Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 14:03 On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for your comments. I asked the question because when I > was taught the mass-energy equivalence principle, back in high-school > physics, they only presented it in the context of nuclear fusion/ > fission reactions. I wanted to confirm for myself that it has general > applicability to all the other "conventional" forms of energy, and > more than that, a change in energy literally means a change in mass, > without exception, and it's not just a "loose correspondence" like > someone here said. The magnitude of the change is irrelevant as I do > not plan to measure it. It was a purely theoretical question. The post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory called Aether Displacement. The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions to aether is energy. Just to be clear, the post you are responding to is not generally accepted, to date. Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: PD on 5 Apr 2010 14:18 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.
From: Sue... on 5 Apr 2010 14:30 On Apr 4, 1:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt Relativistic particle dynamics http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html Sue...
From: Sue... on 5 Apr 2010 14:35 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...
From: PD on 5 Apr 2010 14:40
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. |