If matter is the same as energy, then...

Who cares? Stop evading the issue, the OP is all about whether matter is the same as energy... well yes it is, with one snag, the mass term requires a conversion factor. This not only makes the dimensions of \(E = Mc^2\) accurate on both sides, but it tells you why you get so much energy from mass. It's because loosely-speaking, mass and energy are different forms of each other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You either have a reading or comprehension problem since he stated nothing of the sort.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the source of your error.

Yes, you've committed a fallacy.

That's incorrect.

That's your shortcoming, not mine.

That's what you are saying.

As I said before, science is "trolling" you (correcting you). Nothing more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was to correct Motor Daddy's errors. Yours are:

which is incorrect.

It changes the meaning of the formula.

If such a conversion could ever take place. Now go figure out how to do that and you'll be a step closer to the science.

When you learn science, you can avoid the fudge words.

Now, clean up your error about the meaning of c[sup]2[/sup] and you'll be almost rehabiitated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you have reading problems?

''energy is equal to mass [[[[when]]]] the mass term has a coefficient conversion factor.''

If you don't understand what that means, then you probably shouldn't be discussing things like this on a science forum.

 

Again, you don't understand what you are saying. Energy has a time component, Energy=Power*Time. Energy is a sum total of the past power that was produced and consumed over a duration of time. You don't make mass out of that. It's like saying you can make mass out of the power that was produced and consumed over the last ten minutes. The ten minutes are gone, it's in the past. All you are doing is calculating how much power was consumed over a duration of time, which is energy.

I can make a snowball if I produce power over a duration of time (energy). The snowball is simply an artifact of what was produced with the power over a duration of time. It has nothing to do with the total energy that was produced, which only a fraction went into making the snowball. Sweat was a by-product of the power and time, and the snowball does NOT contain sweat! You can not transform that snowball back into the pizza I ate to produce the heat required to make that snowball, nor does it contain the sum total energy of that pizza if 100% efficiency was achieved transforming that pizza into heat!!!

 

Motor Daddy,

Your formulas are incomplete since they only apply to special cases.

So far the factual predicate that remains standing is this: energy is converted into matter in a collider. Nothing you've said refutes this.

 

Energy is not converted, it is a measure of POWER TIMES TIME! Do you not understand what you are saying??

 

Your statement is incorrect. Because we are posting the physics and math forum, you are stuck with a higher standard. You have to make statements that are factually correct, or suffer the indignity of being proven wrong. In this case, you are failing to address the meaning of c[sup]2[/sup], which is not a conversion factor. Something had to happen to that chunk of mass that's being transformed into energy. Until you grasp this, you aren't even at the 1st year level of science, and in no position to evaluating the competency of the folks who are years ahead of you.

 

As I said before your formulas are incomplete since they only apply to special cases. Also, they're irrelevant.

In order to disabuse the other guy of his error, I will stop using the word "convert" and I'll start saying "transform" or "transmute".

In a collider matter is created from energy. Learn this, and you are one step closer to the truth that eludes you.

 

lol!


What do you mean c^2 is not a conversion factor? It converts the mass into energy through the proper units.


.... ''So the speed of light squared is the conversion factor that decides just''

source http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html



(And there are plenty more sources which agree with me!)




ps. You are either misinformed, (resulting in not fully understanding what E=Mc^2), or you are drunk, or you are simply trolling. Which is it?

 

You're full of it! Energy=Power*Time. You can't name one single example of energy that can't be derived from that equation.

Mass, distance, and time!

 

Roughly, yes. Generally higher octane = slightly lower energy overall.

If combustion was complete yes.

When combustion is complete. yes.

No.

Matter has mass. However they are not the same thing; matter is a state, mass is a quantity. In E=MC^2, the M refers to mass.

That's a good definition. So you can say an amount of gas has an energy value equal to the energy released when it is burned. However, gasoline is not equal to fire.

Mass and matter are not interchangeable; neither are the words "equivalent" and "equal." "Equivalent" means comparably equal in some ways - the amount of energy, the cost etc. "Equal" means they are the same.

$20,000 may be equivalent to the cost of a new car. A $20,000 pile of money is not equal to a new car. It would be hard to drive, for example.
A gallon of gasoline may be equivalent to 33.41 kilowatt-hours of energy. However, you could not plug your air conditioner into a gallon of gas, because gasoline is not equal to electrical energy.

Oh, definitely. Some people enjoy using this forum to try to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else. Gives them an ego boost I imagine.

 

Thank you Aqueous ID. Most times my lower level of education and limited vocabulary severely stunt my expression of understanding.
I was honestly not trying to "Troll" billvon - it just seemed to me that he was "picking and choosing where and when to twist things in his favor".
With 20/20 hindsight, I see what you pointed out.
Your ability to articulate your thoughts and point out my errors in logic or understanding of the finer details of my "mass/matter - equivalence/equal" position have in no way caused me to feel any level of "huffiness".
At some point in my life I finally realized that learning and the path to knowledge is indeed a lifelong endeavor. I have often said that the more I learn, the more I realize that there is even more that I need and hope to learn.
Thank you, again.

 

No, something physical has to happen to the matter to convert it into energy.

Ok now we just might get somewhere. First let's read that cite in its context:

Even NOVA has to resort to child-speak from time to time since they are addressing an audience which includes folks whose science literacy is below par.

But way to quote mine.

Now, to understand why the things you've said are in no way supported by the cite you gave, compare to the scientific pedagogical method for understanding your error here.

Notice that c[sup]2[/sup] is not a mere "conversion factor" as you keep insisting. It has actual physical interpretation. This was my original point, which still stands despite your resistance to it. Again, this is a science board, so expect some actual science to come up from time to time.

 

You're welcome! You actually brought up a good point, something that some of the cranks probably missed. It's easy to forget how many kinds of energy there are and which applies to a given physical case. All in all the arguments don't matter too much, as long as people come together in common understanding like we have here.

:cheers:

 

Mr. billvon, sorry if I misunderstood or misconstrued what you were saying or doing in your posts. It is very hard, for myself, to follow really intelligent peoples ideas or true meanings, just from what they choose to write.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble of responding to my questions.
At an early age, I learned that I had a very vivid and somewhat strange imagination. I also learned that, for whatever reason, I did not seem to think quite the same as, what I perceived to be, the majority of other people.
I constantly get impressions from events, things, people, perceived actions and so forth - I try to clarify or sort out said "impressions" from outside of myself, instead of from inside myself, because that is where my "impressions" come from.
Which is why I asked; "Is it just me?".
Thank you for your reply.

 

Your formula is incomplete. And yes it's restricted. There are three classes of energy problems it won't solve

(1) mass-energy equivalence, as in the creation of matter from energy in a collider
(2) any system in which power has no relevance or physical interpretation, such as chemical bond energy
(3) any case in which power varies over time, for which you need calculus.

 

There is no "mass-energy" equivelence. What do you think I've been telling you all this time??

A "bond" is NOT an energy. Energy=POWER*TIME! Do you know what POWER is??

Power=Work/Time, so while the power of an engine, for example, may vary over time, the TOTAL WORK/TIME TIMES TIME is equal to the energy. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

That you either did not read or understand this simple explanation I mentioned.

I said bond energy.

You've restricted it to your limited understanding. It's not complete and not relevant to mass-energy equivalence or the other cases I listed.

You've limited this to average mechanical power, for the case where the Work is constant. It has no relevance to the cases I listed, certainly not to the OP.