Misconceptions of E=MC^2

Oh dear, have I upset you in some way?

It isn't meant to be personal conceptions but conceptions in general. The one conception that I am disputing is that : science has reproduced\actualized the equasion E=MC2. They have not propelled any mass at the speed of light squared.The "misconception" is that the general lay man believes, argues and tries to prove that it has.Hope this clarifes the mis-understandings.Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

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

Absolutely, don't we love taking the piss out of pollies? 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.

Well thanks for explaining my error with such clarity and understanding. I feel much better now, thankyou.

Hope this clarifies a little more.Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

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.

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.

Maybe this proves the whole point of members having misconceptions concerning the meaning of E=MC2. I've had many more preconceived ideas than I could swing a cat at. I know one when I see one. reagards

Please keep it simple.

I think you have a misconception of what this thread is all about. Maybe you forgot to research the topic effeciently enough. I've have misread, missed words, missed the point, had preconceived ideas and blinkered. BUT I learned from my mistakes. Regards

Let's cut the attittude, shall we?

What a siily qiestion. What do you expect me to say?

You are absoluelty right. I wish someone had pointed this out to me before. A genuine mistake on my part. I meant to say it the other way around. This is what I meant to say: energy has not been transformed into mass as E=mc2 indicates.
My apologies for looking like an idiot and thankyou mobigirl. Both of you explained it very well.Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

In reverse e=mc2 is : the square root of lightspeed, divided by an equivelent proportion of mass. They are both the same value/ equivelant of each other. As has been stressed by many posts the reverse of splitting the mass into energy has been proven/demonstrated/reproduced whatever you want to call it. This formula in reverse created the atom bomb.This theory e=mc2 has never even been tested.There are two sides to an equasion and most posts see only one and deny the other. Much like you do with each other really. Hmmm...........