Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Sep 2006 11:34:49 -0700
Y.Porat wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:evn if yiou take th ebefore and after analysis you get the same
Y.Porat wrote:> > > > Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
fundamental misundersytanding and over smatguying-------------------
PD
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
That's not what the equation says. E=mc^2 does NOT say:
"Where there is energy, there is also mass. And where there is mass
there is also energy."
This has been pointed out to before.
It is a relationship between *before* and *after* states.
If you have mass *before*, then this can be converted to energy
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also energy before and also
mass after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
If you have energy *before*, then this can be converted to mass
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also mass before and also
energy after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
And no, this does NOT mean that if E is conserved, then m is conserved
as well.
Why? Because E=mc^2 does not represent the *total* energy of a system.
Recall that there are many contributions to energy (electrostatic
potential, linear kinetic, stochastic kinetic, rotational kinetic,
etc...) and it is only the *sum* of all contributions to the energy
that is conserved. An individual contribution (such as conversion from
rest mass) is NOT individually conserved, any more than electrostatic
potential energy is individually conserved.
Fundamental misunderstandings of the conservation laws, Porat.
PD
------------------------
allenergies can be described by mc^2
including the EM
it can be as well mv^2 but that is the same arguemnt there
even momentum is the same argument
you have p=mc
if p is conserves than m must be
it is a simple result iof the equation
the trouble with you that you never before thought about that argument
(nore me (:-) it was cooked jsut now before your eys ...)
so oplease save us the patronizing remarkes such as
' a total misunderstanding etc '
because it might come back to you as a boomerang
we are not here with psychologic war
we disscuss physics even if it is new orriginal and surpriosingly
simple ideas !!
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
supose a compleax process in which youhave particles in
and out energy and other particles
you can always tarsalte it all to mc^2 in both sides of in and out
paticles can be transtaled to the equivalent mc^2)
.
and you will get tha the altogether in mass is exactly as the
altogethjer out mass
using the E=mc^2
am i right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Unfortunately, Porat, your last two messages were so badly mangled in
the English that I can't make enough sense of them to respond.
PD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- References:
- 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: physics . einstein
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: PD
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: PD
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: PD
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: PD
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- From: Y.Porat
- 100 Years of E=mc2
- Prev by Date: Re: Do h and hbar contain mass?
- Next by Date: Re: It Won't Be Space Travel
- Previous by thread: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- Next by thread: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
