Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 226 of 243 (454142)
02-05-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by pelican
02-05-2008 5:43 PM


Re: Final BUMP E=MC^2
Heinrik writes:
Some were agreeing with my perception and there was disgreement between each other. I'm willing to go back through and find them if you are.
Some where agreeing? Really? Show me.....
Btw I edited your name back to Heinrik and would like to appologise for trying to be a wise ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by pelican, posted 02-05-2008 5:43 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by pelican, posted 02-05-2008 6:54 PM Larni has not replied

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


Message 227 of 243 (454162)
02-05-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Larni
02-05-2008 5:56 PM


Re: Final BUMP E=MC^2
Btw I edited your name back to Heinrik and would like to appologise for trying to be a wise ass.
We've come a long way since you told me to 'shut the fuck up' I gratefully accept. Thankyou.
Maybe now you understand how eager I am to uncover false beliefs, misconceptions and misunderstandings made from assumptions, closed minds, jumping to conclusions etc. I ESPECIALLY want to see my own! God, it sets you free. Freedom is what's on offer.
In a nutshell:
I wanted to show that after ............ "the stick I took, after all my mistakes,after looking like an idiot and being called one in no uncertain terms"...........that I was BIG enough, HONEST enough and HUMBLE enough to bring my MISCONCEPTION out in the open for all to see. Mission accomplished.
Is it possible that you edited out my real name and have gone back to my alias?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Larni, posted 02-05-2008 5:56 PM Larni has not replied

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


Message 228 of 243 (454207)
02-05-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
01-29-2008 2:02 PM


BUMP Cave diver e=mc62
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...
Cavedriver, I am under no illusion that you are well learned. Your obeservation was on the ball. Spot on!
However, The rolling eyes just made me dismiss you.
Had I not dismissed you the thread would have ended for me at 39.
So dismissing you as you dismissed me turned out to be a very exciting thread and a nomination for post of the month. Ta dah!
Thanks mate!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:02 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 1:14 PM pelican has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 243 (454944)
02-09-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by pelican
02-05-2008 9:08 PM


Another misconception. Or two.
Hello Paula,
Now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps you can clear up a misconception of mine.
On several threads (way too many imho) your last post as "Dameeva" half confessed to being part of a multiple personality here, and that you were abandoning it because you had found the guidelines prohibited it, or something like that ("half" because you didn't pony up the other name/s, which gave the "admission" an air of incomplete sincerity, imho).
There are many people here who have multiple userID's, but they generally have been sequential.
The most common are people who just change their userID in their profile (hovering over the name gives you the most recent versions used), and an example of this is Jon. This is an innocent use of different names.
Another type are people that sneak back after being banned (and are usually found out and merged into one account), and examples of this is whatever. This is not so innocent, especially when the perpetrator is rude and abusive, like "Amen" was, however it is usually tolerated (with the caveat that some people just can't help themselves, they are drawn like moths to the candle flame).
My interest is why you felt it was necessary to maintain two userID's at the same time.
There is one type of internet troll that exists to be a "cheerleader" for the main personality on debate boards - giving a false impression of multiple concurrence and operating under the mistaken belief that the popularity of an opinion made a difference to the validity of what was said.
That was my first impression of "Heinrik" - that it was not a complete personality - but it was just an impression, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
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.
Perhaps we can also discuss the fact that many creationist websites are not completely honest (if any are), and how this impacts the validity of anything they have posted.
Finally, as I said to another poster that admitted to intentional deceit, how can I trust you to be honest in the future? Is this a misconception?
The only currency you have on these boards is your word, and you seem to have squandered yours.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by pelican, posted 02-05-2008 9:08 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by johnfolton, posted 02-09-2008 2:33 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 231 by pelican, posted 02-09-2008 5:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 230 of 243 (454959)
02-09-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by RAZD
02-09-2008 1:14 PM


Re: Another misconception. Or two.
however some people just can't help themselves, they are drawn like moths to the candle flame).
It does appear a whole lot of light is within e=mc2 suspect the misconception of Razd the flame burning the evolutionist (them moths) might well be beyond e=mc2. Like time, string theory, true light, etc...It might well be without creationists there is no light so when one shows up them moths flock to the candles light.
Is like string theory about the true light not that there is not light within e=mc2 however God is said to be the true light. That all things exist were created thru him, and without him was nothing created. E=mc2 is one of Gods creations held together perhaps by time, Its been said that if God would turn his face all things would be destroyed?
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?
Enjoy !!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 1:14 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by pelican, posted 02-09-2008 6:11 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 243 by pelican, posted 02-12-2008 5:29 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 231 of 243 (454999)
02-09-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by RAZD
02-09-2008 1:14 PM


Re: Another misconception. Or two.
Re: Another misconception. Or two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps you can clear up a misconception of mine.
YES indeed! I LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG!
A question for you. Why would I do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 1:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 6:06 PM pelican has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 232 of 243 (455004)
02-09-2008 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by pelican
02-09-2008 5:46 PM


Re: Another misconception. Or two.
YES indeed! I LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG!
A question for you. Why would I do that?
Irrelevant. 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:
lie² -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)
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : lie definition

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by pelican, posted 02-09-2008 5:46 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by pelican, posted 02-09-2008 6:16 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 233 of 243 (455006)
02-09-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by johnfolton
02-09-2008 2:33 PM


Re: Another misconception. Or two.
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?
This is amazing. I have had to read it several times before it would sink in. Holy! Holy!
I think you are absolutely correct. E=MC^2 is based on a construct of time, which is a construct itself. Shaky foundations here.
Bloody hell! Do you know how much this would rock the scientific community if realized? Maybe this is the simplest misconception of all time!
Regards, Paula
Edited by paula rose, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by johnfolton, posted 02-09-2008 2:33 PM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 234 of 243 (455008)
02-09-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by RAZD
02-09-2008 6:06 PM


Re: Another misconception. Or two.
You seem to have a misconception that I should justify myself to you. Wrong!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 6:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 6:39 PM pelican has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 235 of 243 (455012)
02-09-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by pelican
02-09-2008 6:16 PM


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.
Edited by RAZD, : sp
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by pelican, posted 02-09-2008 6:16 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by johnfolton, posted 02-09-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 237 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 12:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 236 of 243 (455031)
02-09-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
02-09-2008 6:39 PM


Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
Another definition of an internet troll is someone who wants to cause disruption on boards rather than contribute to them.
I don't see Razd contributing to this thread e=mc2 in fact it appears he's being disruptive and not contributing to the topic.
I don't really understand Bell's theorem it appears others have already have raised questions of E=mc2 (at rest) "local relativity" being violated by QM.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The desire for a local realist theory was based on ideas about "how the real world works": first that objects have a definite state which determines the values of all other measurable properties such as position and momentum and second, that (as a result of special relativity) effects of local actions such as measurements cannot travel faster than the speed of light. In the formalization of local realism used by Bell, the predictions of a theory result from the application of classical probability theory to an underlying parameter space. By a simple (but clever) argument based on classical probability he then showed that correlations between measurements are bounded in a way that is violated by QM.
Bell's theorem seemed to seal the fate of those that had local realist hopes for QM.
Page does not exist: index.php/Bell's theorem | Quantiki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 6:39 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 02-10-2008 5:17 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 237 of 243 (455057)
02-10-2008 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
02-09-2008 6:39 PM


Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
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.
I would like to draw Admins' attention to the fact this post accuses me of "intentional deceit." Is this not inflammatory behaviour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 6:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 12:58 PM pelican has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 238 of 243 (455066)
02-10-2008 5:02 AM


Getting On Topic
Please focus discussion on the topic and leave moderator issues to the moderators. Concerns should be posted to Windsor castle.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 10:16 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 239 of 243 (455067)
02-10-2008 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by johnfolton
02-09-2008 8:47 PM


Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
Bell's theorem seemed to seal the fate of those that had local realist hopes for QM.
Yes, it did. Which is why we are happy to abandon 'realism', retaining locality. When we do this, combining Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, we obtain Quantum Field Theory - one of the two most successful theories ever formulated (the other being General Relativity.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by johnfolton, posted 02-09-2008 8:47 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 240 of 243 (455104)
02-10-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by pelican
02-10-2008 12:52 AM


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:
lie² -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=mc² 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 ... )
Enjoy.
Added by edit:
ps - Rather than feed the troll further, I've taken the issue of Trolls and Trolling here and to this new thread.
Edited by RAZD, : added ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 12:52 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 10:10 PM RAZD 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