Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 61 of 243 (452280)
01-29-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coragyps
01-29-2008 10:32 PM


Let's try this again!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2008 10:32 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2008 11:04 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 62 of 243 (452282)
01-29-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 10:37 PM


Re: Let's try this again!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 10:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 63 of 243 (452283)
01-29-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 2:26 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 2:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Rahvin, posted 01-29-2008 11:38 PM pelican has replied

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


Message 64 of 243 (452285)
01-29-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 1:55 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 65 of 243 (452286)
01-29-2008 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by cavediver
01-29-2008 2:05 PM


Re: plain english please
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:05 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 66 of 243 (452287)
01-29-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
01-29-2008 2:02 PM


Definiton of E=MC2
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:02 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 67 of 243 (452288)
01-29-2008 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by pelican
01-29-2008 11:06 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 11:06 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:22 AM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 68 of 243 (452293)
01-30-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 2:05 PM


Re: plain english please
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 2:05 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 69 of 243 (452295)
01-30-2008 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
01-29-2008 2:08 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2008 12:23 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 4:31 AM pelican has replied
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2008 8:08 AM pelican has replied
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 8:30 AM pelican has replied
 Message 122 by Kapyong, posted 01-31-2008 6:49 AM pelican has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 70 of 243 (452296)
01-30-2008 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by pelican
01-30-2008 12:21 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 12:21 AM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 12:29 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 71 of 243 (452300)
01-30-2008 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rahvin
01-30-2008 12:23 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2008 12:23 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2008 12:34 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 72 of 243 (452302)
01-30-2008 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Vacate
01-30-2008 12:29 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 12:29 AM Vacate has not replied

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


Message 73 of 243 (452320)
01-30-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 9:24 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 9:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 01-30-2008 2:10 AM pelican has replied
 Message 90 by Chiroptera, posted 01-30-2008 7:30 AM pelican has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 74 of 243 (452321)
01-30-2008 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by pelican
01-30-2008 2:07 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
Heinrik, if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this question. Do you doubt our nuclear arsenal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:07 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:27 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 75 of 243 (452322)
01-30-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
01-29-2008 2:55 PM


Re: keeping it simple
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2008 2:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2008 7:54 AM pelican has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024