Mass-Energy Equivalence [Math]

Prev: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th Edition Incropera, DeWitt Solutions Manual
Next: From the book: "How to Succeed in College Mathematics - A Guide for the College Mathematics Student", Richard M. Dahlke, Ph.D., 2008.

From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 09:36

On Apr 12, 12:43 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(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
>
> > Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit PD?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, why the value of C? Why not some other big number like a
> 6.02X10^23 or 5 or 3C or some random number?
>
> Strangely, it is exactly C - always C, never anything else. What on
> earth does that have to do with matter?

You are under the illusion that c represents something other than it
is.
It is a *conversion* factor that is an accident of historical and
arbitrary assignment of units. The relationship between meters and
seconds is no more physical than the relationship between meters and
miles. In a *physically* sensible system of units (so-called natural
units, and you can look them up), the value of c is 1.

Asking why c appears in E=mc^2 is like asking why 4pi appears in
Coulomb's law or why 16.387 appears in an expression between cubic
centimeters and cubic inches. It is an *arbitrary* artifact of the
units we have chosen for m and for E.

>
> I can easily explain what C is doing there. When positron/electron
> collide, the accelerate to C, the maximum universal speed limit. That
> is why C appears in E=MC^2. It is just part of the newtonian kinetic
> energy formula KE=1/2Mv^2 where v = C.
>
> Now you can be like Tom and claim "duh, we'll never know", but that is
> a cop out.

From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 09:41

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.

>
> No changing the subject now ....

From: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 09:55

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.

Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter
expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter
increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect
this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy.

What do you think you are witnessing when you watch a video of an
atomic bomb explode? You are going to answer you are watching mass
convert to energy.

What you are watching is the physical effect matter expanding in
volume as it transitions to aether has on the neighboring matter and
aether:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16heorrfsgY

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

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 12 Apr 2010 10:33

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.

>
> Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter
> expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter
> increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect
> this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy.
>
> What do you think you are witnessing when you watch a video of an
> atomic bomb explode? You are going to answer you are watching mass
> convert to energy.
>
> What you are watching is the physical effect matter expanding in
> volume as it transitions to aether has on the neighboring matter and
> aether:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16heorrfsgY
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> 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: mpc755 on 12 Apr 2010 10:49

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?

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.

>
>
> > Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter
> > expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter
> > increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect
> > this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy.
>
> > What do you think you are witnessing when you watch a video of an
> > atomic bomb explode? You are going to answer you are watching mass
> > convert to energy.
>
> > What you are watching is the physical effect matter expanding in
> > volume as it transitions to aether has on the neighboring matter and
> > aether:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16heorrfsgY
>
> > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > 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.
>
>