Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:57 On Apr 6, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 8:14 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > You don't have photons 'till there is a causally > > related absorption somewhere else and AFAIK no more > > fundamental particles are known of. > > Fascinating. So let's see if I have this right. > The sun has a certain power output, which corresponds to a certain > number of photons per second by a rather straightforward calculation. > But only a fraction of them are ever absorbed, and only a fraction of > those are identified in an Earth laboratory as being photons. > According to you, we are permitted to presume that the photons that > are absorbed somewhere else are in fact photons, but that the ones > that are not absorbed at all are not photons. So if the bulk of the > sun's power output is not carried away by photons, then by what is all > that energy carried? No, all fotòns are virtval; interactions are carried by plasmòns.
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:02 On Apr 6, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Tony M wrote: > > 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. > > Again this depends on the meanings of your words, including nuances. With > standard meanings we do say "mass is converted into kinetic energy". See below. When there's a dative postdicand (This is English sýntacs, so there is no predicand.), the genitive is often omitted: mass converts to cinetic energhy fro potential energhy. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:10 On Apr 6, 11:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is > located." > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > the wave. This classic/popular model of the mote is wrong; the mote is everywhere between its Coulomb radius and de Sitter radius--it is at its univers. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:44 On Apr 9, 1:48 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 9, 4:14 am, Link <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 8, 10:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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? I guys? Dumbass. > > > > 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? > > BURT doesn't know. Half baked slogans come to > him through a Ouji board like: > > 'Light is is the radiation of EM along a path; > gravito-inertia is the conservation of EM > along a path'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity Uh, isn't this Casimir effect? > My Ouji board is better however because it > points to clickable references. :-)) Ouija--there is no Weejee.
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:48
On Apr 9, 9:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 4:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Your theory will be better once you lose the 'poselectron'. > > > "[The ether] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which > > allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." - Albert > > Einstein > > > When an electron and positron 'annihilate' each other they return to > > their base state of aether. > Anti matter doesn't exist and the scientists are going to be > emberassed about that. > For example how can an anti electron make it through the atmosphere? > Mitch Raemsch if it's hýpervolic |