Misconceptions of E=MC^2

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?

cavediver already did in Message 80 where he linked to this page.

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.

It's the same equation rearranged, yes. They are identical 'statements' 'worded' differently.18 = 2 x 3²means the same as18\3² = 2 If you are trying to solve for m, you need to measure e and c. m of course is mass. So if you measure the energy and the speed of light you can use this equation to solve for mass. I have already give the formula. The formula ism = e/c²Does that now clear this up? If not let me explain:At rest, something with mass will still have energy!This is interesting. The old equations would tell us that the energy of an object of given mass depended on it having some velocity.energy = 1/2m v²Now Einstein has described a universe where something can have a velocity of zero and still have energy. That is a big claim. So we measured this prediction. It turned out to be true. Voila. Travelling at any speed, even impossible ones is nothing to do with the equation. Once we start talking about travelling at a velocity things get a little different, because travelling at speed requires energy which produces a corresponding mass. There is only one expression of the equatione = mc²You can substitute various things that represent e or m and if there is work to be done, you can include that. That's it. No other ways of expressing it. It is a factual claim about how energy and mass are related. All we need to do is measure the way energy and mass are related. There is nothing else to it.I already covered the issue of it being a theory. It is not, it is the result of modifying Newton's laws in accordance to mathematical principles and theory. The result is a law, a description, of the relationship between energy and mass. This relationship can be measured. It turns out the equation correctly describes this relationship to a high degree of accuracy. The theory is relativity. Relativity has been tested.
The law is a prediction of the theory.
It is a prediction that has been confirmed as true, within a high degree of accuracy. It is more accurate than it's predecessors, Newton's laws.The question I am asking is very simple. Do you agree we can test whether the formula is actually an accurate description of the real world by measuring the real world values of e, m and c and seeing how they are related?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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.

One thing you could do is increase the velocity of something. This will increase the amount of energy that something has. If e=mc² is true, we should find that the mass of the something will also increase. This has been done, incidentally.However, it is practically impossible to run an experiment where energy is turned into a brick or something easy like that.The two reasons are as follows:1) The amount of energy required is enormous. When a government is given the choice of creating 1kg of stuff versus providing electricity for the nation for the next however many years...they tend to go for the electricity option.2) When you create matter in this fashion you also tend to create anti-matter which has a nasty habit of combining back with matter to form energy again. We can try and separate the anti-matter out though that is massively difficult to do. Even if we managed to end up with 1kg of matter, it would be in the form of basic particles. We'd have to then figure out how to make those form atoms of the appropriate variety. This is enormously difficult and impractical too. If we wanted something that was heavy enough to form a brick, we'd need to build something akin to a star to do it.So the simpler way, as I was saying, would be to increase the energy of something and measure the corresponding increase in mass.

This really is Duane Ertle all over again. He looked at, say, F=ma as a totally different relationship than its rearrangements, a=F/m or m=F/a - as if the three told you totally different things. Masochists can search him out at CreationTalk.com, though it's been a year or more since he was there.Henrik, I'm sorry, but with no more comprehension than you are showing here of first-year algebra, it's no wonder that you're struggling.

What browser are using using? Does it support all html tags? On my browser the equations are not 18 = 2 x 32 but 18 = 2 x 3(squared)the two is smaller and higher denoting the squared symbol. 2 x 9 = 18, see?I was mimicking the e=mc² formula to make it easy for you to translate the principle to that. No. They represent two things which will always be equal in value. They represent an equality:e has the same value as mc² If you don't understand basic algebra, how are you going to cope with understanding the consequences of relativistic physics? Here is a simple formula:F = maMeasure the mass, measure its acceleration and you can now know how much force was required to give it that acceleration. F = ma does not represent a measurable value. It represents how three measurable values are related to one another. They are related by virtue of F being the same number as the product of m and a.e is related to m and c by being the same as m x c x cIt really is that straightforward. Reading anything else into it will tie you in knots. In is an equation that is derived from modifying a whole bunch of equations to match up with how the universe should work according to a theory. The equation. The theory of relativity is much more difficult to explain. Let me reword the question:Do you agree we can test whether e=mc² is actually an accurate description of the real world by measuring the real world values of e, m and c and seeing how they are related?

quote:

---

the two is smaller and higher denoting the squared symbol. 2 x 9 = 18, see?

---

It helps if you use "^" for a superscript. 3^2 = 9.

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

I know that this is completely besides the point, but could you please stop misspelling the word equation? it's getting to my nervs

Could you please stop misspelling nerves? It's giving me a hedake.

Coudl all of you stop misspelling worsd? You're messing up my perfect speling thing in my brain...