Misconceptions of E=MC^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".Oh, yeah, it's a theory, too. In fact, being in the form of a concise equation, we might even call it a law.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

And one has to ask, what in the real world is ever known with 100% certainty? One can state that something is not proven unless it is 100% certain, but then the word "proof" has no practical meaning in the real world.Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge. I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

In plain English:Yes, E = mc² has been directly verified.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

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.It would help the discussion if you'd just spell out what your point is -- then we can write our posts so that they are more relevant, and we wouldn't have to waste our time beating around the bush.Or were you just asking for information? If so, there it is.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Okay, thanks.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Actually, the only misconception is yours. It's hard to tell what your misconception is, though, since you can't seem to express your idea very clearly. That is usually a sign that it's probably too nutty to really be understood, but maybe the problem is with communicating ideas you just don't really understand.E = mc² has a definite meaning in physics. What you think it means or what it should mean is irrelevant. Physicists know what they mean when they discuss this formula.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.I'm guessing that you are a nut.Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Whose conceptions are you disputing? What conceptions do you find problematic?

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Usually a sign that at least one participant should log off and wait a while before posting again.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Well, this part is erroneous: Mass (if you mean particles with non-zero rest mass) doesn't become light because it travels at any particular speed.Nothing with a non-zero rest mass can travel the speed of light. Period. It would take an infinite amount of energy to get a particle to this speed.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

No, this is not what the equation means.What the equation means is that when energy is converted to matter with mass, then the amount of mass is equal to the amount of energy times the square of the speed of light. Or, when mass is converted to energy, the amount of energy is equal to the amount of mass divided by the square of the speed of light.Are you Duane Ertle?

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Do it in front of nator's apartment.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

The problem is that the equations don't work at all. You end up dividing by zero, which is nonsense -- the equations are useless. The current understanding is that this is simply impossible -- mass cannot travel at the speed of light at all.Now, of course, it is always possible that our current models are wrong (or not precise enough to handle speeds close enough to that of light), but there aren't any models of which I'm aware that discusses what would happen when a mass travels at the speed of light -- I think that the "mass turns into light" business is something that someone made up somewhere in an attempt to understand the subject.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

If you really feel that strongly about it, okay.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Well, I thought it was clear enough, but if you found it confusing then I apologize.But if you read his posts, I think you'll see that Heinrick's confusion is far, far deeper than we can possibly imagine.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones