Physical Explanation for E=mc^2
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
Next: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely youcan't be serious.
From: mpc755 on 13 Feb 2010 15:14 On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > '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 certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*. Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to measure it with. As Einstein said, all we can do is measure the state of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its connections to the matter and the state of the matter in neighboring places. When a body gives off energy and its mass diminishes the overall mass in existence in the universe remains constant. > Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but > where you can still choose to believe it still exists? > > > 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. > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > >
From: BURT on 13 Feb 2010 15:16 On Feb 13, 12:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > '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 certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*. > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to > measure it with. As Einstein said, all we can do is measure the state > of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its > connections to the matter and the state of the matter in neighboring > places. > > When a body gives off energy and its mass diminishes the overall mass > in existence in the universe remains constant. > > > > > Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but > > where you can still choose to believe it still exists? > > > > 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. > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > matter and aether in neighboring places.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The state of the aether is its two rates and flow. Immaterial flows over energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 15:26 On Feb 13, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 9:34 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > '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. > > > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > > > Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without > > > > ever remotely mentioning your silly aether. > > > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > surrounding matter and aether. > > > > I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > > > matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with > > > the matter? Did it disappear? > > > Yes. That's what mass-energy conversion MEANS. Mass becomes energy and > > is no longer mass. > > > There is no law of nature that says matter is conserved. > > > Mass is a *measurable* quantity. If you measure a system's mass, and > > some of it is converted into energy, you can *measure* the difference > > by measuring the mass again and SEEING that it no longer the same > > number as before. That is, you can SEE with your very own eyes that > > mass is not a conserved quantity. You don't have to lie to yourself > > that the mass is still there but hidden somewhere, and invent some > > stupid aether just to have some place to hide it. > > When you say you measure a system's mass you are not taking into > account the aether which exists within and outside of the system. When I say I *measure* the system's mass, I mean I *measure* it. Perhaps it would be good if you would specify how to make the mass measurement in such a way that the aether stored in the mass is included in the measurement. Please note that taking a measured number and fudging it by adding something that is not measured but is just guessed at, is scientific fraud. > When > matter is converted to energy the mass of the system is less but the > overall mass in existence in the universe remains the same.
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 15:35 On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > '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 certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*. > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to > measure it with. Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but you CHOOSE to believe it anyway. Do you believe in invisible gremlins too? > As Einstein said, all we can do is measure the state > of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its > connections to the matter and the state of the matter in neighboring > places. > > When a body gives off energy and its mass diminishes the overall mass > in existence in the universe remains constant. > > > Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but > > where you can still choose to believe it still exists? > > > > 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. > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > >
From: mpc755 on 13 Feb 2010 15:39
On Feb 13, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 10:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:34 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > '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. > > > > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > > > > Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without > > > > > ever remotely mentioning your silly aether. > > > > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > surrounding matter and aether. > > > > > I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > > > > matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with > > > > the matter? Did it disappear? > > > > Yes. That's what mass-energy conversion MEANS. Mass becomes energy and > > > is no longer mass. > > > > There is no law of nature that says matter is conserved. > > > > Mass is a *measurable* quantity. If you measure a system's mass, and > > > some of it is converted into energy, you can *measure* the difference > > > by measuring the mass again and SEEING that it no longer the same > > > number as before. That is, you can SEE with your very own eyes that > > > mass is not a conserved quantity. You don't have to lie to yourself > > > that the mass is still there but hidden somewhere, and invent some > > > stupid aether just to have some place to hide it. > > > When you say you measure a system's mass you are not taking into > > account the aether which exists within and outside of the system. > > When I say I *measure* the system's mass, I mean I *measure* it. > Perhaps it would be good if you would specify how to make the mass > measurement in such a way that the aether stored in the mass is > included in the measurement. You can't measure the mass of the aether. What you can measure is the state of the aether. For example, let's say you existed in water and it was physically impossible for you to detect or measure the water directly. All you could do was measure the state of the water based upon the state of the matter in the water. The matter in the water is an ice cube. As the ice cube melts it will give off energy and the mass of the ice cube will diminish but the overall mass in existence remains the same. You measure the state of the water by measuring the energy and the state of the ice cube. |