Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 243 (452018)
01-29-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by pelican
01-29-2008 12:19 PM


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.
Or were you just asking for information? If so, there it is.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:19 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:07 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 243 (452019)
01-29-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by pelican
01-29-2008 12:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:01 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 18 of 243 (452025)
01-29-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
01-29-2008 11:57 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 11:57 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 12:50 PM pelican has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 243 (452030)
01-29-2008 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by pelican
01-29-2008 12:39 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.
You'll get used to it. Multiple people can reply to the same posts.
...........this was a tongue in cheek reply and you took it seriously.
My reply was not meant to be taken seriously.
If you must reply for others, will you please read back a bit and get the gist?
When you said "could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst?" I thought you were requesting information regarding an experiment that verifies E=mc2. I provided you with a description of such an experiment. If I have misread the gist of the following exchange:
H: I maintain {E = mc2} is a theory and as such has not been proved.
C: . A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these..
H: could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst?
then please accept my apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:39 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 20 of 243 (452032)
01-29-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 12:10 PM


Re: plain english please
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 12:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 12:54 PM pelican has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 243 (452034)
01-29-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by pelican
01-29-2008 12:52 PM


Re: plain english please
This response is from a misconception....
Okay, thanks.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:52 PM pelican has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 22 of 243 (452047)
01-29-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 12:27 PM


what is the rush
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 12:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:21 PM pelican has replied
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 1:50 PM pelican has replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2008 2:55 PM pelican has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 243 (452056)
01-29-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by pelican
01-29-2008 1:07 PM


Re: what is the rush
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
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.
It has been experimentally verified so what's the beef!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:07 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 24 of 243 (452058)
01-29-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
01-29-2008 12:27 PM


Re: plain english please
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 12:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 1:43 PM pelican has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 25 of 243 (452069)
01-29-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
01-29-2008 12:50 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 12:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:42 PM pelican has replied
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 2:08 PM pelican has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 243 (452074)
01-29-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by pelican
01-29-2008 1:36 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
'Brazillion' was the offending word.
The word comes from a joke....
Rumsfeld and Bush are talking in the Oval Office and Rumsfeld looks to Bush and informs him: "Three Brazilian soldiers died in Iraq today...". Bush burries hid head in his hands almost in tears. He looks up and asks: "How many is a brazillion!?"
Now-a-days, in the internet world, the word brazillion has become to mean just "a lot".
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.
What's wrong with the experiment that Modulus linked too?
How much effort have you actually put into looking up the experiments that verify that E=mc2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:36 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 27 of 243 (452075)
01-29-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 1:21 PM


Re: what is the rush
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:52 PM pelican has replied
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:02 PM pelican has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 243 (452077)
01-29-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by pelican
01-29-2008 1:22 PM


Re: plain english please
. 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.
That was in your OP, so not really an expansion, eh? But seriously yes, that is what the equation is and basically what it means.
Has this equasion been physically reproduced successfully?
Equations are not things that get physically reproduced, they are mathematical relationships.
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.
Already in this thread, there are misconceptions in thinking this has actually been reproduced. It has not.
One problem is that I have no idea what you mean by 'reproduced'. What do you mean by it? Have any other scientific laws been 'reproduced'? Which ones? How?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:22 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 29 of 243 (452082)
01-29-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 1:42 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 1:53 PM pelican has replied
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:55 PM pelican has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 243 (452084)
01-29-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by pelican
01-29-2008 1:07 PM


I believe there are many misconceptions on this forum concerning E=mc2.
Actually, the only misconception is yours. It's hard to tell what your misconception is, though, since you can't seem to express your idea very clearly. That is usually a sign that it's probably too nutty to really be understood, but maybe the problem is with communicating ideas you just don't really understand.
E = mc2 has a definite meaning in physics. What you think it means or what it should mean is irrelevant. Physicists know what they mean when they discuss this formula.
And it has been verified. You actually asked for an example of an experiment where it was verified -- Modulus provided one such experiment, and now you claim that he was off-topic.
I'm guessing that you are a nut.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:07 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 9:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024