Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:25:21 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:13:39 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oh? Let's take a closer look at THIS assertion. You said: "...or his
E=m as c is just a constant in Lintland and can be set to
1.000000000000000 (unitless)."

As often as you have claimed that I stated energy is the same as mass,
I've never said any such thing. I've challenged you to post where I
claimed as much, but to this day you haven't been able to produce even
ONE instance of me stating that energy is the same thing as mass.
And as far as ME saying that "c" "can be set to 1.000000000000000
(unitless)"... well THAT'S a total fabrication on your part and you know
it. In other words, and intentional deceit.
So while you may have stated "some" of my prior claims, you have also
added figments of your own imagination to the mix. Which of course only
leads to the conclusion that I mentioned before... that your comments
cannot be counted upon to be factual, truthful, or an accurate
representation of what was said.
You've cried "Wolf" too many times.

You must be thinking of your post where you stated "energy is mass according
to E=mc^2."

Cliff:

Cliff, Cliff, Cliff, the more you try to extricate yourself - the
deeper you dig the hole you're in.

I looked for the post where you 'claimed' *I* said: "energy is mass
according to E=mc^2.", and I couldn't find it. But then I noticed that
it wasn't ME who said it at all, it was a quote from Wikipedia. Here is
the quote:

And you posted it <G>.
Wick is not always correct nor well-written.
This is true of many things though.

=============================================
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So a photon's moving mass is of course not zero because a photon
carries energy, and energy is mass according to E=mc^2.

And that's just awfull.
Photons are massless.
While m=E/(c^2) may be correct that is NOT "energy is mass" !!

=============================================

So you were incorrect when claiming that *I* said it. A clear case of
misrepresentation.

You claimed it.
I said it was incorrect. You argued otherwise.
The lint probably bought it too.

or the one where you said that "I've said that mass can be
colloquially referred to as "condensed" energy"

I do remember saying that. Since matter CAN be colloquially referred
to as "condensed" energy. That doesn't mean they are the SAME thing.
When a very small amount of matter is converted to energy

"Converted" is probably a poor choice of terms.

it's quite a
bit of energy. Hydrogen and Atom bombs show that quite clearly, at
least to most discerning people.

And, IIRC, you got yourslf in trouble on that too, claiming that
the energy released was almost all in the form of EM radiation.

or the one where you said
"You've been unable to convince me because you're talking nonsense if
you think c^2 is anything but a constant in E=mc^2."

Yes, I said that. Here, let me try to help you out once again since
you never have seemed to understand what the E=mc^2 formula represents,
even after all this time:

================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%5E2

E=mc2 is one of the most famous equations in physics, even to
non-physicists. It states a relationship , even to non-physicists. It
states a relationship between energy (E), in whatever form, and mass
(m). In this formula, c², the square of the speed of light in a vacuum,
is the conversion factor required to formally convert from units of mass
to units of energy, i.e. the 2)m/s 299792458) multiplied by (kilograms)
= m (joules. In unit-specific terms, E (energy per unit mass. In
unit-specific terms, E (joules) = m (kilograms) multiplied by (299792458
m/s)2.

c is not a simple scalar constant <G>.
As I kept telling you.

=================================================================
As can be clearly seen the c^2 is a conversion factor.

Not really. It's part of a relationship with units of it's own.
A simple conversion factor might convert feet to yards (3 feet= 1 yard)
but both feet & yards are measures of length.
E <> K*m.

or the post in which you said "Energy is mass and mass
is energy."

Nope! You're wrong again. *I* never said: "Energy is mass and mass is
energy." This is yet ANOTHER misrepresentation/fabrication on your
part. The phrase is in one or more of my posts because YOU claimed I
said it. Here is one of the exchanges:

================================================================
BottleBob Sez ....:

Energy is mass and mass is energy.

Cliff:

Wrong! I never said energy IS mass, OR that mass IS energy.
Energy
can be converted into mass, and mass into energy. E=mc^2

You kept maintaining your claims though I pointed out otherwise <G>.
Sometimes you waffled, depending on what AUTHORITY you chose
to cut & paste from.
Recall all those posts about units that you never understood?

=================================================================


Or perhaps where you stated "To interpret Einstein's equation E=mc2, we
would say that mass is not equivalent to energy. Mass is energy."


Nope! You're wrong again, ANOTHER misrepresentation/fabrication on
your part. *I* never said: "To interpret Einstein's equation E=mc2, we
would say that mass is not equivalent to energy. Mass is energy."

It was a quote from the Calphysics.org site, here's the site and quote:

You posted it to support your claims. Why would you copy & paste
what you do not grasp? Or NOW think is wrong?
The lint mkes you do thses things? The bad nuns?

(HINT: IIRC Calphysics.org is a crackpot Site anyway).


=======================================================
http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

BEYOND E=mc2

Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda &
H.E. Puthoff

published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6,
November / December 1994, pp. 26-31 copyright 1994, New York Academy of
Sciences (posted with permission)

To interpret Einstein's equation E=mc2, we would say that mass is not
equivalent to
energy. Mass is energy.
======================================================

No wonder you get so confused in our little science chats, you can't
seem to distinguish/remember what was said by whom. Either that or
what's more sinister, is that you're being intentionally deceitful.

I did not post it. You did <G>.
And now you claim that you were just confused?

or
"Of course mass has energy, it's very nature IS condensed energy."

Yes, I said that. Since it's true.

Is it? How would you or anyone else know?
It's a pretty phrase.
But mass & energy do seem to have quite different basic units .... so
not the same at all.

!0 Kg (by mass) of compressed air is compressed air. It's still
air, usually. Might be liquid air .. but still air.

Read, and try to understand, the
Wikipedia excerpt that was posted above. It might be educational if you
read it with an open mind.

It's not that well written & has confused you again.
Copying, pasting & parroting words is not learning or
thinking, BB.

or while
you continued to object to my statements that "Mass is still not energy." and
my statemet that "Energy is STILL not mass nor is mass energy." while
you maintained that "Mass and energy can be interchangeable quantities"
(sort of like "=", right?)

They ARE interchangeable quantities.

Nope. You are AGAIN claiming the m=E and E=m.
See? You JUST DID IT AGAIN.

Remember those atom bombs and
cyclotron experiments where the input of energy increased the mass of
the particles.

But that's not at all m=E OR E=m.
And you are probably wrong about those bombs too <G>

Or when I wrote (in sarcasm) "What happened to E = M*9*10**16 ???"
when you had lost the units of velocity/speed & time and you maintained
that "c^2 is much easier to remember and write, same constant though."

There's a lot more, BB <VBG>.

Like I said before, in all the time you've been trying to claim that
*I* said that mass and energy are the SAME thing you have not been able
to back up that claim with any actual quotes that *I* made.

Such as the ones above?
Don't you know what you post?

Here you
tried once AGAIN and not only failed, but have shown again that you
don't understand what the mass/energy conversion formula actually
represents.

NOT E=m or m=E.

Now while I may cite one or more physics sites as support for a point I
happen to be making at the time, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree
with all the collateral information that may be included within the
quoted material.

Such as exactly what you copied & pasted as YOUR *AUTHORITY*
found with a Google search for the words/wording you want?

Or look at it this way, if I quoted something out of
the Quran that said: to the effect, that all infidels should be
eliminated, that doesn't mean that I agree with those sentiments
either. You have to have at least a LITTLE common sense when reading.

Well, you don't seem to have any at all <G>.

This post of your just confirms what I suggested before, that your
comments
cannot be counted upon to be factual, truthful, or an accurate
representation of what was said.

Even though they were exact quotes of what YOU posted ..... and
even though YOU argued *against* my statements of your errors.

Lintland again I expect .... LOL ...
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... Cliff wrote: ... mass and mass is energy" then fine, ... is the conversion factor required to formally convert from units of mass ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: universal constants in cryptography?
    ... they are really the same thing, one needs a conversion constant. ... to inverse energy. ... there are a few dimensionless constants like pi. ... physical process that its depenence is on mass, ...
    (sci.crypt)