 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> E=mc^2
>>
>> Energy and mass are the same thing. You can't take mass and turn it
>> into energy, because it's the same thing.
>
> Bzz bzzt. 'Equivalent' does not mean 'the same thing'. There is a
> definite difference between mass and energy. At the very least, 'mass'
> is a subset of 'energy'.
And what energy isn't mass, then, given that E=mc^2 and c is a constant?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscape net> wrote:
>> Absolutely! It's just that in everydays terms, it's to small to be evaluated
>> using ordinary instruments. Heat is manifested by an increase in the average
>> motion of the atoms around a resting location. More heat = faster and longer
>> movements of the atoms. Faster movement = more kynetic energy.
>
> That sounds a bit like saying that a combustion motor *is* a lightbulb
> because the energy consumed by both can be measureds in watts.
>
> Common properties don't necessarily make to things the same.
They're not the same. But the difference between them isn't the mass.
It's the patterns the mass is moving in, and the interactions.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> They're not the same. But the difference between them isn't the mass.
> It's the patterns the mass is moving in, and the interactions.
You have still refused to answer the question of whether mass can be
converted to other forms of energy.
Saying "no, because mass is energy" is like, when asked the question
"can water be converted into ice", answering "no, because water is ice".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> They're not the same. But the difference between them isn't the mass.
>> It's the patterns the mass is moving in, and the interactions.
>
> You have still refused to answer the question of whether mass can be
> converted to other forms of energy.
>
> Saying "no, because mass is energy" is like, when asked the question
> "can water be converted into ice", answering "no, because water is ice".
All forms of energy are stored as mass. Thus, the only kind of energy is
mass. There are lots of different ways of storing energy in mass (as in,
kinetic energy, heat energy, potential energy, elastic energy, chemical
energy), but they all manifest as mass.
It's like saying "Can H2O be converted into different kinds of water?"
When I say "No, because H2O is water", you say "well, what about Wiki,
that talks about ice and steam and oceans and rain?" They're all H2O.
You can convert rain to steam and steam to ice, but you can't convert
H2O into different kinds of H2O. "Different kinds of energy" are like
"steam" and "rain" and "ice." It's all H2O, so you can't convert water
into different kinds of steam or different kinds of ice.
That's why I said the answer to your question is Mu. It's a category
error to even ask the question. Different kinds of energy are different
arrangements of mass. You can rearrange the mass, but you can't "convert
it to energy".
It's like asking "can you convert photons into different kinds of
electromagnetic radiation?" And then pointing to the Wiki which lists
gamma rays, visible light, and radio waves, and saying "See?"
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It's like saying "Can H2O be converted into different kinds of water?"
> When I say "No, because H2O is water", you say "well, what about Wiki,
> that talks about ice and steam and oceans and rain?" They're all H2O.
> You can convert rain to steam and steam to ice, but you can't convert
> H2O into different kinds of H2O. "Different kinds of energy" are like
> "steam" and "rain" and "ice." It's all H2O, so you can't convert water
> into different kinds of steam or different kinds of ice.
Ah, but there ARE different kinds of H₂O. 2 Deuterium + 1 Oxygen is
still water. XD
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> And what energy isn't mass, then, given that E=mc^2 and c is a constant?
Any energy that isn't in the *form* of mass isn't mass. The end.
You're basically saying that all mathematical figures are the same thing
because they're just different representations of sets of points.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> And what energy isn't mass, then, given that E=mc^2 and c is a constant?
>
> Any energy that isn't in the *form* of mass isn't mass.
Name energy that isn't in the form of mass?
Then explain what E=mc^2 means.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Name energy that isn't in the form of mass?
> Then explain what E=mc^2 means.
Light isn't in the form of mass. Sound isn't in the form of mass.
Electricity isn't in the form of mass. Magnetism isn't in the form of
mass. And so forth.
E=mc^2 means that the amount of energy stored in a given mass can be
determined by multiplying the mass by the speed of light squared. It's
like...a bank account. The number in the bank's computer that says how
much is in the bank account is not the same thing as however many
physical dollar bills and change, but they are treated as equivalent.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Name energy that isn't in the form of mass?
>> Then explain what E=mc^2 means.
>
> Light isn't in the form of mass.
Yes it is. Photons have mass. Indeed, the reason they go the speed of
light is (sloppily speaking) that they are *all* energy, so they *have*
to go the speed of light just to have mass to hold the energy.
> Sound isn't in the form of mass.
The atoms move to make sound. Sound is kinetic energy, which is mass due
to relativistic movement.
> Electricity isn't in the form of mass.
Electrons move, hence kinetic energy, hence mass.
> Magnetism isn't in the form of mass.
Magnetism consists of photons. Photons have mass.
> E=mc^2 means that the amount of energy stored in a given mass can be
> determined by multiplying the mass by the speed of light squared.
Equally, it says that the amount of energy can be determined by
multiplying the amount of mass by the speed of light squared. That's an
equal sign there. That's how relativity works.
Where does the kinetic energy in a moving asteroid go if I accelerate my
spaceship up to the same speed? Does the stationary observer see more
energy than the observer moving at the same speed? Wouldn't that mean
that energy can be created and destroyed at will, just by moving the
observer without changing the experiment? Do you understand why leaving
a gravity well makes you heavier?
I know what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that there is
energy that's not the equivalent of mass, and that E=mc^2 only applies
to mass, not energy. That's incorrect. Intuitive, but incorrect. Really
and truly. That's why it took so long to be accepted.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Name energy that isn't in the form of mass?
>>> Then explain what E=mc^2 means.
>>
>> Light isn't in the form of mass.
>
> Yes it is. Photons have mass. Indeed, the reason they go the speed of
> light is (sloppily speaking) that they are *all* energy, so they *have*
> to go the speed of light just to have mass to hold the energy.
>
>> Sound isn't in the form of mass.
>
> The atoms move to make sound. Sound is kinetic energy, which is mass due
> to relativistic movement.
>
>> Electricity isn't in the form of mass.
>
> Electrons move, hence kinetic energy, hence mass.
>
>> Magnetism isn't in the form of mass.
>
> Magnetism consists of photons. Photons have mass.
>
>> E=mc^2 means that the amount of energy stored in a given mass can be
>> determined by multiplying the mass by the speed of light squared.
>
> Equally, it says that the amount of energy can be determined by
> multiplying the amount of mass by the speed of light squared. That's an
> equal sign there. That's how relativity works.
>
> Where does the kinetic energy in a moving asteroid go if I accelerate my
> spaceship up to the same speed? Does the stationary observer see more
> energy than the observer moving at the same speed? Wouldn't that mean
> that energy can be created and destroyed at will, just by moving the
> observer without changing the experiment? Do you understand why leaving
> a gravity well makes you heavier?
>
> I know what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that there is
> energy that's not the equivalent of mass, and that E=mc^2 only applies
> to mass, not energy.
No, I'm trying to say that...mass is a specific form of energy, as are
all those other forms of energy, but they aren't each other. Sound is
not light, because it has defining properties that are different.
Otherwise we'd just call everything 'energy'. It's like...number sets.
Energy is the set of all numbers, mass is the set of all positive
integers, light is the set of all negative primes, and so forth. You
can convert one to another with a bit of fiddling, but they aren't
congruent subsets.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
