Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:01 On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 8:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > franklinhu wrote: > > > "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. > > > Such a HEAVY "poselectron" could not possibly be missed. The production of such > > a particle in e+ e- annihilation would COMPLETELY invalidate the observed > > conservation of energy in this annihilation. > > > You really ought to learn what is already known about such things before > > attempting to postulate new stuff. > > > Tom Roberts > > You ought to at least read the article I have in the previous post. In > it, you would find that matter and energy are conserved abosolutely, > never "converted" as in your idea of "conservation" which is really a > conversion. > > The energy which is actually conserved is the kinetic energy gained by > the positron and electron as they are accelerated to the speed of > light as they collide. When they collide, their velocity becomes zero > and in order to conserve the energy of the collision which is 1/2mc^2 > +1/2mc^2, it releases it as an electromagnetic wave with energy mc^2. > See, energy is absolutely conserved. The original positron and > electron are not destroyed. They are instead converted into a nearly > impossible to detect neutral particle. The presence of the resultant > particle in no way implies that less energy should result from the > original collision as you would imply in your so called "conservation" > of energy. > > Explain me one thing - just how does matter turn into energy and how > does energy turn into matter? Can't explain that, can you - no one > can. Actually, it's pretty straightforward. Any process which respects conservation laws is permitted. If you look at the Feynman diagrams of electron-positron annihilation, all conservation laws are respected. The key question is what you think would *prevent* matter being converted to energy, since all conservation laws are respected? > > This the so called "science" that you tell me to learn about. Nothing > to learn about here, science has no clue how the conversion happens, > so I choose not to believe it and come up with my alternate > explanation which doesn't require any such magical conversion. > > As an analogy, consider fish scientists swimming in water performing > and experiment with hydrogen and oxygen. They observe the > "annhiliation" of hydrogen and oxygen which produces only energy. They > cannot observe anything but "empty" space which looks exactly like the > empty space that existed before the reaction. Similarly, if they run > electricity through "empty" space, it produces oxygen and hydrogen. So > they conclude that matter and energy convert to each other. That would > be a silly conclusion wouldn't it? A conclusion as silly as the one > that we are making that matter and energy convert into each other.
From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:03 On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > This the so called "science" that you tell me to learn about. Nothing > to learn about here, science has no clue how the conversion happens, > so I choose not to believe it and come up with my alternate > explanation which doesn't require any such magical conversion. > This is the fundamental mistake that is made by many a crank. "I *choose* not to believe it, because it does not make sense given my set of preconceptions about how nature should work. Rather than believe it, I will instead invent another model that does fit my set of preconceptions and therefore makes sense to me." This is not how science works or should work. PD
From: J. Clarke on 10 Apr 2010 15:02 On 4/9/2010 11:53 PM, franklinhu wrote: > On Apr 9, 8:26 am, Tom Roberts<tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> franklinhu wrote: >>> "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. >> >> Such a HEAVY "poselectron" could not possibly be missed. The production of such >> a particle in e+ e- annihilation would COMPLETELY invalidate the observed >> conservation of energy in this annihilation. >> >> You really ought to learn what is already known about such things before >> attempting to postulate new stuff. >> >> Tom Roberts > > You ought to at least read the article I have in the previous post. In > it, you would find that matter and energy are conserved abosolutely, > never "converted" as in your idea of "conservation" which is really a > conversion. > > The energy which is actually conserved is the kinetic energy gained by > the positron and electron as they are accelerated to the speed of > light as they collide. When they collide, their velocity becomes zero > and in order to conserve the energy of the collision which is 1/2mc^2 > +1/2mc^2, it releases it as an electromagnetic wave with energy mc^2. > See, energy is absolutely conserved. The original positron and > electron are not destroyed. They are instead converted into a nearly > impossible to detect neutral particle. The presence of the resultant > particle in no way implies that less energy should result from the > original collision as you would imply in your so called "conservation" > of energy. > > Explain me one thing - just how does matter turn into energy and how > does energy turn into matter? Can't explain that, can you - no one > can. > > This the so called "science" that you tell me to learn about. Nothing > to learn about here, science has no clue how the conversion happens, > so I choose not to believe it and come up with my alternate > explanation which doesn't require any such magical conversion. > > As an analogy, consider fish scientists swimming in water performing > and experiment with hydrogen and oxygen. They observe the > "annhiliation" of hydrogen and oxygen which produces only energy. They > cannot observe anything but "empty" space which looks exactly like the > empty space that existed before the reaction. Similarly, if they run > electricity through "empty" space, it produces oxygen and hydrogen. So > they conclude that matter and energy convert to each other. That would > be a silly conclusion wouldn't it? A conclusion as silly as the one > that we are making that matter and energy convert into each other. How does your model explain the mass defect in chemical and nuclear reactions?
From: BURT on 10 Apr 2010 16:17 On Apr 10, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > This the so called "science" that you tell me to learn about. Nothing > > to learn about here, science has no clue how the conversion happens, > > so I choose not to believe it and come up with my alternate > > explanation which doesn't require any such magical conversion. > > This is the fundamental mistake that is made by many a crank. > "I *choose* not to believe it, because it does not make sense given my > set of preconceptions about how nature should work. Rather than > believe it, I will instead invent another model that does fit my set > of preconceptions and therefore makes sense to me." > This is not how science works or should work. > > PD Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit PD? Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 10 Apr 2010 21:22
On Apr 9, 3:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ------------------------ > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gamma is absolute math. |