Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: BURT on 7 Apr 2010 23:52 On Apr 7, 8:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 10:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 7:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 7, 10:41 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 7, 4:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 9:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 9:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 3:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 6:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 2:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > The physical effects the expansion of matter transitioning to aether > > > > > > > > > > > has on the neighboring matter and aether manifests itself as energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > '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. > > > > > > > > > > > Why would the universal speed limit squared define the fundamental > > > > > > > > > > energy in mass? > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > It could be the relationship of matter to aether. The equation may be > > > > > > > > > written as: > > > > > > > > > > A=Mc^2, where A is Aether and M is matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Abusing that mathematical truth is important for you to not get away > > > > > > > > with. You do so at your own peril. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > I am simply pointing out there is a relationship to matter and aether > > > > > > > and what we define as 'energy' is the physical effects matter > > > > > > > transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. In > > > > > > > this regard: > > > > > > > > A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > And why do you think this? > > > > > > Because matter and aether are different states of the same material.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Sameness applies to time. Unification applies to light form. Energy > > > > and aether co exist as different physical substances. Time is dark > > > > aether flowing over bright flowing energy. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You are taking sameness to a place it does not belong. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > "Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in > comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field > together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the > epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would > reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter > would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the > whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like > geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation." - Albert > Einstein > > The contrast between aether and matter will fade away, and, through > Aether Displacement, the whole of physics will become a complete > system of thought.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Flow of aether is sameness. Matter is both energy flow and aether called a time form. Mitch Raemsch
From: franklinhu on 9 Apr 2010 01:15 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
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 |