Misconceptions of E=MC^2

Hey, Heinrik, 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 abovehttp://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±0.0000004Which 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?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : formatEdited 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)

oopsfirst line should have been "If E = m•c² is true, then ..." 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 = ΔEYou can measure the change in mass = ΔmIf 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 conversionand solving for the constant gives youKp•Δm = -ΔEKp = -ΔE/ΔmDo 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)

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)

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) • • •

Irrelevant. The question is why you felt you needed two userIDs to begin with: 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: 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) • • •

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 TrollYou have now validated my opinion, thank you.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spEdited 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) • • •

For those who are concerned with truth:This: ... 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 -noun

1. 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) • • •