Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 194 of 243 (453694)
02-03-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Modulous
02-03-2008 5:55 PM


Re: Not predict?
Sure, you can predict what e will be given m and c. But I don't Heinrik meant that. If you read back through some of his comments he seems to still be thinking of e=mc^2 as something akin to a physical reaction like combustion. He seems to be wondering if one permutation of the equation does represent a physical reaction. Like maybe, e=mc^2 is sometimes thought of as the formula that describes a nuclear explosion or whatever, or it represents a reaction whereby pure energy becomes mass, or mass can be converted into the speed of light squared or some such strangeness.
yes I did! Not exactly but yes, I thought they could be separated in some way but they cannot. From discovering my misconceotion, I then came to believe that when the atom is split the energy is released (not transformed), virually no physical mass is lost and the energy released immediately becomes mass (form). How am I doing so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 5:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2008 9:10 AM pelican has not replied

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


Message 195 of 243 (453706)
02-03-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Modulous
02-03-2008 4:29 PM


Re: equations and formulae
I imagine many people, if not all do this from time to time. When you do, you can expect to be told in no uncertain terms.
I do believe there is some cross purposes here. Science aside for a moment and come into my world.
I saw my own misconception that no-one else saw that I offered up as an example of mis-perceptions from a strongly held belief about science. Now don't you think this is possible in many other areas of science?
E.G. You saw one of your own. Did you not declare it with confidence, as you believed it to be true? Is that human behaviour not the same as mine? Just stating a fact I believed to be true?
I respect your knowledge and I believe what you tell me, (most of the time )If you had not seen it, you could have passed the misconception on to others who would have taken it to be true. Did anyone else see it?
My real glaringly obvious point is that my behaviour is no differnt to anyones elses. I state what I believe to be true just as you do. You make mistakes, so do I.
Why are my mistakes (even spelling) pointed out so harshly when yours are not?
Modulous, I have even been told to 'shut the fuck up' because I don't know what I am talking about. Hmmm. That was accepted by all and sundry. No objections to that post, not even by me.
Most posters were trying to blind me with science because they believed I was uneducated. In other words "One-up-manship,"
Those that could not stand their ground did not reply, and might have snuck back in seemingly unnoticed, but I did notice.
Others who were becoming confused, agreed with each other and supported each other and went on their own merry way, regardless of the topic.
Others come in at the last minute, haven't followed the thread and sling a bit of mud at me because I am the vulnerable one. Nothing constructive.
And then there was you. Earnest in your endevours to help me and share your expertise at a level I could understand. Thankyou.
It can be a good thing - don't worry too much about it though, it's not usually meant to be personal. Where it is, hey - how personal can strangers get?
May I point out this last misconception you hold of me. I do not worry at all. It is a challenge that I enjoy. And yes anonymous strangers talking on the internet cannot harm me. I am well aware of that. I do become angry when I have put a lot of work and researched something only to be told I can't spell or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't worked so hard in years
However, this forum is a mini world, replicated outside in the real world. All these beliefs, behaviours, perceptions, judgements are all having an effect on the larger community. That is why I am here. Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 4:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2008 9:36 AM pelican has 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 212 of 243 (453785)
02-04-2008 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Parasomnium
02-04-2008 5:17 AM


Re: Equations and Theories
Maybe it was the phrase "Now this angers me" that made me think you became angry. How foolish of me.
Exactly. I said nothing else to implicate anger. You would not have known I was angry if I had not told you. You did not deduct this from any other source. Your only evidence is that I said it. I did not VENT it! I agree with you, it was foolish to form a conception by a couple of written words without empirical evidence.
Another case of something I mistake for English? Care to translate?
I hope the above clarifies that mistake.
[qs]You certainly did not address the erronious beliefs you have about lay people.
I did, but if you choose to ignore it, then that's your problem.[qs] May I point out another misunderstanding here. The focul point here should be on the words, " beliefs, you have" Not their beliefs. Your beliefs. Not your beliefs about science. Not their beliefs about science. Not your belief that you know more about science than them either. None of those. Simply your beliefs about the 'layman' in particular and references to straw men. I assume it is from the Wizard of Oz?
I have spoken to many lay people who harbour these ideas, and I have read many posts by such people. So it's possible that I'm wrong, but my experience tells me differently. I am certainly not going to indulge you by compiling a list of incidents, it's just not worth my trouble. If you don't believe me, fine. I couldn't care less.
Again it is not their beliefs to which I refer. It is yours about them. This is in as plain english as I can muster. If you cannot understand this, I am at a loss as to how to get through to you people.
Well, maybe it's not worth the trouble, but I do care. There is a fundamental difference between you and I, thank god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Parasomnium, posted 02-04-2008 5:17 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Parasomnium, posted 02-04-2008 8:45 AM pelican has replied

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


Message 218 of 243 (453901)
02-04-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Parasomnium
02-04-2008 8:45 AM


Re: Equations and Theories
So, tell me, what should I have done? Find out where you live, look you up and see if you froth at the mouth? You did not vent it, you said. Should I have checked that no steam was coming out of your ears? Just to verify that what you write here is in fact true? In this forum, the only evidence we have of what people think is what they write. If you write "Now this angers me", in my book that means that you are angry, at least if it's meant to be English what you write. If not, maybe you can supply explanatory footnotes in the future.
The misunderstanding here is in not looking at the same thing. In my book 'this angers me' does not mean I am angry. I meant the subject matter we were discussing angers me.
These words impacted on your response. You replied in anger whereas I did not. Because of this perception, that I inadvertently gave you, it influenced your response. The point was lost and personalities take over. Such as this..........
So, tell me, what should I have done? Find out where you live, look you up and see if you froth at the mouth? You did not vent it, you said. Should I have checked that no steam was coming out of your ears? Just to verify that what you write here is in fact true? In this forum, the only evidence we have of what people think is what they write. If you write "Now this angers me", in my book that means that you are angry, at least if it's meant to be English what you write. If not, maybe you can supply explanatory footnotes in the future.
and give instruction like this...........
You may want to look up the term 'straw man'. It's a term used in logic and reasoning to denote a particular fallacious strategy. It has nothing to do with the straw man in the Wizard of Oz.
...............and form opinions like this..............
Perhaps you know all this already, but used your idiosyncratic way of expressing that fact. Presently, I have no way of knowing.
What DO you expect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Parasomnium, posted 02-04-2008 8:45 AM Parasomnium has not replied

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


Message 219 of 243 (453903)
02-04-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Admin
02-04-2008 9:35 AM


Re: Please Stay on Topic
I believe many emotions, not only anger, has been affecting the discussion from the beginning. Without them, this topic would have closed at around post 6.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Admin, posted 02-04-2008 9:35 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 220 of 243 (453911)
02-04-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Modulous
02-04-2008 9:36 AM


Re: equations and formulae
Thanks Modulous. Joining the dots, I think you are saying that in post 1. I came across as arrogant.
Two reasons spring to mind. I tend to word things that I am not sure of in a limited fashion, with disclaimers and tentativity. I think it is better to avoid insisting I am right when people I judge more knowledgeable than myself are telling me I'm wrong.
I could not come across this way as I genuinely believed what I was saying. I genuinely believed it was common knowledge. My only mistake in post 1. was that I took the speed of light literally. I did not realise it was expressing a number.
I also said yr 12 in maths, not science and it was 32yrs ago.
So I figure many of the responses came from their perception of my arrogance which was from a purely innocent belief.
You know Mod, I was becoming excited with how much knowledge I was acquiring, mainly due to your responses and my research, but I am now utterly deflated by this thread.
I did not need to know what I now know about e=mc bloody squared. I came for a visit amongst the scientific community. It isn't very hospitable, with a few exceptions including yourself. I'm going home. I am an ex brit. Boltonian to be precise. Thanks so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2008 9:36 AM Modulous 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