrough in some. If I am wrong then there are plenty of "committee" members here to barbacue my butt.

However: Was I even close with the nail, hammer, and board answer to the formula question?

 

[Hurkyl]

However: Was I even close with the nail, hammer, and board answer to the formula question?

IMO, not really... your scenario is the sort of a thing I imagine presenting to a student and asking to analyze. There's actually a lot going on if you want to break it down into the individual parts, but the main feature of your example is simply gravitational potential energy -- a bigger hammer means more energy input from that source -- especially with a classic hammer stroke where the human just guides the hammer and let's gravity do the work.

In fact, it's quite difficult to talk about the force (in the sense of physics) with which the hammer strikes the nail, since it depends very, very much upon the duration of the impact of the hammer with the nail*. When a layperson would ask "what is the force (in the sense of English) with which the hammer strikes the nail?" they really mean something more like "momentum" or "energy" or "impulse" (those words meant in the sense of physics).

*: and possibly on material properties of hammerheads, nails, and boards, to control whether the force is essentially constant for the duration of the impact, or if it varies



(I'm 99% sure of the following physical claims)
If you were swinging the hammer horizontally (i.e. the hammer remains horizontally level for the entire stroke), you might be surprised to find that the size of the hammer doesn't actually have any direct effect on your ability to drive the nail. A bigger hammer can still help, but for the following reasons:

• The hammer accelerates more slowly, giving you a greater amount of time over which your muscles can supply energy
• The hammer moves more slowly for the same amount of energy, allowing you to swing it more safely

(that first point is actually a decent example of F=ma -- in particular the relationship of mass to acceleration when holding force constant)

 

[MrREC]

IMO, not really... your scenario is the sort of a thing I imagine presenting to a student and asking to analyze. There's actually a lot going on if you want to break it down into the individual parts, but the main feature of your example is simply gravitational potential energy -- a bigger hammer means more energy input from that source -- especially with a classic hammer stroke where the human just guides the hammer and let's gravity do the work.

In fact, it's quite difficult to talk about the force (in the sense of physics) with which the hammer strikes the nail, since it depends very, very much upon the duration of the impact of the hammer with the nail*. When a layperson would ask "what is the force (in the sense of English) with which the hammer strikes the nail?" they really mean something more like "momentum" or "energy" or "impulse" (those words meant in the sense of physics).

*: and possibly on material properties of hammerheads, nails, and boards, to control whether the force is essentially constant for the duration of the impact, or if it varies



(I'm 99% sure of the following physical claims)
If you were swinging the hammer horizontally (i.e. the hammer remains horizontally level for the entire stroke), you might be surprised to find that the size of the hammer doesn't actually have any direct effect on your ability to drive the nail. A bigger hammer can still help, but for the following reasons:

• The hammer accelerates more slowly, giving you a greater amount of time over which your muscles can supply energy
• The hammer moves more slowly for the same amount of energy, allowing you to swing it more safely

(that first point is actually a decent example of F=ma -- in particular the relationship of mass to acceleration when holding force constant)

The equation F=ma did not allow for a variable in the duration of the force so I assumed that it was an instant transfer of kinetic energy from the hammer to the nail. The energy was then consumed in different ways. Acceleration of the nail, heat dissipation as the nail encountered friction from the board, and sound waves from the impact at the nail head as well as point of entry into the board. There may also have been some loss of energy due to flexing of the nail as well.

By using a bigger hammer and stonger nail then I am changing two of the variables, but the formula remains the same. Bigger hammer equals more force (F). Stronger nail implies bigger or heavier density (M) thus acceleration (A) should increase ...right?

If I were to strike a nail (M) with a hammer(F) in a weighless vacuum (with no board) then acceleration (A) would remain constant in proportion to the force applied.

The same being true with a bigger hammer and heavier nail.

It seems as though my answer would have satisfied the equation in "laymens terms" even though I added no numbers to solve the equation. I only tried to explain how the formula worked without adding numbers to the equation. Of course the board was a variable [resistance (r?) ] that I added as a prop to the scenario (Sorry about that).

I might not have been right but I don't think I was wrong either.

Part of my main point ...nobody ever seems to agree on the right answer.

 

[Dadface]

It seems that MrRec is being tested here and perhaps unfairly.In this forum one is not thrown questions and asked to answer them but one has the opportunity to choose to respond to certain questions.That choice is governed by several factors such as what has already been discussed in the thread,the described or imagined level of expertise of the questioner and at what level to pitch the answer and,of course,the area of interest and expertise of the potential respondant.
I think most people here are selective and respond only to those questions which they find interesting and where they are reasonably confident that they have something helpful and constructive to contribute.

 

[MrREC]

It seems that MrRec is being tested here and perhaps unfairly.In this forum one is not thrown questions and asked to answer them but one has the opportunity to choose .....

Thank you for your response.

The main reason that I am being tested is that I had the "gall" to suggest that I could maybe "teach" someone something.

As I have stated I am NOT a physicist. I AM interested in physics though.

I have been a teacher in the past and I have found that there are other things needed to present a subject other than just the facts.

Humility, deference, humor, skeptisim, unorthodoxy, and other things can enliven a quest for knowledge.

Maybe the moderators should consider a "Junkyard physicists" forum for the oddballs, crackpots, and the intellectually challenged such as myself. It might keep us from wandering the sacred halls until we get a firmer grip on what we wish to ask or answer. I'm sure that guest mods would love to peek in every now and then to "whip" us into shape.

It seems like a good compromise. One that would allow us gnats a place, and with the added bonus of not having us clutter up the main forums, or potentialy get banned for being "out of line".

Any input on that suggestion folks.

edit: also...I am an English Lit major not linguistics, spelling, or grammar. I can read English quite well just not spell it, speak it, or write it, to the level of some peoples expectations. (Including mother)

 

[zoobyshoe]

An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/e-mc2#ixzz1WFn8RkvZ

Where am I not close?

I said basically the same thing other than using (C2) as the speed of light. Where was I wrong?

The next sentence of your link says:

Because the speed of light is a very large number and is multiplied by itself, this equation points out how a small amount of matter can release a huge amount of energy, as in a nuclear reaction.

So, the layman's explanation is that E=mc² tells us that a huge amount of energy is locked up in even a small amount of matter. A nuclear explosion is one example of what happens when even a small portion of that energy is suddenly released (atom bomb = something like 7% of the available energy).

You didn't basically say the same thing. You were way wrong, barking up a completely different species of tree:

The formulation gives you the stucture to calculate how to move an object (m)mass to a certain velocity (C) using a quantity of energy(E).

How much nitro methane do I need to move a dragster down a quarter mile strip (at 300 mph) without having to carry any extra weight in fuel.

Similar is it not?

E=mc² doesn't tell you how to accelerate your dragster with a given amount of energy. It tells you that, if you could release the energy locked up in the mass represented by your dragster (since we're talking about dragsters) you could level a city, or, released more slowly and in a controlled way, supply that cities energy needs for a year (by which I mean, a surprisingly long time). The formula tells you that the mass of a dragster represents a certain number of joules of energy, and that amount is surprisingly tremendous. Unfortunately, it's "locked up" as I keep saying. There's no way to release and utilize it except in the case of radioactive elements, and that only gets you a small percentage of what's actually there.

The energy we're talking about isn't the chemical energy represented by fuel. It's about atomic forces. There are forces at work in atoms such that they're trying to fly apart, and counter forces that are keeping them together. The combined energy all those forces might produce is huge.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with math-less layman's explanations as long as they're on target. I'm still baffled by the fact that you googled an answer that was basically right but then presented an answer that was wrong.