If matter is the same as energy, then...
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
More nonsense from a liberal arts major.
Ahem, I never said it was a ''mere conversion factor'' I said it was [a] conversion factor, unto which you started the flame war saying it wasn't even a conversion factor. I am quite aware of what you have said concerning this matter and more than aware this was your cue to apologize and that you had made a mistake.
things in motion experience kinetic energy - matter has energy when in motion and on top of this matter is a type of concentrated energy. Matter is not stationary energy - matter is never stationary at the fundamental level. Energy is a function of velocity meaning that energy increases as the velocity increases which adds to it's inertial mass, to an observer who might observe the system. Energy is matter in motion? That doesn't make sense, what you mean is that energy is added to systems with an increase in motion... motion always occurs for particles which have mass, there is no thing as a real absolute rest for any quantum system.
Except when they don't.
Except when it's not.
Except that it's not.
Except when you're not.
No, until you can articulate the simple explanation I mentioned, your characterization of c² remains incorrect and misleading. "Mere" accounts for your omissions and "flaming" characterizes your attitude toward physics.
You're talking salad. Simple.
I told you, there was nothing wrong with my sentence. Energy becomes an equality with mass when there is a coefficient of a conversion factor....
You then said the speed of light squared was not a conversion factor and that is where my error laid. You need to go take a rest or something because you're not only able to keep up with `the conversation you can't even remember what part of that conversation you disagreed with. There is nothing misleading in the statement when I am making it clear, E=M is false. My sentence clearly stated time and time again that it requires a conversion factor... you know that thing you said wasn't a conversion factor and i had to search the web to prove you wrong after all your rambling!
I'm grabbing my popcorn...
Look I'm sure there are many exceptions to matter being considered stationary and energy being considered in motion. For instance when a particle of light(energy) is absorbed by anything it exists as potential energy in matter. This is a simple inference that can be made from Einsten's paper on the propagation of light.
Except that it's not since there isn't. First there is mass, then something happens, then there is energy. Unlike units conversion, there is a physical transformation that takes place. Therein lies the rub.
I actually said
No response. Assumed admitted.
No answer. Assumed admitted.
No answer. Assumed admitted.
No answer. Assumed to deny this.
The question here is what is the correspondence between mass and energy which Einstein discovered was related to c[sup]2[/sup]. You dropped the ball when you minimized the significance of c[sup]2[/sup]. It actually means something.
Until you can articulate the difference between units conversion and physical relationship between matter and energy, the rest is all useless hyperbole. Give us something we can use. Explain how matter and energy physically relate to one another and why c appears in this expression at all. It's a velocity. Why a velocity? Why this velocity? It's squared. Why? Lacking a physical interpretation of a formula reduces it to empty words. The question is: can you or can you not articulate what the formula means vs what it says?
Are you really reiku? I was supposing you might be either Motor Daddy, Reality Check, Farsight, PartyBoy, QuantumWave or Prof. Layman. Sometimes I think these are all one person. Like him/them, you are very strident about telling us what science is not rather than what science is.
That covers many papers. But Einstein of all people would first insist that you declare a reference frame against which all motion is considered relative or stationary.
As for the photon-electron interaction, it's probably not that useful to differentiate potential and kinetic energy. "Radiant energy" vs "electron energy" is more to the point. From radiation we get electromagnetics and from electron energy we get chemistry. At that point we're able address nature in practical terms.
Aqueous, you're lying to yourself if you think my statement about the conversion factor implied there was no physical meaning... afterall, I had said that the conversion factor takes into account how much energy is extracted from the system. You're trying to derail this thread with things I never said, then implying things which I never did also.
Also, did you or did you not make the statement that c^2 was not a conversion factor? I am still awaiting to hear some recognition of your own mistakes!
Also, did you or did you not make the statement that c^2 was not a conversion factor? I am still awaiting to hear some recognition of your own mistakes!
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Another statement of yours which supports my belief that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. I tell you constantly what science is, and you repeatedly ignore. When you figure this out let me know. When you can disprove that let me know. Until then I'll just assume as I have been that you are just another Einstein groupie at an Einstein love fest, which has been going on for a century. Not nearly as long as the Jesus love fest, though not unlike it in that faith in your hero is the standard.
How many times must your misconceptions, as demonstrated by that illustration, be pointed out to you before it finally sinks in. I am afraid the answer is never...:shrug:
Quod erat demonstrandum.
I'm letting you know.
IOW anyone who ever bothered to read science.
Oh, let's not limit ourselves to Einstein. Let's go back to Planck and that whole motley crew. I mean, just look at how they handled the ultraviolet catastrophe, for crying out loud.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Except when energy is being added. Or not. The point of this is why does m = E / c² ? . . . as it was originally posed.
That question is the Rubicon you cross by reducing c² to a coefficient or conversion factor.
The rails of this thread were laid by Eram, origin and billvon. The rest is trying to keep the stakes in the ground as you set the charges.
Make no mistake, there is a kind of conversion involved, but it's properly called the Lorentz Transformation. It's a long, long way from where your train is headed . . . reiku?
If there was a misunderstanding, maybe we can finally start on an equal footing... but there are a few things I wish to talk about concerning this latest post.
you said ''Now we're getting somewhere.'' You quoted this, but I never said at any time that the conversion factor had no physical meaning which is why I was distressed at you saying I was implying it had no physical meaning. For instance...
the notation $$M$$ has a physical meaning, $$E=M$$ has a physical meaning but it is nonsense due to their inconsistent dimensional analysis on both sides of the equation, therefore, $$c^2$$, whilst being a conversional factor, must add a physical significance. I never said it didn't... you assumed I thought it didn't and that is a big difference. That is your fault. Not really mine because I didn't think I'd need to explain that $$Mc^2$$ was a product of mass and the speed of light squared was a physical manifestation.
You ask an important question...
''Except when energy is being added. Or not. The point of this is why does m = E / c² ?''
The answer is not simple, but can be simply explained in the correct way. The mass is equal to the energy over the speed of light squared because of the equivalence between the conversion factor. But in the real world, the world we can try and understand why mass is all about this, is that mass cannot be devoid without energy, the speed of light then becomes a ratio - and important division which gives you the correct amount of mass the system will contain.
''Make no mistake, there is a kind of conversion involved, but it's properly called the Lorentz Transformation.''
True, but you can prove that in many different ways, such as a binomial expansion.
The conversion factor however, is highly important; important in the sense that it is easier to see why mass and energy are different forms of the same entity. All very physical stuff.
Isn't it according to the Big Bang scenario, that all space and energy were created 'ex nihilo'? And isn't it the further scenario that the matter was made from the energy when the energy density and environment was 'cool' enough in distribution over that space to allow 'matter' forms of that initial energy to form and remain stable in configuration/cohesion within limited volumes of the energy-space still around it? And isn't it the 'energy given out' from two or more matter-energy type forms (particles) that allows a 'stable bond' to form? And isn't the energy that went into a particular reaction centre volume (energy density) that determines what particles (if any) are formed from that energy? And isn't it 'non-matter' energy that is radiated from the 'matter' energy available in electron pair-annihilation at an event centre (or the reverse in pair creation?), and not the energy of any 'bonds'? And is it not the 'input energy' to -a composite particle that 'breaks the bond' by giving the arrangement sufficient additional energy to raise its excitation state sufficient to 'break' the bond and hence add energy such that 'the bond energy' was then actually and logically an absence of energy needed to be supplied to break that lower level excitation state 'bond', and not a 'energy of bond' as such?
My naive understanding is not so far getting what exactly you are arguing over, A-Id. Would you please clarify exactly what you want to "correct" ChessMaster and others about if you would be so kind. Thanks.
Isn't it against the rules to try and bait and inflame others? Isn't it against the rules to bring personal baggage of your own into someone else's scientific discussion? Please stop trying to poison a thread by bringing your own personal politics and childish accusations into it. If you don't stop it, you will brand yourself as the troll, and can be rightfully treated with suspicion and your comments taken as from a troll. The scientific point is its own 'personality', and according to the site rules, and to the Scientific Method requirement, should be discussed on its own merits or otherwise, objectively; without you trying to characterize that scientific point according to the 'source' of it (whether present or past persons) who came up with it for discussion, not for personal baiting and trolling. Thanks for your cooperation in future.
Last edited:
Yes I am sure it is against the rules to do such things... I am sure the moderators are more than aware of any details which might (but won't) convict me of these accusations. You see, this has really stemmed from one post and post alone I decided to write up because I read a thread of Reiku's and saw a merit in some of the equations. That is not meant to be a free ticket mind you to make the accusations he has done.
Thank you, shows me that perhaps after all, some people here uphold what the place is all about. discrimination is a crime, dishonesty is a fallacy.