|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I have no misconceptions of E=MC2. I do not dispute it's authenticity. What I do dispute is others conceptions of what it actually means. I am neither scientist, evolutionist or creationist and for this reason, I have chosen to start it here in the coffee house.
The only expertise I have is year 12 maths. However, I do have experience in misconceptions and the meaning of words. Therefore for easier understanding I will put the mathematical theory into words.E=MC2 means "Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light. For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum.I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved. Is this true? Edited by Admin, : Modify title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence. em·pir·i·cal (m-pr-kl) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws So are you saying it is accepted although it is not 100% proven ORhas the actual E=Mc2 been tested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven". Thanks for yur input. For the sake of a none scientific brain, could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst? Were they tested in Brazil?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I'm sorry. I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I did specify that I am year 12 maths and you have also gone off topic. The topic is concerned only with conceptions and misconceptions by us about E=MC2.
I am certain Einstein knew his stuff and we cannot be expected to understand at his level. This topic is about those of us without a scientific background. The lay man to be precise. Please keep your posts in writing and not another language that most of us cannot understand. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I grant this semantic issue, but I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations.Presenting the issue of tentativity alongside use of the word "proof" is also difficult, often seeming to be a contradiction. Plus creationists think the existence of the Christian God is 100% certain, proven beyond any doubt by the literal truth of the Bible in terms of history and prophecy.
Please don't bring creationists into this discussion as it is off topic and explodes into slanging matches, as I could have whacked that back. I am not a creationist and I specified in post 1 the parameters. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge.
Can you prove any of this by logic or otherwise? If not please refrain from giving your opinion.
I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so. Would kindly allow me and maybe support me to try and prove my point by sheer lagic? And foresight is a brilliant thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
why are you answering my replies to Chiroptera and Chiroptera is answering yours? I ask because this is causing a disruption in the flow of investigation.
For example........... Were they tested in Brazil? ...........this was a tongue in cheek reply and you took it seriously.
That one was French, unfortunately. Though interestingly Eddington's solar eclipse test of relativity was done in Brazil. If you must reply for others, will you please read back a bit and get the gist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
If you are to reply to my responses to other members, please check through previous posts in order to understand what it is I am referring to.
In plain English: Yes, E = mc2 has been directly verified. This response is from a misconception, I'm afraid, as was modulous who answered for you. You aren't breaking rule no. 9, I hope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Then why don't you just get to the bloody point? E = mc2 has been verified, and Modulus has even cited an experiment that verified it to a high level of accuracy. It would help the discussion if you'd just spell out what your point is -- then we can write our posts so that they are more relevant, and we wouldn't have to waste our time beating around the bush. What is your rush? This is a discussion and it is a step by step process. I believe there are many misconceptions on this forum concerning E=mc2. Energy= mass multiplied by the speed of light mulitplied by the speed of light. Just imagine that for a moment. It cannot be done but you have a preconcieved notion that it has been done and you are not alone in this. It is a misconception on your part and many others. This is what I am attempting to prove, just the misconceptions. I am not trying to disprove Einsteins theory. I hope this clarifies the topic for you. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Re: plain english please -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I included plain English as well, I thought if you were comfortable with maths I'd throw in some background maths.In as plain as English as I can muster given the question: Newton described work and forces and their relationship with acceleration, velocity and mass etc etc etc. Einstein incorporated a mathematical idea developed by a fella called Lorentz into his theory and used those ideas to modify the descriptions of Newton. These modifications left us with the rather beautiful equation, E = MC2 This is important because it helps illuminate that E=mc2 is essentially the result of modifying the Newtonian laws in accordance with theory. It isn't purely derived from theory, as some people might believe, and I hope that that possible misconception is now cleared up. E=mc2 is not a theory, it is an equation that results from modifying the classical laws of physics to agree with theory. Thus, it is not off topic, it is at the heart of at least one possible misconception. Thankyou and I understand the gist of what you are saying. However, I'm sorry to say you are off my topic. Let me expand on my previous posts. E=MC2 in plain english means : Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light. Already in this thread, there are misconceptions in thinking this has actually been reproduced. It has not. The misconception really is as simple as that. Lets try to settle one point at a time. Has this equasion been physically reproduced successfully?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. 'Brazillion' was the offending word.
When you said "could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst?" I think you missed the before and after. A genuine error and thanks. In fact this shows that some believe there have been many experiments based on reproducing E=Mc2. The misconceptions are the whole point of this topic. I hope this clarifies things somewhat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
What do you mean it cannot be done? Energy is proportional to the square of the speed of light just like the intensity of a signal is propotional to the square of the amplitude. Just because you cannot concieve of the speed of light being squared or the amplitude of a signal being square doesn't mean that other properties cannot be proportional to them. Oh I think I do percieve the speed of light squared. I just cannot percieve any mass travelling at that speed, can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Now-a-days, in the internet world, the word brazillion has become to mean just "a lot". Thanks but I gathered that. It caused some confusion. that's all.
How much effort have you actually put into looking up the experiments that verify that E=mc2? I am not disputing the authenticity of E=MC2. I am disputing some conceptions on this forum of what it actually is. I hope this clarifies my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
If you mean, has the equation been experimentally confirmed, as in, does the equation correlate with reality as tested? Yes. I have given you an example of an experiment that does this directly. E=MC2 means a piece of matter travels at he speed of light squared and changes form to become energy. I do not think this equasion correlates with reality as tested at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Take your arms and point them outward at 90o angles to the direction you are facing. These represent the direction of momentum that you can have. At rest, you can go left, right, or straight ahead. As your velocity theoetically increases in the direction you are facing, we can represent this by slowly bringing your arms together in front of you to the direction you are facing. As you speed up, and as the angle of your arms gets less and less, your momentum in the left and right directions is less and less. At the point when both your arms are pointing in the direction you are facing, you have become light and your momentum can go nowhere but forward. You mass has tranformed into energy. The energy available from this trasformation is proportional to the amount of mass that was available (obviosly) and is also exponentially proportions to the veocity. This exponent is 2. Its proportional to the speed squared. Thankyou but I still don't see myself travelling at the speed of light squared. I do not have enough scientific knowledge to understand the jargon but enough to understand the "misconceptions" involving a scientific equasion. It seems most of you are running past the winning post (so to speak.) Many of you have described experiments that prove/form the empirical evidence wich I do not dispute. In fact, I could not without going back to uni The focul point of this discussion is that no experiment has been done exactly as the equasion suggests, word for word. Science has not the technology to send any mass anywhere at the speed of light squared. The 'misconception' is that "the average great minded, none scientist who does not have the expertise to understand the difference between 'empirical' and 'actual' evidence believes and argues that it has been actualized and again, I repeat, it has not.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024