Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 196 of 243 (453723)
02-03-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by pelican
02-03-2008 5:48 PM


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.
Nope.
He speaks from experience. And empirical evidence.
I can't even begin to count the number of times the ToE has been denigrated as "just a theory" on this board alone, to say nothing of all those BS creo sites.
You really need to get over yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:48 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 9:02 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 197 of 243 (453729)
02-03-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by molbiogirl
02-03-2008 8:45 PM


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.
Nope.
He speaks from experience. And empirical evidence.
You are obviously aware of his experiences and the empirical evidence which supports your denial that "it is speculation".
Are you willing to stand your ground and put your money where your mouth is and scientifically give the evidence that you claim to have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by molbiogirl, posted 02-03-2008 8:45 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 9:56 PM pelican has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 198 of 243 (453730)
02-03-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Parasomnium
02-03-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Equations and Theories
In lay circles, there is a persistent erroneous idea
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This statement was the one I challenged.
Can you prove this statement or is it speculation on your part that many agree on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Parasomnium, posted 02-03-2008 3:07 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 199 of 243 (453732)
02-03-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by pelican
02-03-2008 9:02 PM


Heinrik, the post linked to below may help you to understand where Parasomnium is coming from (and molbiogirl)
http://EvC Forum: Evolution: Laws and Theories -->EvC Forum: Evolution: Laws and Theories
It's a PNT and the entire text reads
Fact: Laws are considered more reliable than theories
Fact: Evolution, specifically abiogenesis, contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Usually, theories which contradict laws are discarded
Therefore: Evolution as a theory should be discarded until a more suitable theory of the origins of life is proposed
That post on 29.1.08 is the latest in a long line of posts like this. This sort of thing comes up again and again and does become tedious. For this reason, if even a hint is present that a poster might think in this way, it's corrected ASAP because it really is a huge barrier to understanding science.
I also think there has been a misunderstanding by many since the beginning of this thread and I can include myself in that. I really thouht that the topic was to discuss the misconceptions that scientists have with E=mc2. It became apparent as the discussion progressed that you wanted to discuss your misconceptions.
Don't take this the wrong way, I am not trying to criticise you, I'm only trying to offer an explanation. It's not on topic either, but I'm hoping that it can pour oil on troubled waters and let you continue getting info from Modulus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 9:02 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 10:32 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 201 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 10:37 PM Trixie has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 200 of 243 (453736)
02-03-2008 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Trixie
02-03-2008 9:56 PM


whoops!
and whoops again
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 9:56 PM Trixie has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 201 of 243 (453740)
02-03-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Trixie
02-03-2008 9:56 PM


I also think there has been a misunderstanding by many since the beginning of this thread and I can include myself in that. I really thouht that the topic was to discuss the misconceptions that scientists have with E=mc2.
Hmmm......It seems the scientific minds had a misconception of my written language. Were there possibly any preconceived notions about my education and that I wasn't capable of understanding? I said I had yr12 maths but I did not say I was uneducated.
It became apparent as the discussion progressed that you wanted to discuss your misconceptions.
Mine and any others that may arise. I was actually testing my own perception. I did not know it was a misperception. It was very simple. I took C^2 to literally mean the speed of light x the speed of light. I did not find it until much later. My mistake was in not knowing it was a number represented by the speed of light. SIMPLE!
I did not need to know any more. I did not need any more information. However, as everyone came in and blinded me with science I had to do some serious homework. It wasn't until my head was about to explode with all this unfamiliar data, that Mod, brought in the term velocity. I knew that one straight away. The penny dropped. I had found what I had been looking for.
I checked back over the replies and found one that told me it was a number. It wasn't a very encouragng reply (like many others) and it didn't click.
I actually 'proved my case at this point' and Mod held his hand up to one he had found about himself. So both of us took the splinter out of our own eyes (so to speak). We are way past that now and I do hope he will continue to guide me a little further. I actually don't need any of this. I study in a completley different area but I found I am capable of communicating on a higher level of expertise than mine. That's pretty cool for an old codge.
For this reason, if even a hint is present that a poster might think in this way, it's corrected ASAP because it really is a huge barrier to understanding science.
Have I this right now to correct everyone here for their misconception of my intention asap because it's been a huge barrier to my understanding of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 9:56 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 10:46 PM pelican has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 202 of 243 (453744)
02-03-2008 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by pelican
02-03-2008 10:37 PM


Yes, I think you have the right to do that. This thread has been a terrific one and I hope it continues - you do know that you got a nomination for post of the month and it was seconded by Quetzal? Sadly, you don't get any sweeties or anything for it (I asked, but none were forthcoming), just the knowledge that a post of yours has contributed in a big way to this forum.
Admin - I promise this is the very, very last off topic post. It's here because it does flow nicely through the thread and the thread demonstrates so well where ALL of us can improve our communication.
Edited by Trixie, : My little spiel to Admin is so obviously off the mark that I felt I should point it out as being a total load of bullshit, with the exception of it being the last off-topic post from me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 10:37 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 3:43 AM Trixie has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 203 of 243 (453748)
02-03-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by pelican
02-03-2008 5:59 PM


Asked and answered. 31 times.
You ask:
Ok, so can this be 'observed' in reality?
Message 2.
It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven".
Message 4.
So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence.
Message 6.
This is essentially a prediction of Relativity, and it provides a wonderful way to test the theory. If the description of the way the universe works as developed out of the mathematics of the theory then the theory is confirmed as being a useful description of at least part of our universe.
They tested it, the description holds.
Message 14.
Yes, E = mc2 has been directly verified.
Message 16.
Then why don't you just get to the bloody point? E = mc2 has been verified, and Modulus has even cited an experiment that verified it to a high level of accuracy.
Message 19.
I thought you were requesting information regarding an experiment that verifies E=mc2. I provided you with a description of such an experiment.
Message 23.
It has been experimentally verified so what's the beef!?
Message 26.
How much effort have you actually put into looking up the experiments that verify that E=mc2?
Message 28.
If you mean, has the equation been experimentally confirmed, as in, does the equation correlate with reality as tested? Yes. I have given you an example of an experiment that does this directly.
Message 30.
And it has been verified. You actually asked for an example of an experiment where it was verified -- Modulus provided one such experiment, and now you claim that he was off-topic.
Message 38.
It is tested true every second of every day at every nuclear reactor in the world. None of the billion $ particle accelerators in the world would work at all if this equation was not true.
There are very few equations in science that are better tested than this one...
Message 42.
As stated: experiments have confirmed that the equation accurately describes many parts of the universe.
Message 49.
The way I understand it is that many experiments have been done that have measured the amount of energy and mass before, and the amount of energy and mass after, many energy gain\loss events.
Message 79.
Mass transforms into energy everyday, as has been mentioned countless times in this thread.
Message 80.
THAT is the creation of matter (electron/positron pair) from energy, perfectly obeying e=mc^2. This happens billions of times a day at the particle accelerators around the world.
Message 91.
So, just for the record Heinrik, you are contending that every particle factory in the world doesn't actually work, and every particle physicist in the world is lying, and hiding a huge conspiracy that we have never observed pair creation.
Message 93.
Conversion of energy to mass is happening inside your body all the time.
Message 99.
The equivalence has been experimentally verified in both directions. The conversion of energy to mass is much more difficult because such huge amounts of energy are necessary to create very little mass.
Message 102.
You seem to have doubts that it has been experimentally confirmed. So, if you would be so kind as to answer the question: Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate?
Message 103.
Now you are also asking can this work backwards? Can energy be converted into mass? The answer is yes...
Message 105.
You are aware that particle accelerators create matter from energy now, yes?
Message 107.
cavediver already did in Message 80 where he linked to this page.
Message 109.
Now 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.
Message 113.
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.
Message 115.
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?
Message 121.
You see it happen all the time, since this is the basis for microwave ovens and laser, such as those in your DVD drive.
Message 128.
It is an incredible amount of energy. And we've measured it, and confirmed that it is an incredible amount of energy.
Message 136.
For those who find themselves incredulous at the amount of energy the equation E=MC^2 says is released when matter is converted into energy...there's your proof, right there.
Message 138.
So, if the application of the formula to the amount of material used up at Hiroshima results in the amount of energy which would be required to do exactly what was done at Hiroshima, (avoiding what was done at Hiroshima to determine what that amount of energy would do cos otherwise we get circular again)then we have an application of the formula where it has been tested in the real world and found to be accurate, something that Heinrik is asking for.
Message 173.
No matter how you rearrange the equation, it states exactly the same thing. What it says has been exhaustively tested and found to be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:59 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 4:07 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 204 of 243 (453762)
02-04-2008 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by cavediver
01-30-2008 7:39 AM


Re: don't insult me
Arrogance is misplaced confidence. I can assure you that my confidence is very well placed.
adj.Arrogance:
Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.
I don't perceive you as weak so in my telling you, you are a pompous lame brained idiot who doesn't even understand the meaning of arrogance, then I won't fit into that category with you will I?.
Whoosh!!!!!!!!! The sound of it going over your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 7:39 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2008 3:51 AM pelican has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 205 of 243 (453772)
02-04-2008 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by pelican
02-03-2008 5:48 PM


Re: Equations and Theories
Heinrik writes:
Which post are you referring to where I have a mistaken idea?
In Message 108 of this thread, you said:
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.
The phrases "a balanced mathematical equation that remains a theory" and "when it is in the form of a theory" made me conclude you have the wrong idea about the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'. In any case, your message 108 betrays some confusion on your part concerning formulas, equations and theories.
In the same post you said:
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?
Indeed it is. But when someone does point it out to you, you become angry. We try to keep that aspect out of the game here.
Heinrik writes:
Now this [my statement about some lay people's erroneous ideas, P.] 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.
I have seen it so often, Heinrik, in forums as well as in the flesh. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Anyway, I was genuinely trying to help you.
Do yourself a favour: don't get angry at the drop of a hat. I'm not in the least impressed by it, and it doesn't help at all to advance the discussion, or your understanding of matters. Having said that, I predict more scorn from you, and accusations of condescension. Let me tell you up front: I don't care.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:48 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 3:55 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 206 of 243 (453773)
02-04-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Trixie
02-03-2008 10:46 PM


acknowledgement apprecitaed
Thanks trixie, it is good to know. It is nice to be apprectiated for my hard work and contribution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 10:46 PM Trixie has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 207 of 243 (453775)
02-04-2008 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by pelican
02-04-2008 12:11 AM


Re: don't insult me
you are a pompous lame brained idiot
Only from you, Heinrik, can I take this a complement and I do so with delight
Let's just have it again:
Heinrik in his opening lines writes:
I have no misconceptions of E=MC2. I do not dispute it's authenticity. What I do dispute is others conceptions of what it actually means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 12:11 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 4:18 AM cavediver has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 208 of 243 (453776)
02-04-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Parasomnium
02-04-2008 3:39 AM


Re: Equations and Theories
Indeed it is. But when someone does point it out to you, you become angry. We try to keep that aspect out of the game here.
Now this [my statement about some lay people's erroneous ideas, P.] 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.
Come on. This is becoming angry at your idea? The anger which you wouldn't have known of if I hadn't told you? But you did not want to know, did you? You certainly did not address the erronious beliefs you have about lay people. Is it possible you are incorrect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Parasomnium, posted 02-04-2008 3:39 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Parasomnium, posted 02-04-2008 5:17 AM pelican has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 209 of 243 (453777)
02-04-2008 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by molbiogirl
02-03-2008 10:59 PM


Re: Asked and answered. 31 times.
I am confused as to your intention with this obviously well researched post. Although you have missed some posts out, like the ones with contradictory evidence disputing the ones you are quoting and those where I have seem my mistakes and put them on display for everyone to see.
Finding the truth is not concerned with finding evidence to support your case and omitting everything else to the contrary. Nice try though.
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by molbiogirl, posted 02-03-2008 10:59 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 210 of 243 (453778)
02-04-2008 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by cavediver
02-04-2008 3:51 AM


Re: don't insult me
Why don't you ignore the fact that you had a misconception concerning the meaning of arrogance. I think you may still have it. Be careful, it might come around and bite you up the ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2008 3:51 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024