Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
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
From: mpc755 on 13 Apr 2010 23:23 On Apr 13, 4:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Fundamanetal energy comes from the square of the universal speed > limit. > > Mitch Raemsch 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. 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 from one location to another as aether. In AD, the moved aether is more correctly described as displaced. In AD, the displacement of aether and the associated waves in the aether is energy.
From: spudnik on 14 Apr 2010 16:48 from a reference perusing a cite, it seems that the paper was by Dicke; I read *of* this in a bound set of journals, possibly not at Caltech (a-hem). > herr doktor-professor E., when he was presented > with an article at his office in Caltech -- that thus: tripolar co-ordinates are not euler direction cosines, which is just a homogenous form of vectorial direction in space. > Non-Abelian tables (such as most Clifford algebras) do not give > additive angles. As it is difficult to find compact expressions for > the sizes of groups with over 12 elements, I have only defined a few > larger polar duals. thus: darn; I thought, from the header, you were using a multiplier of 7 ... and that made me realize, the professors who do that, are subverting the "big Oh" and "little oh" formalism. that partition of the triplet is so important, vuz Brun's constant! > for x,y > 7, twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y) > where twins is the prime twins counting function, > where 3,5,7 is considered as 2 twins. thus: just because it was British, I'd assume that the folks at E.Anglia did this, on purpose. "global" warming is almost & assiduously all computerized simulacra, and extremely limited reporting, about glaciers e.g. > >http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm thus: to recap my reply to the TEDdies comments (as I am still listening to B.Greene's pop-sci talk ... zzzz), first of all, Minkowski made a silly slogan about ordinary phase-space, then he died. thank you! > http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html thus: they were just at the library auditorium, selling the electromags to cure depression.... beats the heck out of electroconvulsing, but I missed the refreshments! thus: I didn't get the gist of the CBS reportage, although it seemed to be literate & wikipediaized (yeeha .-) seemed like "more decimal points," although there was a (wikip.) bibliographic note referring to Dicke -- I think, it was his paper that Einstein saw on one of his rare visits to his Caltech office, and pooh-poohed, regarding the predominant redshifitng of the heavens. thus: and, if at the centerof Sun is an iron core, the theory might have to be revized (don't laugh; not only was this a mainstream theory at one time, it may not have been laid to rest (in current research)). thus: Rob, you uneducated, global-warmed-over bog-creature -- did you create any oil, today?... seriously, that was amuzing about the cancellation-of-submission. reminds me of the time that Popular Science made an on-the-wayside attack upon S. Fred Singer; at the time they were owned by Times-Mirror, the then-owner of the LAtribcoTimes. the article was nominally and visually an aggrandizement of three professors (and taht could have included one of my own, at UCLA) of a theory about climate, which had been celebrated already (I think) with a Nobel. they included a mug-shot of the good doctor, along with no mention of his vitae; alas! thus: the Skeptics were a Greek cult in the Roman Pantheon, along with the Peripatetics, the Gnostics, the Solipsists etc. ad vomitorium; as long as the Emperor was the Top doG, you were left to your beliefs (til, of course, Jesus -- after it became the state church). thus: virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order -- is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is, historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization). I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with, that *no* database shows "overall" warming -- not that the climate is not changing, rapidly, in the Anthropocene. thus: instead, we should blame Pascal for discovering, experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, with a German thrown-in for "triality." > of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, > via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- > a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, > "the photon." well, and/or "the aether," > necessitated by "the vacuum." --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:51
On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > The pattern above is: given a definite object (or volume contained in an > enclosure), when you put more energy into the object (or enclosure) the mass of > the object (or of the enclosure and contents) increases. Without that, it is not > possible to apply the "equivalence" in any sensible manner. "Enclosure" is a bit > too strong, as the example of the coil illustrates (the magnetic field of the > coil is not enclosed by the coil, but is rigidly connected to it) -- it is more > like "connected" than "enclosed". > > Note that lifting an object to higher altitude does not put more energy into the > object; in some sense, speaking loosely and in Newtonian terms, that is putting > energy into the gravitational field, not into the object itself. equivalent -> concurrent If energhy is between two bodies, then so is mass. (Mach's princip) -Aut |