Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 19:40 On Apr 12, 3:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Matter and aether are different states of the same material. The material has mass. Mass density is the amount of material per volume.
From: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 19:47 On Apr 12, 3:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Mass is an infinitely dense point of energy. Matter and aether are different states of the same material. The material has mass. Mass density is the amount of material per volume. 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 moving mass is aether. In AD, the moving aether is energy.
From: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 20:27 On Apr 12, 8:23 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 3:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Mass is an infinitely dense point of energy. > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. > > > The material has mass. > > > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>  >  No aether Yes aether http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf "A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine- tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible interactions with matter and radiation." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence "quin·tes·sence â â/kwɪnËtÉsÉns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA ânoun 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance. 2. the most perfect embodiment of something. 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element, ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies" A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the known universe is aether as a one something. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is the pure essence of matter. "quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible interactions with matter" Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter. The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as gravity. Matter and aether are different states of the same material. The material has mass. Mass density is the amount of material per volume. 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 âconvertedâ 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. Massâ 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 moving mass is aether. In AD, the moving aether is energy.
From: spudnik on 13 Apr 2010 13:21 it seems that MPC# et al believe that c is not a speedlimit of the meidum of space, once we get rid of Pascal's perfect vacuum discovery. thus quoth: 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". thus: just because the Einsteinmaniacs insist -- including herr doktor-professor E., when he was presented with an article at his office in Caltech -- that Michelson and Morley got "null reults," does not mean that hte principle of relativity is wrong, Galilean or "Einsteinian." the only criterium for a phenomenon that needs any thing faster than teh dystrubance called light, is "science fiction." > > Everyone but you takes that for granted. It is implicit in > > calculations using Galilieoan/Newtonian relative or vector velocities. > > i.e Total distance (D +or- d) is proportional to the relative > > velocity (V +or- v) or the vectorial velocity. . --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: BURT on 13 Apr 2010 16:59
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 - Fundamanetal energy comes from the square of the universal speed limit. Mitch Raemsch |