Misconceptions of E=MC^2

you are quite correct I did become confused. It's along time since I did algebra and I had forgotten to reverse the equasion. As I haven't a clue how to find maths. synbols I will write it in words. You clever people will understand without the symbols, I'm sure.Now that you have got me back on track I meant to say that:e=mc2 in reverse is the equivelent of 'the square root of speed/light divided by an equivelent amount of mass = minus energy (mass).
In other words if mass can produce energy then energy can produce mass. This was the original idea of Einsteins theory of everything.
However, this formula has never been tested. It was my contention that this half of the equasion has been misunderstood in this forum.Please refrain from personal comments if you can. I really don't wish to answer to some posts because of this. A little patience and a little consideration can go a long way. regards

I can admit to my mistakes. I have amended quite a few and made my apologies. What do you want from me? I see what you mean, hey cavediver?

Where did the energy come from when splitting the atom?An equasion has to balance in every respect. This is proved.However to obtain a small amount of mass from a huge amount of energy cannot be proved and cannot be tested. I contend that some believe e=mc2 has been verifed by testing and this is not true, only in reverse. It is asserted to be true because it must be.

Flattery is the lowest form of sarcasm and I wasn't talking to you. You mistake my honesty for my humility. You wouldn't recognize humility if it bit you up the arse. You don't even rcognise your own arrogance and humility is way underneath all that. regards

Really interesting. i was hoping to take this to another level which does include the human body. I had no idea this knowledge was available but maybe you are the best one to open a new thresd on this subject. It's a pity you had to ruin a perfectly good post with taking the stance of 'you are right and I am wrong'.

Thanks but these symbols are way over my head. Can these be expressed in words.

What does e/c2 represent?I really don't dispute that the equasion is correct. It seems that most posts are concerned with explaining the meaning of e=mc2 to me as though I didn't understand it. I do. I just made a few mistakes. mainly because I am human.Once more my contention is that many perceptions of E=MC2 are in fact, misconceptions. There are many contradicting versions from different points of view. This is science that is supposed to answer all evolutionists questions and because it is physical proof, creationists are supposed to accept it on face value without a hope of understanding.

Thanks. I have been waiting for this. This is great. This is the clearest, simplest understandable definition on this thread.Can you give an example of energy to mass?

Ok Thanks. This equasion e/c2=m, is the same value as e=mc2. yes? What does m equal? Genuine question. I don't know how to do it. The formula for 'm' will hopefully clear this up. I see that in some expressions of the equasion, it becomes a testable formula and other expressions of it are a balanced mathematical equasion that remains a theory. In my mind E=MC2 can be a theory that is supported by empirical evidence, a formula or a mathematical equasion.I contend that when it is in the form of a theory, it is not testable. When it is an equasion it balances in numerical form. When it is a formula it is testable.But I could be wrong and I'm sure someone will point it out to me. That is the name of the game, isn't it? I am a new kid on the block.

This is a fine example of a superior attitude over someone who openly admitted lack of knowledge (from post1) and is obviously trying very hard to understand concepts in an area not familiar with.I am aware of my own 'inferiororities'. Are you familiar with your superiorority? Did you not notice the title? Can you simplify anything?

Yes I did check them out. I see my mistake.
I should have said, "can you give me a SIMPLE example that the layman such as myself can comprehend?"I need a simplified version which I believe you are perfectly capable of doing but don't try. I have no evidence to prove this. It is purely my observation.

When I went to school a long time ago those mathematical equasions would mean thus-18=2x3218=64 ??18/32=210.5625=21 ?? This seems to be a contradiction.Do the letters in e=mc2 not represent a measurable number?This post has everything tied up in knots and you are supposed to be helping me understand. What goes on? Is it a formula, an equasion or a theory? Which one are you describing? Looking at the algebraic equasions you demonstarated, I would say definately not.

Modulous, I appreciate your effort of trying to connect to me on my level of understanding.I am jus an average Joe and I have tried very hard to get my head around all the conflicting information, taking me down paths I have never been before. For example, I had to look up 'empirical'. I hadn't a clue what it meant. I have researched as much as my little head can take in and now it is completely boggled. I am going on holiday for a few days. You guys have wore me out. I hope the thread doesn't die off while I'm away. I'll be fighting fit when I return. regards

Aren't physicists real people? Only joking! How do you communicate scientific information to the layman? Or do you want to keep it to yourself?

You aren't talking about me then?