Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: franklinhu on 9 Apr 2010 01:22 On Apr 6, 6:14 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 6, 8:58 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > Tony M wrote: > > > > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > > > > > > > valid? > > > > > > > > In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy > > > > > > > are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain > > > > > > > circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > > > > > > > This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m > > > > > > c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked > > > > > > tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture > > > > > > according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art > > > > > > schools, I guess. <shrug> > > > > > > E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more > > > > > than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. > > > > > > The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical > > > > > variables. That's what equations do. > > > > > > If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some > > > > > sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. > > > > > <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass > > > > of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt > > > > > Sue... > > > > Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note > > > that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces > > > a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are > > > equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe > > "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The > > way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one > > cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of > > energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of > > mass, as per E=mc2. > > > Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit > > misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, > > when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the > > electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass > > before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron > > and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles). > > You don't have photons 'till there is a causally > related absorption somewhere else and AFAIK no more > fundamental particles are known of. > > Not meant to mislead. The story isn't complete > without reversibility and that, thus far seems > to occur only in mathematical models with > pseudo-particles. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea > > Perhaps a rare occasion where PD and I > find a bit of agreement so take a picture > and pinch yourself to ensure you are awake. > > Sue...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Reversability is trival. If you assume a poselectron forms when a positron and electron combine, then reversing it just means you hit the poselectron with enough energy to accelerate the particles to the speed of light = mc^2 and it will separate back into a positron and electron. What could be simpler than that? Who needs a Dirac Sea and pseudo particles? All you need are the particles we know and love (positrons/electrons) and the poselectron which awaits someone to discover which will instantly award them the Nobel prize. Too bad nobody is interested in finding it. I bet you could find it by analysing all the so called "garbage" accelerator collisions looking for signs of a hidden neutral particle coming out of positron/electron reactions.
From: BURT on 9 Apr 2010 01:26 On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 5:58 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > Tony M wrote: > > > > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > > > > > > > valid? > > > > > > > > In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy > > > > > > > are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain > > > > > > > circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > > > > > > > This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m > > > > > > c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked > > > > > > tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture > > > > > > according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art > > > > > > schools, I guess. <shrug> > > > > > > E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more > > > > > than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. > > > > > > The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical > > > > > variables. That's what equations do. > > > > > > If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some > > > > > sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. > > > > > <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass > > > > of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt > > > > > Sue... > > > > Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note > > > that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces > > > a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are > > > equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe > > "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The > > way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one > > cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of > > energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of > > mass, as per E=mc2. > > > Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit > > misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, > > when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the > > electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass > > before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron > > and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles).- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think you have hit the on the main point which is that mass is not > "converted" into energy. You suggested that it gets converted into > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > particle which has yet to be discovered. It has been universally > ignored since it forms the "aether" of space and forms the medium > through which light travels. This is the actual higgs boson which > gives everything mass as well. I have previously suggested ways to > reveal the presence of the poselectron through experiments in my other > posts. > > See my article: > > http://franklinhu.com/emc.html > > I don't understand why you guys totally ignore this most obvious of > suggestions for the meaning of E=mc^2. Too simple for you, huh? > > fhuemc- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Mass is infinitely dense energy C squared in a mathemtical point particle. Particles are infinitely small point energies. Mitch Raemsch
From: Link on 9 Apr 2010 04:14 On Apr 8, 10:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 5:58 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > > Tony M wrote: > > > > > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > > > > > > > > valid? > > > > > > > > > In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy > > > > > > > > are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain > > > > > > > > circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > > > > > > > > This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m > > > > > > > c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked > > > > > > > tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture > > > > > > > according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art > > > > > > > schools, I guess. <shrug> > > > > > > > E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more > > > > > > than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. > > > > > > > The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical > > > > > > variables. That's what equations do. > > > > > > > If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some > > > > > > sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. > > > > > > <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass > > > > > of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note > > > > that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces > > > > a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are > > > > equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe > > > "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The > > > way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one > > > cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of > > > energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of > > > mass, as per E=mc2. > > > > Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit > > > misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, > > > when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the > > > electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass > > > before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron > > > and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles).- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I think you have hit the on the main point which is that mass is not > > "converted" into energy. You suggested that it gets converted into > > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > > particle which has yet to be discovered. It has been universally > > ignored since it forms the "aether" of space and forms the medium > > through which light travels. This is the actual higgs boson which > > gives everything mass as well. I have previously suggested ways to > > reveal the presence of the poselectron through experiments in my other > > posts. > > > See my article: > > >http://franklinhu.com/emc.html > > > I don't understand why you guys totally ignore this most obvious of > > suggestions for the meaning of E=mc^2. Too simple for you, huh? > > > fhuemc- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Mass is infinitely dense energy C squared in a mathemtical point > particle. Particles are infinitely small point energies. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What are the criteria required to meet a scientific definition (or characteristics qualifying) for "infinitely dense" and "infinitely small", please? Thanks, meami.org advertising free Google search platform
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 04:48 On Apr 9, 4:14 am, Link <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 10:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 5:58 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tony M wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > > > > > > > > > valid? > > > > > > > > > > In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy > > > > > > > > > are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain > > > > > > > > > circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > > > > > > > > > This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m > > > > > > > > c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked > > > > > > > > tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture > > > > > > > > according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art > > > > > > > > schools, I guess. <shrug> > > > > > > > > E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more > > > > > > > than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. > > > > > > > > The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical > > > > > > > variables. That's what equations do. > > > > > > > > If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some > > > > > > > sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. > > > > > > > <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass > > > > > > of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt > > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note > > > > > that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces > > > > > a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are > > > > > equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe > > > > "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The > > > > way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one > > > > cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of > > > > energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of > > > > mass, as per E=mc2. > > > > > Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit > > > > misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, > > > > when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the > > > > electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass > > > > before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron > > > > and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles)..- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I think you have hit the on the main point which is that mass is not > > > "converted" into energy. You suggested that it gets converted into > > > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > > > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > > > particle which has yet to be discovered. It has been universally > > > ignored since it forms the "aether" of space and forms the medium > > > through which light travels. This is the actual higgs boson which > > > gives everything mass as well. I have previously suggested ways to > > > reveal the presence of the poselectron through experiments in my other > > > posts. > > > > See my article: > > > >http://franklinhu.com/emc.html > > > > I don't understand why you guys totally ignore this most obvious of > > > suggestions for the meaning of E=mc^2. Too simple for you, huh? > > > > fhuemc- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Mass is infinitely dense energy C squared in a mathemtical point > > particle. Particles are infinitely small point energies. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What are the criteria required to meet a scientific definition (or > characteristics qualifying) for "infinitely dense" and "infinitely > small", please? BURT doesn't know. Half baked slogans come to him through a Ouji board like: 'Light is is the radiation of EM along a path; gravito-inertia is the conservation of EM along a path' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity My Ouji board is better however because it points to clickable references. :-)) Sue... > > Thanks, > > meami.org >
From: Y.Porat on 9 Apr 2010 06:05
On Apr 6, 6:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 11:47 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 10:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> Normally we apply the word "mass" to OBJECTS, not to collections of unbound > > >> objects. In the initial state the electron and the positron EACH have a mass, > > >> and the total mass is 1.022 MeV/c^2. In the final state the gammas each have > > >> zero mass, and the total mass is 0. The total energies of the initial and final > > >> states are the same. The total kinetic energy of the initial state is 0, but the > > >> total kinetic energy of the final state is 1.022 MeV. These units have c=1, and > > >> it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy. > > > > Stating the 'total mass is 0' is misleading. The mass still exists. > > > No. I am using these words with their standard meanings in modern physics. There > > is no mass in that final state. > > > > [... attempt to invoke undefined concepts to "explain" this] > > > Tom Roberts > > MPC says mass is conserved because he says so. > He also says the mass becomes invisible as mass and appears in some > other supposed substance. This occurrence is evidence, for him, of the > existence of the supposed substance. > MPC is a little tetched in the head, perhaps. ------------------ the one that is deteched in head is --PD!! &CO. he cant see that E=mc^2 is mass in motion (kilogram meter ^2/second^2 ) if the professional parrot will say that this m is 'relativistic mass'?? than let the genius PD tell us what is the****Gamma factor*** that makes that m relativistic ???!!! TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ ----------------------- |