Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
195 online now:
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: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 126 of 243 (452908)
01-31-2008 6:36 PM


Energy =mass * speed of light squared ?
energy = mass * speed of light squared?

It just seems like an incredible amount of energy in one atom like a mini black hole.

energy/speed of light squared = mass?

It sounds like this would support string theory like energy divided by speed of light squared would equal a mass almost infinititly small in comparision to the size of the atom?

speed of light squared = mass / energy?
speed of light * speed of light = mass / energy?

speed of light = energy / mass / speed of light?

c = square root of energy divided by square root of mass ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
c=e/m/c solve for c ?

http://www.hostsrv.com/webmab/app1/MSP/quickmath/02/pageGenerate?site=quickmath&s1=equations&s2=solve&s3=basic
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm not sure what I'm saying but what I think I'm questioning is if the square root of energy divided by square root of mass it seems the speed of light squared appears to cancel out? Meaning energy divided by matter going the speed of light time cancels out or that time is dependent on how lights speed is factored. Is this why its believed were seeing the past from the present in that time cancels out when energy divided by mass approaches the speed limit of light?

P.S. It just seems that by moving the forumla the speed of mass can be increased if its converted to energy. However when energy/mass approaches the speed of light it cancels out. Like time for the particle of light going at light speed time stands still because mass/energy is moving at the speed of light?

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2008 8:18 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2008 8:31 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 146 of 243 (453260)
02-01-2008 6:37 PM


mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?

Like when .6 grams explode are little prisons of excessive energy being released from say those .6 grams not just from the present but from the past, and future?

It just seems that energy has been trapped within little prisons thru time in the atom. That the energy of the atom is not trapped just in the present but flows from the past thru the present into the future.

Is this a part of the theory of relativity in respect to mass * the speed of light squared = energy?


Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:54 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 148 of 243 (453295)
02-01-2008 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 6:54 PM


Re: mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?
What on god's green earth does time have to do with E=mc2? Do you see a "t" in there? I don't see a "t" in there.

The formula was based on an object at rest once mass exceeds this it involves time thus relativity, etc...

---------------------------------------------------------------

This mass is the ratio of momentum to velocity, and it is also the relativistic energy divided by c2. So the equation E = mrelc2 holds for moving objects. When the velocity is small, the relativistic mass and the rest mass are almost exactly the same.

E = mc2 either means E = m0c2 for an object at rest, or E = mrelc2 when the object is moving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:54 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 7:30 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 150 of 243 (453309)
02-01-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 7:30 PM


Re: mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?

Your formula is only based on time in mass not in motion however when you explode an atomic bomb the mass goes into motion. Thus E = mrelc2 is more relative to an atomic bomb explosion as compared to E=mOc2, etc....

----------------------------------------------------------

In particle accelerators, particles are moving very close to the speed of light where the length and time effects are large. This has allowed us to clearly verify that length contraction and time dilation do occur.

Observations particles with a variety of velocities have shown that time dilation is a real effect. In fact the only reason cosmic ray muons ever reach the surface of the earth before decaying is the time dilation effect.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 7:30 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 8:12 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 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 yet responded

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

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 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.

http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/index.php/Bell's_theorem


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 02-10-2008 5:17 AM johnfolton 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