Re: 100 Years of E=mc2


PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:


1 ith ebase for my new claim that mass is conserved goe sl*** this

if we look at the formula E=mc^2
there ar eonly TWO physical entities ther m and c
c by itself is certainly not energy
so ??
the second term there m is waht gives the 'c' the entity orf enery
actually we can fraze it in many ways
and even you could suggest how to fraze it but theidea and logic of it
is undemyable
we can say that both m and c are THE components of energy
(i refrain from saying my old claim that energy is mass inmotion
because you will imediately and authomatically willreject it (:-)
so you cant deny that c without m is not energy
so you cant dismiss the indespensible of m in that entity that i
scalled energy

No. One cannot look at an equation and say that the left hand side is
composed of the things on the right hand side. That's NOT what an
equation is intended to tell you. For example, Newton's second law is
sometimes written as F = ma. But in no way are you to take from this
that force is *composed* somehow of mass and acceleration. It is not.
The force *causes* acceleration, and the relationship between *how
much* force and *how much* acceleration is given by that relation in
the equation.

If you read equations like X = Y*Z to mean "X is made of Y and Z", then
this is part of your fundamental misunderstanding.
-------------------------
that i sth e misunderstanding of **yourse*

th emost you can sy is that energy might have some other presentatins
BUT YOU CANNOT DENY THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE PRESENTATIONS IS THAT
ENERGY IS Mc^2!!

A and realy yo cant seperate in that case mass fome c^2
but at th esame tine you cannot IGNORE THE m in that formula
and say it deos not existe there as a component !!
mc^ i smore detailes than E!!!
so mc^2 presentation
is the moere ADNAVCED AND LESS ABSTARCT PRESENTATION (of just E)
it took hundreds of years tomove FORWARDS from just E to E=mc^2
!!!!!!!

if you diont undesrant that golearn mor ephysics
but not as a pompous partronazing parrot but as a physicist !!
------------------------

do you accept that general abstract insight ??
later we can get into detailes
but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle

2
the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
right ??

It most certainly is not. I don't know where you got the impression
that it is universal.
---------------
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------

PD

.

Quantcast