Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
194 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, nwr, Percy (Admin), ringo, Theodoric (6 members, 188 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,302 Year: 3,050/23,288 Month: 1,241/1,809 Week: 360/313 Day: 101/71 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20550
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 49 of 243 (452126)
01-29-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by pelican
01-29-2008 1:07 PM


< reset >
Hey, Heinrik,

I believe there are many misconceptions on this forum concerning E=mc2. Energy= mass multiplied by the speed of light mulitplied by the speed of light. Just imagine that for a moment.

It cannot be done but you have a preconcieved notion that it has been done and you are not alone in this. It is a misconception on your part and many others.

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. Then they compare before and after totals and the changes in energy to the changes in mass (that they can measure):

If E = m•c² is true, then (E + m•c²)before = (E + m•c²)after
and
(E + m•c²)1 - (E + m•c²)2 = k (where k = 0 if the formula is correct)
or
(E1 - E2) + (m1•c² - m2•c²) = k
or
ΔEnergy + ΔMass•c² = k

For each of the experiments. If energy is converted into mass then In the reference provided by Modulus above

http://www.physorg.com/news9248.html

quote:
According to the basic laws of physics, every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation corresponds to a specific amount of energy. The NIST team determined the value for energy in the Einstein equation, E = mc2, by carefully measuring the wavelength of gamma rays emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms.

The NIST/MIT tests focused on a well-known process: When the nucleus of an atom captures a neutron, energy is released as gamma ray radiation. The mass of the atom, which now has one extra neutron, is predicted to equal the mass of the original atom, plus the mass of a solitary neutron, minus a value called the neutron binding energy. The neutron binding energy is equal to the energy given off as gamma ray radiation, plus a small amount of energy released in the recoil motion of the nucleus.


What they found was that

ΔEnergy + ΔMass•c² = 0±0.0000004

Which is reasonably close to 0 for all practical purposes, especially given the accuracy of measurements of energy and mass.

Now perhaps what you find problematical is the use of the speed of light as a conversion factor, when it seems to be just an arbitrary number to use as a constant. It could just be a conversion factor similar to "G" in Newton's gravity equation:

F = GmM/d²

and it just happens to be equal to c².

Is that it?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : format

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 22 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 1:07 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20550
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 94 of 243 (452371)
01-30-2008 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by pelican
01-30-2008 2:11 AM


Re: keeping it simple
oops

first line should have been "If E = m•c² is true, then ..."

Please keep it simple.

Sorry, didn't mean to skip explanations of the steps.

The point is that then energy plus mass before an event that changes energy to mass or vice versa should be related to the energy plus mass after the event.

You can measure the change in energy = ΔE

You can measure the change in mass = Δm

If there was conversion, then when one is positive the other should be negative.

It is.

And if the conversion rate is constant, then they should be related by some constant value. We can define and determine this constant by:

ΔE + Kp•Δm = 0, where Kp is the assumed constant of conversion

and solving for the constant gives you

Kp•Δm = -ΔE

Kp = -ΔE/Δm

Do this for a number of different levels of energy to mass conversions and plot the value of Kp against (-ΔE/Δm) to see the distribution or trend.

If the formula is true then the constant should be equal to c² (within the error of measurements for energy and mass).

It is.

For the experiments that have been made.

Enjoy.

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 75 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:11 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 8:19 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20550
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 127 of 243 (452925)
01-31-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
01-31-2008 11:16 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
or

  • E = mcc

    As you noted, E = mc2 is incorrect since it says that energy equals mass times the speed of light times 2, but most people have gotten in the habit of ignoring the mistake because they know what is meant and realize that the mistake is due to what happens when you cut-n-paste "E = mc2", since the fact that the 2 is a superscript doesn't copy.

    One reason to use E = m•c^2



    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 124 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 11:16 AM Percy has not yet responded

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20550
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    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 responded

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

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20550
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    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 responded

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

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20550
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    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 responded

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

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20550
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    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 ... :D)

    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 responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 241 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 10:10 PM RAZD has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020