Jump to content

E=mc^2


Ville502
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

1 gm of mass is not relative to to every 1 gm of mass.

What does "not relative to" mean?

18 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

1 gm of mass X has an energy that is not equal to that of mass Y.

True (as long as X is not equal to Y).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

AMEN.  So can we rewrite my homies equation and fix (m)? Then make it absolute? Not just theory?

I have no idea what that means. What do you mean by "fix (m)"?

What do you mean by "make it absolute"?

What do you mean by "Not just theory"? The equation e=mc2 has been tested and found to be correct.

What do you mean by "1 gm of mass is not relative to to every 1 gm of mass"? Every 1gm of mass is equal to every other 1gm of mass. But I don't know what "relative to" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ville502 said:

1 gm of mass X has an energy that is not equal to that of mass Y.

Trying to understand; do you mean that 1g on some substance X has another energy than 1g of some other substance Y? That is not what  E=mc^2 states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Could you be confusing chemical energy with the energy content of mass?  The Free energy of different compounds and material does vary-- but that only involves a portion of the total energy.

I think you might be right. It looks like the OP needs to first understand that an electron and a positron during annihilation produces the same ammount of energy regardless whether it comes from Plutonium 239 or skimmed milk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ville502 said:

AMEN.  So can we rewrite my homies equation and fix (m)? Then make it absolute? Not just theory?

Like strange, I'm not sure what you mean here.  If you are referring to E=mc2,  there is no need to "fix" m.  "m" in this equation already means the "rest" or invariant mass, which is a quantity all frames agree on.   E=mc2 is a special case equation for dealing with the energy equivalence of the rest mass of a system.

For other situations, such as when the mass we are considering is moving with respect to the observer frame, you have to use the more general equation:

E = sqrt(p2c2+m2c4)

where m is the still the invariant mass.  p is the relativistic momentum.

Sometimes the "effective" mass of a system include the mass equivalence of the "binding energies" holding the system together.

So for example, with the short-lived arrangement called "positronium", which consists of a electron and proton bound together in a manner similar to the way a proton and electron are bound together in a hydrogen atom,  the "mass" of the pair is greater than what you would get if you just consider the rest masses of the electron and proton.  You would get more energy from the eventual annihilation of positonium than you would from just a electron and positron that were just sitting next to each other.*

As to "just theory". You have to understand that in science, "theory" means something different than it does in general everyday use.   A theory in science is a rigorous model and is it an honor to have your ideas rise to the level where they are accepted as being a theory. ( Sometimes people think that there is a hierarchy which put "laws" above "theories" and that all "true" theories will eventually become laws.  This isn't the case. Laws are just expressions of observed relationships or phenomenon. So for example, we have Kepler's laws of planetary motion. But these are just descriptions of the behaviors we see in planets.  It wasn't until Newton developed his "theory" of gravity that we got an explanation for that behavior. And while some laws are well entrenched and pretty much considered inviolate ( the law of conservation of momentum), there are other laws that are only considered accurate over a restricted range (Boyle's law)

* such a arrangement of a positron and electron just sitting next to each other is not likely to occur.  More likely you will have the two particles approaching each other and drawn together. So to get the energy released you would have to account for the momentum of each of the particles at the moment of annihilation as per the equation given above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is then you, this site, and those like you are in trouble. I pray i get to see you, and the species of.... Die. No more human beings.... Ever.  People in space will evolve and no longer be human... crunch the numbers ;) There will be no peace as long as where told we can't build the tower of Babel....

 1 gram of NH4NO3 Vs 1gram of C6H12O6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2019 at 4:31 AM, koti said:

I think you might be right. It looks like the OP needs to first understand that an electron and a positron during annihilation produces the same ammount of energy regardless whether it comes from Plutonium 239 or skimmed milk. 

No matter what electron shell it is in?

Electron\positron... Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ville502 said:

If it is then you, this site, and those like you are in trouble. I pray i get to see you, and the species of.... Die. No more human beings.... Ever.  People in space will evolve and no longer be human... crunch the numbers ;) There will be no peace as long as where told we can't build the tower of Babel....

Maybe you could answer the questions about your idea instead of adding more confusion? 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ville502 said:

1 gram of NH4NO3 Vs 1gram of C6H12O6

The mass is identical, even if the chemistry is different.

In the case of energy released by chemical reactions the equation e=mc2 relates to the difference in mass before and after the reaction, not the mass of material you start with.

The only way of completely converting mass to energy is by combining matter and antimatter. In that case, it would not matter what the 1 gram was; the energy created would be the same in all cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

The mass is identical, even if the chemistry is different.

In the case of energy released by chemical reactions the equation e=mc2 relates to the difference in mass before and after the reaction, not the mass of material you start with.

The only way of completely converting mass to energy is by combining matter and antimatter. In that case, it would not matter what the 1 gram was; the energy created would be the same in all cases.

Eliminate all theory's and prove everything! SHOW ME THE SPEED OF LIGHT, A RESTING VALENCE ELECTRON, SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED, TIME IN THE DIMENSION OF LENGTH WIDTH AND HEIGHT, 

 

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

The mass is identical, even if the chemistry is different.

In the case of energy released by chemical reactions the equation e=mc2 relates to the difference in mass before and after the reaction, not the mass of material you start with.

The only way of completely converting mass to energy is by combining matter and antimatter. In that case, it would not matter what the 1 gram was; the energy created would be the same in all cases.

So EVERY object with the same resting mass has the same ENERGY?   (don't that just sound bogus?)   P.S. I'm trying to find the greatest energy to "harvest"... Plus we,(or i'll try and do it) need to get this energy available to everyone before it's just becomes a bomb.  RT 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

Eliminate all theory's and prove everything! SHOW ME THE SPEED OF LIGHT, A RESTING VALENCE ELECTRON, SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED, TIME IN THE DIMENSION OF LENGTH WIDTH AND HEIGHT, 

Eliminating scientific theories would be rather counter productive? Without any of our current rigorous models concepts such as "speed of light" and "valence electrons" will loose their meaning.

 

On 10/12/2019 at 10:14 PM, Ville502 said:

Try'n to find like minded individuals....

You might be more successful if you care to explain what you are speculating about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

SHOW ME THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH5W6xEeY5U

Quote

SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED

It's just a number. It can be cubed too you know.
 

Quote

TIME IN THE DIMENSION OF LENGTH WIDTH AND HEIGHT

Touch your nose and then your ancle with your finger. Measure with the other hand with a stopwatch how long it takes you to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

The mass is identical, even if the chemistry is different.

In the case of energy released by chemical reactions the equation e=mc2 relates to the difference in mass before and after the reaction, not the mass of material you start with.

The only way of completely converting mass to energy is by combining matter and antimatter. In that case, it would not matter what the 1 gram was; the energy created would be the same in all cases.

RESTING MASS IS NOT A REAL NUMBER!!! YOU WILL NOT BE USING ATOMIC PARTICLES IN A STATE OF REST! THE CHARGE AND THE PARTICLE ITSELF WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

Just now, koti said:

Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH5W6xEeY5U

It's just a number. It can be cubed too you know.
 

Touch your nose and then your ancle with your finger. Measure with the other hand with a stopwatch how long it takes you to do that.

SHOW ME YOUR FUNCTION TO GET "TIME"!

 

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Eliminating scientific theories would be rather counter productive? Without any of our current rigorous models concepts such as "speed of light" and "valence electrons" will loose their meaning.

 

You might be more successful if you care to explain what you are speculating about.

IM JUST SAYING THEORY FROM THIS POINT ON IS NO GOOD. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABLE TO BE PROVEN. TAKE THEORY AND FAITH BACK TO THE CHURCH :0

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

IM JUST SAYING THEORY FROM THIS POINT ON IS NO GOOD. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABLE TO BE PROVEN. TAKE THEORY AND FAITH BACK TO THE CHURCH :0

I think you missed the explanation about scientific theory above. In physics theories are not proven, theories are supported by evidence. Or rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously, speed of light is a speculated number, can't be proven. but; it's being used as a constant varible in many formulas leaving every one ... let's just say off. It's like when HARP rounded off their numbers...

Just now, Ghideon said:

I think you missed the explanation about scientific theory above. In physics theories are not proven, theories are supported by evidence. Or rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.

 

YES SIR!! My point exactly!! This is the day and time we prove everything and have nothing but truth. No more theory. but;' we gots to get off our simple minded solution way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

This is the day and time we prove everything and have nothing but truth. No more theory.

For "proof" and "truth" you maybe want start a topic in the mathematics section. But you still will need scientific theories such as group theory or number theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, koti said:

Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH5W6xEeY5U

It's just a number. It can be cubed too you know.
 

Touch your nose and then your ancle with your finger. Measure with the other hand with a stopwatch how long it takes you to do that.

my nose has a mass, finger also. There will be velocity involved. My finger will move through the medium to rendezvous with my nose based on is trajectory. No time involved, just; mass, velocity, speed, trajectory, vectors, magnitude, force, .... what else?   What if "time" were to be measured in volume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

Eliminate all theory's and prove everything!

A theory is the closest thing you get to a proof in science.

22 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

RESTING MASS IS NOT A REAL NUMBER!!! YOU WILL NOT BE USING ATOMIC PARTICLES IN A STATE OF REST! THE CHARGE AND THE PARTICLE ITSELF WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

In which case, you can add in the kinetic energy, as well. (Without shouting.)

9 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

seriously, speed of light is a speculated number, can't be proven.

No, it's a measured number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

For "proof" and "truth" you maybe want start a topic in the mathematics section. But you still will need scientific theories such as group theory or number theory.

Thank you. this is my homework so i came here first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.