Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 76 of 243 (452323)
01-30-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coragyps
01-29-2008 10:32 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
You simply have a misconception, Henrik, of what algebra is all about.
I think you have a misconception of what this thread is all about. Maybe you forgot to research the topic effeciently enough. I've have misread, missed words, missed the point, had preconceived ideas and blinkered. BUT I learned from my mistakes. Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2008 10:32 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 77 of 243 (452324)
01-30-2008 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rahvin
01-29-2008 11:38 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
Let's say this together very slowly,
Let's cut the attittude, shall we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rahvin, posted 01-29-2008 11:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 78 of 243 (452326)
01-30-2008 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Taz
01-30-2008 2:10 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heinrik, if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this question. Do you doubt our nuclear arsenal?
What a siily qiestion. What do you expect me to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 01-30-2008 2:10 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 2:39 AM pelican has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 79 of 243 (452330)
01-30-2008 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by pelican
01-30-2008 2:27 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
What a siily qiestion. What do you expect me to say?
Not so silly when you say something like this ...
Mass has not travelled at that speed and has not been proved to transform into energy.
Mass transforms into energy everyday, as has been mentioned countless times in this thread.
Cavediver also took the time and trouble to explain that mass CANNOT move at the speed of light.
It is really very simple, as RAZD showed earlier. We have measured the energy output of mass turning into energy. And it confirms that the energy released = the mass times the speed of light squared.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:27 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 5:03 AM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 80 of 243 (452346)
01-30-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by pelican
01-30-2008 12:21 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
the theory of producing matter from energy using the speed of light squared has never been proved, only the reverse.
You know absolutely NOTHING about this subject, so why are you so intent on making a complete idiot of yourself?
Take a look at this picture:
{Source here}
THAT is the creation of matter (electron/positron pair) from energy, perfectly obeying e=mc^2. This happens billions of times a day at the particle accelerators around the world.
This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum.
Why have we suddenly a forum full of arrogant idiots? You haven't a clue about this subject so why are you so sure that the problem lies with others and not with yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 12:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:00 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 81 of 243 (452350)
01-30-2008 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by molbiogirl
01-30-2008 2:39 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
Mass transforms into energy everyday, as has been mentioned countless times in this thread.
You are absoluelty right. I wish someone had pointed this out to me before. A genuine mistake on my part. I meant to say it the other way around. This is what I meant to say: energy has not been transformed into mass as E=mc2 indicates.
My apologies for looking like an idiot and thankyou mobigirl.
Cavediver also took the time and trouble to explain that mass CANNOT move at the speed of light.
Both of you explained it very well.
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 2:39 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 5:42 AM pelican has replied

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


Message 82 of 243 (452352)
01-30-2008 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by humoshi
01-29-2008 2:54 PM


Re: plain english please
Chiroptera writes:
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.
Does is really make sense to say energy is converted to mass or vice versa? This would seem to violate the conservation of energy.
Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called mass is converted to another form of energy
No, mass is not a form of energy - mass is a measure of energy, irrespective of the form of the energy. The space-time curvature generated by a pair of photons is exactly the same after they have pair-created an eletcron and a positron. The energy will now be in the form of the rest-mass of the particles plus the interaction energy between them.
The measured mass of 1kg of lead consists of almost entirely the binding energy (i.e. gluons) holding the quarks, and in turn, the nucleons together, plus the binding energy (i.e. photons) holding the electrons, and in turn, the atoms together, plus the vibrational energy (i.e. photons) of the temperature of the lead, and finally plus a vanishingly small amount of energy from the rest-mass of the quarks and eletrons making up the actual matter.
If you put that lead into a container with 1kg of anti-lead, and managed perfect annihilation all the way down to just having photons left, AND managed to contain those photons within the container, then you would still have 2kg inside the container...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by humoshi, posted 01-29-2008 2:54 PM humoshi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:15 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 01-30-2008 7:55 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 104 by humoshi, posted 01-30-2008 1:24 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 83 of 243 (452353)
01-30-2008 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
01-29-2008 2:17 PM


Re: plain english please
No, it means that energy is proportional the mass of the object in question. It just describes the relation of matter to energy. It doesn't say that matter changes form. Actually when you look at the equations as a whole, we find that as we approach the speed of light, the mass of an object approaches an infinite magnitude. Quite the opposite of your understanding.
In reverse e=mc2 is : the square root of lightspeed, divided by an equivelent proportion of mass. They are both the same value/ equivelant of each other. As has been stressed by many posts the reverse of splitting the mass into energy has been proven/demonstrated/reproduced whatever you want to call it. This formula in reverse created the atom bomb.
This theory e=mc2 has never even been tested.
There are two sides to an equasion and most posts see only one and deny the other. Much like you do with each other really. Hmmm...........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 2:17 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 84 of 243 (452354)
01-30-2008 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by pelican
01-30-2008 5:03 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
My apologies for looking like an idiot and thankyou mobigirl.
The wisest words you have uttered all this thread. There is hope for you. Now apply that humility when you read my post above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 5:03 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:22 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 85 of 243 (452361)
01-30-2008 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 3:37 PM


But if you read his posts, I think you'll see that Heinrick's confusion is far, far deeper than we can possibly imagine.
you are quite correct I did become confused. It's along time since I did algebra and I had forgotten to reverse the equasion. As I haven't a clue how to find maths. synbols I will write it in words. You clever people will understand without the symbols, I'm sure.
Now that you have got me back on track I meant to say that:
e=mc2 in reverse is the equivelent of 'the square root of speed/light divided by an equivelent amount of mass = minus energy (mass).
In other words if mass can produce energy then energy can produce mass. This was the original idea of Einsteins theory of everything.
However, this formula has never been tested. It was my contention that this half of the equasion has been misunderstood in this forum.
Please refrain from personal comments if you can. I really don't wish to answer to some posts because of this. A little patience and a little consideration can go a long way. regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 3:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Woodsy, posted 01-30-2008 7:51 AM pelican has replied

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


Message 86 of 243 (452362)
01-30-2008 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by cavediver
01-30-2008 4:31 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
You know absolutely NOTHING about this subject, so why are you so intent on making a complete idiot of yourself?
I can admit to my mistakes. I have amended quite a few and made my apologies. What do you want from me?
Why have we suddenly a forum full of arrogant idiots? You haven't a clue about this subject so why are you so sure that the problem lies with others and not with yourself?
I see what you mean, hey cavediver?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 4:31 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 7:11 AM pelican has not replied

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


Message 87 of 243 (452363)
01-30-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by pelican
01-30-2008 7:00 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
What do you want from me?
To quieten down and listen to what you are being told. For you to realise that you are very mistaken about all of this. Nearly everyone repsonding to you is reasonably well grounded in this subject. In my case, it was my profession for ten years.
I see what you mean, hey cavediver?
I'm not the one claiming insight in a field in which I have no experience...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:00 AM pelican has not replied

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


Message 88 of 243 (452364)
01-30-2008 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-30-2008 5:26 AM


energy and mass
Where did the energy come from when splitting the atom?
An equasion has to balance in every respect.
Science Dictionary: E = mc2
An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself. (See relativity.)
Because the speed of light is a very large number and is multiplied by itself, this equation points out how a small amount of matter can release a huge amount of energy, as in a nuclear reaction.
This is proved.
However to obtain a small amount of mass from a huge amount of energy cannot be proved and cannot be tested. I contend that some believe e=mc2 has been verifed by testing and this is not true, only in reverse. It is asserted to be true because it must be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 5:26 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 7:37 AM pelican has not replied

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


Message 89 of 243 (452365)
01-30-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by cavediver
01-30-2008 5:42 AM


don't insult me
The wisest words you have uttered all this thread. There is hope for you. Now apply that humility when you read my post above.
Flattery is the lowest form of sarcasm and I wasn't talking to you. You mistake my honesty for my humility. You wouldn't recognize humility if it bit you up the arse. You don't even rcognise your own arrogance and humility is way underneath all that. regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 5:42 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 7:39 AM pelican has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 243 (452366)
01-30-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by pelican
01-30-2008 2:07 AM


Maybe this proves the whole point of members having misconceptions concerning the meaning of E=MC2.
Well, the main misconceptions that I see among the members right now is that you are not a nut and that you can be reasoned with.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:07 AM pelican 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