Misconceptions of E=MC^2

heinrik 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. I am neither scientist, evolutionist or creationist and for this reason, I have chosen to start it here in the coffee house.
The only expertise I have is year 12 maths. However, I do have experience in misconceptions and the meaning of words. Therefore for easier understanding I will put the mathematical theory into words.
E=MC2 means "Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light.For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum.
I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved.
Is this true?

It's great that you can see that your lack of scientific understanding led you to have misunderstandings.

So let me get this straight: you were really trying to demonstrate the general 'false perceptions' that people have on this site about themselves and others via the medium ..............of a specific 'false perception' you asserrted that people had about e=mc^2?

How have you demonstrated that there are 'false perceptions'?

Your lack of 'scientific understanding' of e=mc^2 was obvious. If you had a greater understanding (as you appear to now possess) you would not have believed the 'false perception' that you held about e=mc^2.

By the way, how close was I in my perception of you?

Btw I edited your name back to Heinrik and would like to appologise for trying to be a wise ass.

E=mc^2 has nothing to do with a mass travelling at the speed of light. Here, c is just a number, and c^2 forms the constant of proportionality between E and m. This number is also the speed of light, but that is (mostly) irrelevant to the equation.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...

Now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps you can clear up a misconception of mine.

however some people just can't help themselves, they are drawn like moths to the candle flame).Is time another light not of the light of e=mc2 ? I guess string theory is off topic but suspect without time e=mc2 the universe itself would come unravelled and be destroyed, perhaps just energy but without time just disipate into nothingness?

Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You seem to have a misconception that I should justify myself to you. Wrong!Not really, I am just wondering how you justify intentional deceit - if not to me, then to yourself, or anyone else on this site.My personal conclusion is that you are not here to debate honestly with anyone, and that leaves the rest of us with very little reason to respond.Another definition of an internet troll is someone who wants to cause disruption on boards rather than contribute to them.Do Not Feed the Troll
You have now validated my opinion, thank you.Enjoy.

Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

Getting On Topic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please focus discussion on the topic and leave moderator issues to the moderators. Concerns should be posted to Report Problem Posts Here: No. 1.

razd writes:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For those who are concerned with truth:
This:
this post accuses me of "intentional deceit."... is a false statement. The intentional deceit was admitted by "paula rose" aka dameeva aka Heinrik in this post and again in Message 235. Thus my stating it is just stating an already admitted fact, and it cannot be inflammatory to the person who admitted the intentional deceit. Being offended by the truth doesn't make the truth less valid. We've seen a whole thread apparently dedicated to the precept that anyone can take offense from the words of others, and that you can choose or pretend to be offended as you wish. The thread in effect invites people to take offense or pretend to be offended ... rather humorous.In Message 229 I asked "paula rose" aka dameeva aka Heinrik to clarify any misconception I had in regard to this admission of intentional deceit and whether it was in fact lying:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my misconception: that intentionally deceiving others is a definition of lying, and I have to wonder how you square this with the {idea\concept\process} of honestly presenting your opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I repeated this request in Message 232 and added a definition of "lie" for clarification:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is why you felt you needed two userIDs to begin with:
Message 229
Here's my misconception: that intentionally deceiving others is a definition of lying, and I have to wonder how you square this with the {idea\concept\process} of honestly presenting your opinion.In other words I want to be able to take your word at face value, as I generally do all posters, however I now have self-admitted evidence of intentional deceit on your part, so am I wrong to mistrust every single thing you say?How can I tell if you are being honest?for reference:lie -noun1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So he\she\it has been given two opportunities to defend or explain any misconception between this admitted behavior and being dishonest.If he\she\it chooses to pretend to take offense at this then all I have to say is: you reap what you sow eh?As far as topic is concerned this thread was started by "paula rose"/dameeva/Heinrik to talk about misconceptions, with e=mc as a talking point (one that has been covered enough for anyone really interested to do further research on their own if necessary). If this is off-topic then so is discussion of Bell's Theorum ... (which did have a topic proposal at one time ... involving misconceptions too IIRC ... )