Misconceptions of E=MC^2

Thanks Trixie. Us laymen have to try or they might blind us with science hey?

The intention of this thread was to uncover misconceptions of e=mc^2. In real life one cannot uncover misconceptions before the conceptions are known. I received lots of information and lots of differing concepts.How would I know which was true? Everyone was claiming to be right, including me, and no two posts gave the information in the same format. Many various points were picked up and I was being totally blinded by science. I was literally going round in circles at this point. I was rereading one of Modulous' previous posts, and one word hit me. Velocity! I understood that word. It is the speed of a moving object, isn't it? Ding, ding! Thankyou Modulous.C is not describing a moving object in e=mc^2, is it? Speed of light is just a friggin number validated by the empirical evidence. The speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s. Holy shit *********************BIG MISCONCEPTION yet a simple misunderstanding. I took the speed of light to be literal, ever since I was 15yrs old and that was along time ago.
I wondered why the hell no-one has spotted this? Hmm better check and lo and behold there it was......... ............I get it!The concept I held was so ingrained in me as a belief, I had no hope of knowing I had a misconception. It has been really hard work and taken a few kicks up the arse for me to see this. This is the same for everyone. Everyone holds on to their ingrained beliefs because they have no way of knowing if it is false.An old saying comes to mind "you can't see the woods for the trees."
Very apt. Thanks to all participants.

Thanks Modulous. I worked hard to find the splinter in my eye But along the way I learned a lot more than I expected. Getting past that misconception opened a new world. More and more things were making sense. The pennies were dropping.
I would like to throw a new(?) theory at you that is rattling in my head.My logical reasoning using everything I've got:e=mc^2 is an equasion representing two forms of the same substance. They cannot exist independently and is the function of nuclear power.e/c^2=m is the same equasion having the same characteristics, same function but in reverse.This last one I am not sure of c^2=m/e, but I will try it. This is the 3rd and final transposition of the equasion (I think).Therefore, if e=mc^2 (energy=mass x 299 792 458 m/s. x 299 792 458 m/s.) transforms into e/c^2=mass (energy/c^2=mass) which then transforms into C^2=m/e (C^2=mass /ebergy)The next transposition can only be back to e=mc^2.IN sequence : e-mc^2 = e/c^2=m = c^2=m/e = e=mc^2.Is Einsteins theory e=mc^2 actually cyclical?

Thankyou for your response but I think you may have misunderstood the thread. It was about MISCONCEPTIONS. I used e=mc2 as a means to uncover these elusive rascals. The job now is to find your own. Regards

Thanks. Are these all the 'permetations' of e=mc^2?

Thanks Trixie, yes I followed Modulous more than anyone else. I understand basic algebraic equasions. Where I have 'unease' (so to speak)is that E does not represent a number and neither does M.
I know they do mathematically proportionately, but in real terms they represent Energy and Mass.
When the equasion becomes a physical reaction (eg.nuclear)then logically, all permetations of e=mc^2 are capable of a physical reaction, although we do not have the technology to test them.
Einstein was looking for the theory of everything.
Through the learning experience of this thread I had an idea that all the permetations of e=mc^2 are cyclical in nature. Could they be joined together in a continuous circle reacting one upon the other, thus creating a cyclical equasion that is the theory of everything? The cycle of life. regards

It seems I am more interested in the input of others than you are. But in your case, I will make an exception. regards

Hi Modulous, I guess I have always thought outside the box and I have trouble containing myself in this one of equations. Thank god you're here. Is this absolutley fact? How do I tell the difference between equation and formula?

Do you know how condescending this post is? Do you know how much effort I put into this? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to step into this world of maths and try to understand using my own logic? Do you know how these kinds of responses put people off from even trying. Do you know how darn 'cocky' you sound?"Anyone else notice this pattern"

There seemed to be some conflicting information in this thread. Back to basics for a second.Are equations in physics simply to find the unknown quantity?
Does E=Mc^2 represent this category?
Do the values of E and M remain constant?
Is there no chemical reaction or physical reaction to this equation in any permutation?You know, Modulous, my confusion is becoming apparent and I thank you for your patience. In truth I have no need and no desire to learn all this. I did it to find 'misconceptions' and used this topic as the means.My endevours have been harshly judged by some in this thread. My confusion is confused with lack of intelligence by the 'more intelligent'.It is difficult to uncover misconceptions about a strongly held belief and it appears I am the only one who is prepared to stand naked and admit them.regards

i only have basic knowedge of chemistry too from many moons ago. I think my biggest probem is that I'm short of jargon which makes communication more difficult. But this is the name of the game, to find a common language of understanding. Here goes.......N2 + 3 H2 ’ 2 NH3Do these letters represent substance? I'm assuming they are nitrogen and hydrogen. In this case I see the formula as a process using measured quantities.E=MC^2 is showing one substance in different form?The format is irrelevent at this point in my thinking. Bear with me.Chemical formulae is the 'mixing of chemicals to produce a reaction'. These are easily tested and will produce the exact results every time?Confusion : doesn't E=MC^2 have one or two permutations that produce the same reaction or describes the same reaction every time?

My mistake. Did not mean chemical at all. I meant only a physical reaction (Ah,I think this word is misleading) Instead of reaction can I say 'a chain of events' e.g "when the equation is observed in 'real' life, there is a process whereby the energy is released from mass? This is what I thought it was. E is one unit, M is one unit and they remain constant in relationship with each other. I suspect this motive runs rife. Does not everyone make declarations in confidence of that which they believe to be true? Your judgement of me making declarations that aren't true can be said of many posters here. I certainly don't intend it. Can you show me one that gives this 'impression'? Absolutely. I am putting myself through this for no other reason. I don't have the same need to be right. It is easier for me to see my mistakes as I haven't anything to lose. Nice one! The great point you are making here is that no-one else spotted your error. It took your own observatiions and the willingness to be wrong and the willingness to learn. A 'man' after my own heart. regards

Good yes! I really feel we are getting somewhere. What is the relationship? Can any of the permutations of e=mc^2 be 'manipulated' in reality to reproduce a predicted outcome? ?

Thankyou, you are quite correct as I didn't understand it as 'jargon' having another meaning. Which post are you referring to where I have a mistaken idea?. I will check it out.However, I did research it and this is how I know it is jargon. By saying 'just' a theory, it wasn't meant to demote it. You misunderstood my meaning.
I meant a theory and nothing else i.e not a formula and not an equation to discover an unknown quantity. As in 'is the only perception of e=mc^2, that of a theory in the world of physics?
Hope this clarifes my meaning.Where on earth in my posts did I imply any of this? Now this angers me. Do you want to know why? It is all speculation derived from your erronious belief surrounding lay-people. Not very scientific at all. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

Ok, so can this be 'observed' in reality?