|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Coragyps.
What's that guy's name on CreationTalk? Duane Ertle? Isn't this part of his schtick? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Almost like classic Ertle - but D.E. had acceleration as identical to velocity. That way, everything closer than 0.717 mile to the center of the earth was moving faster than light, so it didn't exist any more, and the Earth was hollow.
Or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Hrm. I thought that, theoretically, if (the big IF) mass did travel at that speed, then it would be light. I.e. it would become light. Yep that's the theory that hasn't been actually tested. Mass has not travelled at that speed and has not been proved to transform into energy. Many have the preconceived notion that it has. This is the "Misconception" that i was hoping to bring to light (excuse the pun). Thankyou
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Oh well, then, did you at least think the joke was funny? Absolutely, don't we love taking the piss out of pollies?
What conceptions are those? Do you think my conception is erroneous? The one actual concept that I am challenging is the belief that the equasion has been tested as it stands. That is : energy has been produced by propelling mass at the speed of light squared. I don't dispute the theory would prove to be correct as their is much empirical evidense to support it. However, there is a misconception on this forum that it has been proved. I believe there are many misconceptions concerning science and I have used this one E=MC2 as I am more familiar with it than any other. The discussion is not in proving or disproving the theory but ascertaining if it is a theory or not. The misconception is in the belief that it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Re: plain english please -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E=MC2 means a piece of matter travels at he speed of light squared and changes form to become energy. No, it most certainly does not. Well thanks for explaining my error with such clarity and understanding. I feel much better now, thankyou.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Oh I think I do percieve the speed of light squared. I just cannot percieve any mass travelling at that speed, can you? E=mc^2 has nothing to do with a mass travelling at the speed of light. Here, c is just a number, and c^2 forms the constant of proportionality between E and m. This number is also the speed of light, but that is (mostly) irrelevant to the equation. Science Dictionary: E = mc2 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. Hope this clarifies a little more. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Yep that's the theory that hasn't been actually tested. Mass has not travelled at that speed and has not been proved to transform into energy. Many have the preconceived notion that it has. This is the "Misconception" that i was hoping to bring to light (excuse the pun). Thankyou Let's say this together very slowly, since youve been told several times in this very thread and still have not grasped it: The equation "E=MC^2" has nothing whatsoever to do with anything moving at the speed of light of faster. Nothing at all. The equation "E=MC^2" does define the equivalence of mass to energy, meaning when mass is converted into energy (like in antimatter annihilation, for example) the energy released is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Again, this has nothing to do with accelerating anything to the speed of light or faster. If you believe that the equation "E=MC^2" has anything to do with accelerating a mass to the speed of light squared, you are mistaken. If you again state in this thread that "E=MC^2" somehow involves accelerating a mass to the speed of light, you are ignoring what everyone else writes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
What the equation means is that when energy is converted to matter with mass, then the amount of mass is equal to the amount of energy times the square of the speed of light. Or, when mass is converted to energy, the amount of energy is equal to the amount of mass divided by the square of the speed of light. How is the energy converted to mass in the physical reality of science? It is my contention that only the reverse of Einsteins theory has been proved i.e mass has been converted to energy but energy has not been converted to mass.
E = the energy equivalent to the mass (in joules)
m = the mass (in kilograms) c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas) (in meters per second). Two definitions of mass in special relativity may be validly used with this formula. If the mass in the formula is the rest mass m0, the energy in the formula is called the rest energy E0. If the mass is the relativistic mass, then the energy is the total energy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
As stated: experiments have confirmed that the equation accurately describes many parts of the universe. I have no idea what reproducing E=mc2 means, and based on my knowledge of the word, I do not think it has been reproduced. All the physically proven experiments with e=mc2 have been in using it in reverse i.e mass divided by the square root of c2 = minus energy (mass). As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse. This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum. Thanks. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
All the physically proven experiments with e=mc2 have been in using it in reverse i.e mass divided by the square root of c2 = energy. As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the speed of light squared has never been proved, only the reverse. This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum. Thanks. And now, since you've been completely disproven, you move the goalposts. Surprise, surprise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Shame Rahvin.
You should have quoted this:
Heinrik in message 24 writes: 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. Along with his most recent:
As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the speed of light squared has never been proved, only the reverse. This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum. It kind of ruins his wiggle room. ABE:This ones good also:
It is my contention that only the reverse of Einsteins theory has been proved But it appears that his contention is math is not always math? Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I like the ones like this:
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. Not even remotely close to his latest statement. I was saving it for when he denied moving the goalposts from here to Uranus, but you spoiled my fun
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Nor do they have to, since the equation has nothing to do with any mass travelling at the "speed of light squared". Maybe this proves the whole point of members having misconceptions concerning the meaning of E=MC2.
Definitions of E=MC2 on the Web: In physics, E = mc2 is the equation that expresses an equivalence between energy (E) and mass (m), in direct proportion to the square of the speed ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E=MC2 I've had many more preconceived ideas than I could swing a cat at. I know one when I see one. reagards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Heinrik, if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this question. Do you doubt our nuclear arsenal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
If E + m”c is true, then (E + m”c)before = (E + m”c)after and (E + m”c)1 - (E + m”c)2 = k (where k = 0 if the formula is correct) or (E1 - E2) + (m1”c - m2”c) = k or Energy + Mass”c = k Please keep it simple.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024