Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: Paul Stowe on 24 Apr 2010 21:03 On Apr 24, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > As for gravity being an offshoot of EM, that would yield unification, now wouldn't it? As it looks to me now, gravity is a second order effect of changes in velocity, as such, the sign force (+/-) disappears, leaving only one opposing vector. It looks now that it is directly related to Grad E, where E is the electric potential. > > > > Even if grad E = 0 the force called "gravity" exists unchanged in any > locally stationary body; and weakens (rather than increasing) as that > body's downward acceleration increases its velocity. > > glird Which E? There is an E field associated with every charge. Even then, the bulk E isn't zero and IIRC at the surface of the Earth the E field is 1.5 V/m...
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 21:13 On Apr 24, 6:03 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As for gravity being an offshoot of EM, that would yield unification, now wouldn't it? As it looks to me now, gravity is a second order effect of changes in velocity, as such, the sign force (+/-) disappears, leaving only one opposing vector. It looks now that it is directly related to Grad E, where E is the electric potential. > > > > > Even if grad E = 0 the force called "gravity" exists unchanged in any > > locally stationary body; and weakens (rather than increasing) as that > > body's downward acceleration increases its velocity. > > > glird > > Which E? There is an E field associated with every charge. Even > then, the bulk E isn't zero and IIRC at the surface of the Earth the E > field is 1.5 V/m... The range for the electric force is sub atomic. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 21:33 On Apr 24, 8:40 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 10:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In E=mc^2, mass is conserved. > > Yes, the mass(amount of matter) IS conserved; even if some of it may > have no weight (in grams) after it is released. > > glird Exactly. What do you weigh the aether with? What do you weigh what is the lowest common denominator of matter with? You can't weigh the aether. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material has mass. Aether and matter have mass.
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 21:38 On Apr 24, 6:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 8:40 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 10:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In E=mc^2, mass is conserved. > > > Yes, the mass(amount of matter) IS conserved; even if some of it may > > have no weight (in grams) after it is released. > > > glird > > Exactly. > > What do you weigh the aether with? > > What do you weigh what is the lowest common denominator of matter > with? > > You can't weigh the aether. > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > The material has mass. > > Aether and matter have mass. Aether is not lowest but the most important denominator. It orders energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 21:52
On Apr 9, 1:14 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: > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Infinitely cconcentrated C squared energy occupies an infinitely small or non zero size point particle. Mass is infinitely dense energy. Then there is spread out energy in field. Mitch Raemsch |