Now, in any consideration of a single character's unassisted vs. Celerity-assisted damage, 'M' remains constant, since the mass of their body doesn't change. For this reason I have rewritten the formula as follows, wherein 'Mc' equals '1'. ½Mc x V²=E

So, in essence, the formula becomes:
V²=E
or
ms²=N

with 'V²' represented by meters per second squared (ms²) and 'E' represented by Newtons (N).
Now assuminhg that an everage person's unassisted punch/strike travels at about 4 feet per second - the same as their walking speed - which is 1.2 m/s, and assuming that level 1 Celerity makes you twice as fast, and level two makes you three times as fast, and so on. We can easily generate the following table:

But does this mean that Celerity 9 should give a bonus 149 times as great as Celerity 0? No.
Why? Because of the relatively non-specific system of damage used by White Wolf. So, to solve this problem, I had to interpret White Wolf's damage system somewhat.
The following table shows my own interpretation of overal bodily damage based on the White Wolf Health Levels.

Using this system we can compare the levels of energy quite easily, and we can also find a comparison between Health Levels much more readily as can be seen when we refer back to the energy table and insert a column showing the difference between each level of energy.
If that difference is assumed to be the comparison between overall amount of damage done, and is compared to the Health Level chart we just looked at, then the damage bonuses are easy to find.
(In each case I have rounded the difference up or down to the nearest percentage applicable.)

There, clear as mud? I thought so. Don't say I didn't warn you. :)

*Several people wrote to Sanguinus noting a flaw in the original formula that is used in this explanation. When this article was first written - I left out the ½ before M in 'E=½MV²'. Each person that wrote in commented that the entire explanation was wrong given that fact. Unfortunately, that is not true. As I explained above, the mass factor remains constant throughout the formula, and for that reason was given a value of '1'. Whether the formula is written '½M' or simply 'M' doesn't matter, since '½M' is resolved to '1' for the purpose of the explanation. Thank you to everyone that noted the omission, but as you can see, it was a typing error, and not a flaw in the explanation.