Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Previous message: TomGee: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Jan 2005 21:12:51 -0800
David Thomson wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1105987489.994449.20930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Dave, you do not truly understand what E=mc^2 is; it is not an
> > equivalency equation.
>
> Tom, apparently you don't understand what E=mc^2 is, either. We both
agree
> that it is not an equation. We both know that it is used as an
equation in
> modern physics. We both know that everywhere there are scientists
and
> teachers who teach the world that energy is equal to or equivalent to
> matter. And don't tell me that E=mc^2 is not the true form of the
> equivalency equation, because that is exactly what is taught in the
> mainstream.
>
> > It is a formula used to determine the amount of
> > energy in a given mass.
>
> That's the problem, isn't it? There is no energy in a given mass!
Energy
> is work. There is no work being done prior to the work being done.
Well, since you put it that way, let me put it another way: It is a
formula used to determine the amount of _potential_ energy inherent in
a given mass.
> What's
> more, mass is merely a dimension. There is no such physical thing as
mass.
> The illusion of massive objects arises from the dimension of mass
being
> acted upon by force.
No, mass in physics is not a dimension. A dimension is a "property
defining physical quantity: any of a group of properties or magnitudes,
such as mass or time, that collectively define a physical
quantity."(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved). Thus, Dave, mass has
dimension, but it is not _a_ dimension because dimension is the
property of a mass which defines its physical quantity. It defines the
physical quantity of a given mass; it is not a definition of mass
itself. Your latter statement is somewhat closer to the correct usage
of dimension when you say, "The illusion...arises from the dimension of
mass being acted upon by force." There, you are saying that the
physical quantity of a mass is being acted upon. That may be a fine
line, but it is a line, nonetheless.
In physics, mass is a physical quantity. "It is the property of an
object that is a measure of its inertia, the amount of matter it
contains, and its influence in a gravitational field."(Microsoft®
Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.)
> But most of what occurs in the Universe is not due to
> the mass dimension in the first place, it is due to the strong charge
> dimension, which modern physics doesn't even recognize. A rock is a
bunch
> of subatomic particles held together primarily by the strong force in
its
> several manifestations (strong nuclear force, magnetism, Casimir
force, Van
> der Waals force and possibly others).
>
> When there is a nuclear exposion, the mass dimension doesn't
disappear into
> energy. It gets transferred out in photons, gamma rays, beta
particles,
> alpha particles, neutrinos, and various isotopes. Energy does not
exist as
> a real thing. Energy is merely the intensity of the action of the
photons,
> gamma rays, beta particles, alpha particles, neutrinos, and various
> isotopes.
>
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Capacity is the ability
to do or experience something. So you are correct in saying that
energy does not exist as a real thing. But to say that energy is an
intensity of action is defining the magnitude or strength of its
source. It is not a definition of energy, it is only defining
quantities of energy.
> So there is no mass per se because mass is merely a dimension, and
there is
> no energy per se because energy is merely the quantification of work.
>
> Also, you speak of "a given mass" as though mass were equal to
matter. Mass
> is not matter. Mass is only one dimension of matter.
>
> > The relationship it reveals between mass and
> > energy is not that they are equivalent, but that they are
> > interdependent. Thus the extent of what the formula claims is that
> > where there is energy, there must also be mass, and vice-versa.
>
> This is pure nonsense. Calculate the energy in 40 ohms of
resistance.
> Resistance also has mass.
That's news to me. Resistance is a math construct, defined in physics
as a: " force opposing another force: a force that opposes or slows
down another force", and also as: "electricity opposition to an
electric current: the opposition that a circuit, component, or
substance presents to the flow of electricity. (Microsoft® Encarta®
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved).
>
> Further, you're changing the word "equivalent" for "interdependent"
and
> using them both in the same context.
>
I am? How so?
> > It's too bad that scientists pushed the idea of equivalency to
their
> > students instead of calling the formula what is really is. I think
> > that was because they themselves thought it was an equivalency
> > equation, which shows how stupid they were (and some still are).
Goes
> > to show how dumb some teachers are who never question what they
have
> > been taught.
>
> Exactly. That's my beef, right there. There is no harm in setting
up an
> expression. But you can't turn around and use the expression as an
> equation. I'm glad we are in agreement on this point.
>
>
Yes, me too.
TomGee
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Previous message: TomGee: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
