Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 11:18 On Apr 12, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 8:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 12:00 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to > > > > > > > energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't! > > > > > > > It's not any more magical than the conversion of potential energy to > > > > > > kinetic energy. Do you find the law of conservation of energy to be a > > > > > > great mystery that is unexplained until someone explains to you how > > > > > > potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy and vice versa? > > > > > > Are you under the impression that kinetic energy is conserved? Are you > > > > > > under the impression that potential energy is conserved? > > > > > > > > This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions > > > > > > > that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the > > > > > > > way science is to be conducted. > > > > > > > > Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter > > > > > > > converted into energy???? > > > > > > > The difficulty you're having is thinking that mass is conserved, and > > > > > > that if mass is not conserved, then there should be an explanation of > > > > > > why it isn't. > > > > > > > This would be like someone thinking that the number of particles in a > > > > > > system should be conserved, and that if a reaction happens where there > > > > > > are two particles in the initial state and four particles in the final > > > > > > state, someone has to explain how new particles get made to account > > > > > > for particle number being violated. The problem is, there is no law of > > > > > > conservation of number of particles, and so it's foolish to claim that > > > > > > a changing number of particles should be a big mystery. > > > > > > The number of particles as an analogy for the conservation of mass is > > > > > a ridiculously absurd analogy. > > > > > > Mass is conserved. > > > > > This is a religious belief on your part, to the point where you are > > > > willing to invent ways for it to disappear so that it only LOOKS > > > > experimentally like mass is not conserved. > > > > > There is no experimental evidence anywhere that mass is conserved. > > > > > Making up laws of physics you think SHOULD be true is not > > > > constructive. > > > > Now, of course you are going to say wikipedia is incorrect, but if it > > > is incorrect, why don't you, or someone else who believes mass is not > > > conserved fix it? > > > A number of people have. You can look at the edit history of the > > article. > > > One important thing for hacks and amateurs to recognize is that it is > > not the job of physicists to police the content of free stuff you can > > find on the web. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > > > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > > > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > > > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > > > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > > > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > > > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > > > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > > > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > > > of thermodynamics." > > > This is indeed a crappy article. You would do well to start looking at > > better source material. > > I looked through the history but I did not see where this information > was taken out for being inaccurate and then being added back in. Where > did that occur? If this did not occur then this is obviously more of > you absurd nonsense where you obfuscate the truth in order to remain > in your state of delusional denial. What??? You look up free junk on the internet, and unless it is corrected for you, you believe it is true? Try this one: http://www.ufodigest.com/ > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > of thermodynamics." > > The products retain the original mass because the product is aether.
From: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 11:27 On Apr 12, 11:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 9:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 12, 8:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 12:00 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to > > > > > > > > energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't! > > > > > > > > It's not any more magical than the conversion of potential energy to > > > > > > > kinetic energy. Do you find the law of conservation of energy to be a > > > > > > > great mystery that is unexplained until someone explains to you how > > > > > > > potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy and vice versa? > > > > > > > Are you under the impression that kinetic energy is conserved? Are you > > > > > > > under the impression that potential energy is conserved? > > > > > > > > > This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions > > > > > > > > that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the > > > > > > > > way science is to be conducted. > > > > > > > > > Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter > > > > > > > > converted into energy???? > > > > > > > > The difficulty you're having is thinking that mass is conserved, and > > > > > > > that if mass is not conserved, then there should be an explanation of > > > > > > > why it isn't. > > > > > > > > This would be like someone thinking that the number of particles in a > > > > > > > system should be conserved, and that if a reaction happens where there > > > > > > > are two particles in the initial state and four particles in the final > > > > > > > state, someone has to explain how new particles get made to account > > > > > > > for particle number being violated. The problem is, there is no law of > > > > > > > conservation of number of particles, and so it's foolish to claim that > > > > > > > a changing number of particles should be a big mystery. > > > > > > > The number of particles as an analogy for the conservation of mass is > > > > > > a ridiculously absurd analogy. > > > > > > > Mass is conserved. > > > > > > This is a religious belief on your part, to the point where you are > > > > > willing to invent ways for it to disappear so that it only LOOKS > > > > > experimentally like mass is not conserved. > > > > > > There is no experimental evidence anywhere that mass is conserved.. > > > > > > Making up laws of physics you think SHOULD be true is not > > > > > constructive. > > > > > Now, of course you are going to say wikipedia is incorrect, but if it > > > > is incorrect, why don't you, or someone else who believes mass is not > > > > conserved fix it? > > > > A number of people have. You can look at the edit history of the > > > article. > > > > One important thing for hacks and amateurs to recognize is that it is > > > not the job of physicists to police the content of free stuff you can > > > find on the web. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > > > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > > > > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > > > > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > > > > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > > > > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > > > > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > > > > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > > > > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > > > > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > > > > of thermodynamics." > > > > This is indeed a crappy article. You would do well to start looking at > > > better source material. > > > I looked through the history but I did not see where this information > > was taken out for being inaccurate and then being added back in. Where > > did that occur? If this did not occur then this is obviously more of > > you absurd nonsense where you obfuscate the truth in order to remain > > in your state of delusional denial. > > What??? > You look up free junk on the internet, and unless it is corrected for > you, you believe it is true? > Try this one:http://www.ufodigest.com/ > Your statement of the wikipedia mass-energy equivalence article being edited multiple times was implying the sentence, "It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another" was incorrect and had been edited which is not true. "It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another." The mass moving from one location to another is the matter expanding in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics." The products retain the original mass because the product is aether.
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Apr 2010 11:31 franklinhu wrote: > The situation that would be more likely to happen is that you have a e > + and e- separated by some initial distance. Electrostatic attraction > would undoubtedly cause then to acclerate to each other. Now it is an > assumption in my model that no matter how close they are together, > that they gain the speed of light prior to collision. Your model is solidly refuted by observations of e+ annihilation in matter (e.g. PET scanners). The emitted gammas have energies of 511 keV with good accuracy, implying that the kinetic energy of the e+ and e- as they accelerate toward each other is less than a few keV -- essentially negligible [#], and FAR less than the 1.022 MeV you presume. [#] This is negligible because it is less than the energy resolution of the detectors. Note also that in relativity there is no possible amount of "acceleration" that will get them to "gain the speed of light prior to collision". Tom Roberts
From: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 13:51 On Apr 12, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 11:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 8:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 12:00 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to > > > > > > > > > energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't! > > > > > > > > > It's not any more magical than the conversion of potential energy to > > > > > > > > kinetic energy. Do you find the law of conservation of energy to be a > > > > > > > > great mystery that is unexplained until someone explains to you how > > > > > > > > potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy and vice versa? > > > > > > > > Are you under the impression that kinetic energy is conserved? Are you > > > > > > > > under the impression that potential energy is conserved? > > > > > > > > > > This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions > > > > > > > > > that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the > > > > > > > > > way science is to be conducted. > > > > > > > > > > Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter > > > > > > > > > converted into energy???? > > > > > > > > > The difficulty you're having is thinking that mass is conserved, and > > > > > > > > that if mass is not conserved, then there should be an explanation of > > > > > > > > why it isn't. > > > > > > > > > This would be like someone thinking that the number of particles in a > > > > > > > > system should be conserved, and that if a reaction happens where there > > > > > > > > are two particles in the initial state and four particles in the final > > > > > > > > state, someone has to explain how new particles get made to account > > > > > > > > for particle number being violated. The problem is, there is no law of > > > > > > > > conservation of number of particles, and so it's foolish to claim that > > > > > > > > a changing number of particles should be a big mystery. > > > > > > > > The number of particles as an analogy for the conservation of mass is > > > > > > > a ridiculously absurd analogy. > > > > > > > > Mass is conserved. > > > > > > > This is a religious belief on your part, to the point where you are > > > > > > willing to invent ways for it to disappear so that it only LOOKS > > > > > > experimentally like mass is not conserved. > > > > > > > There is no experimental evidence anywhere that mass is conserved. > > > > > > > Making up laws of physics you think SHOULD be true is not > > > > > > constructive. > > > > > > Now, of course you are going to say wikipedia is incorrect, but if it > > > > > is incorrect, why don't you, or someone else who believes mass is not > > > > > conserved fix it? > > > > > A number of people have. You can look at the edit history of the > > > > article. > > > > > One important thing for hacks and amateurs to recognize is that it is > > > > not the job of physicists to police the content of free stuff you can > > > > find on the web. > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > > > > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > > > > > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > > > > > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > > > > > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > > > > > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > > > > > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > > > > > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > > > > > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > > > > > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > > > > > of thermodynamics." > > > > > This is indeed a crappy article. You would do well to start looking at > > > > better source material. > > > > I looked through the history but I did not see where this information > > > was taken out for being inaccurate and then being added back in. Where > > > did that occur? If this did not occur then this is obviously more of > > > you absurd nonsense where you obfuscate the truth in order to remain > > > in your state of delusional denial. > > > What??? > > You look up free junk on the internet, and unless it is corrected for > > you, you believe it is true? > > Try this one:http://www.ufodigest.com/ > > Your statement of the wikipedia mass-energy equivalence article being > edited multiple times was implying the sentence, "It does not imply > that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that > neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one > location to another" was incorrect and had been edited which is not > true. > > "It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern > theory holds that neither mass nor > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another." > > The mass moving from one location to another is the matter expanding > in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > of thermodynamics." > > The products retain the original mass because the product is aether. In AD, the mass moves as aether. In AD, the moving mass is energy.
From: BURT on 12 Apr 2010 15:06
On Apr 12, 10:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 8:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 12:00 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to > > > > > > > > > > energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't! > > > > > > > > > > It's not any more magical than the conversion of potential energy to > > > > > > > > > kinetic energy. Do you find the law of conservation of energy to be a > > > > > > > > > great mystery that is unexplained until someone explains to you how > > > > > > > > > potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy and vice versa? > > > > > > > > > Are you under the impression that kinetic energy is conserved? Are you > > > > > > > > > under the impression that potential energy is conserved? > > > > > > > > > > > This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions > > > > > > > > > > that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the > > > > > > > > > > way science is to be conducted. > > > > > > > > > > > Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter > > > > > > > > > > converted into energy???? > > > > > > > > > > The difficulty you're having is thinking that mass is conserved, and > > > > > > > > > that if mass is not conserved, then there should be an explanation of > > > > > > > > > why it isn't. > > > > > > > > > > This would be like someone thinking that the number of particles in a > > > > > > > > > system should be conserved, and that if a reaction happens where there > > > > > > > > > are two particles in the initial state and four particles in the final > > > > > > > > > state, someone has to explain how new particles get made to account > > > > > > > > > for particle number being violated. The problem is, there is no law of > > > > > > > > > conservation of number of particles, and so it's foolish to claim that > > > > > > > > > a changing number of particles should be a big mystery. > > > > > > > > > The number of particles as an analogy for the conservation of mass is > > > > > > > > a ridiculously absurd analogy. > > > > > > > > > Mass is conserved. > > > > > > > > This is a religious belief on your part, to the point where you are > > > > > > > willing to invent ways for it to disappear so that it only LOOKS > > > > > > > experimentally like mass is not conserved. > > > > > > > > There is no experimental evidence anywhere that mass is conserved. > > > > > > > > Making up laws of physics you think SHOULD be true is not > > > > > > > constructive. > > > > > > > Now, of course you are going to say wikipedia is incorrect, but if it > > > > > > is incorrect, why don't you, or someone else who believes mass is not > > > > > > conserved fix it? > > > > > > A number of people have. You can look at the edit history of the > > > > > article. > > > > > > One important thing for hacks and amateurs to recognize is that it is > > > > > not the job of physicists to police the content of free stuff you can > > > > > find on the web. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > > > > > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > > > > > > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > > > > > > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > > > > > > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > > > > > > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > > > > > > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > > > > > > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > > > > > > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > > > > > > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > > > > > > of thermodynamics." > > > > > > This is indeed a crappy article. You would do well to start looking at > > > > > better source material. > > > > > I looked through the history but I did not see where this information > > > > was taken out for being inaccurate and then being added back in. Where > > > > did that occur? If this did not occur then this is obviously more of > > > > you absurd nonsense where you obfuscate the truth in order to remain > > > > in your state of delusional denial. > > > > What??? > > > You look up free junk on the internet, and unless it is corrected for > > > you, you believe it is true? > > > Try this one:http://www.ufodigest.com/ > > > Your statement of the wikipedia mass-energy equivalence article being > > edited multiple times was implying the sentence, "It does not imply > > that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that > > neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one > > location to another" was incorrect and had been edited which is not > > true. > > > "It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern > > theory holds that neither mass nor > > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another." > > > The mass moving from one location to another is the matter expanding > > in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > > "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in > > whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be > > converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor > > energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. > > In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where > > matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products > > retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass > > energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a > > restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law > > of thermodynamics." > > > The products retain the original mass because the product is aether. > > In AD, the mass moves as aether. > > In AD, the moving mass is energy.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Mass is an infinitely dense point of energy. |