Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert



Cliff wrote:

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


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>.

Cliff:

So now you're trying to change your original erroneous accusation from
claiming that *I* SAID it, to simply I POSTED it? That's an huge
difference there Cliff ol' buddy. Heck, I even repost YOUR own
Cliffphysics meanderings when replying, that STILL doesn't mean *I*
wrote it as you claimed.

=============================================
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.

IMO, whether it's awful, or not, is of secondary importance to the
issue of the ethics of YOU claiming I personally said something which I
didn't.


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

You claimed it.

Nope. It wasn't *MY* claim at all, it was quoted material from an
attributed outside source. Don't tell me you are unable to distinguish
the difference?


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.

Can mass be "changed" or "converted" into energy? Yes or No?


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.

It seems that the "impetus" or "cause" of any nuclear related release
of radiant energy or kinetic energy of particulate matter is the change
of mass to energy.


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.

Yes it is. It's a simple conversion factor to change mass (in
kilograms), to Energy (in joules). REread the Wikepedia article above
again. If you don't like Wik, let's look at a different site one that
has an excerpt in Einstein's own words and an excerpt from the
accompanying text portion:

==============================================================================
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/legacy.html

Why, then, do you have to square the speed of light? It has to do with
the nature of energy. When something is moving four times as fast as
something else, it doesn't have four times the energy but rather 16
times the energy?in other words, that figure is squared. So the speed of
light squared is the conversion factor that decides just how much energy
lies captured within a walnut or any other chunk of matter. And because
the speed of light squared is a huge number?448,900,000,000,000,000 in
units of mph?the amount of energy bound up into even the smallest mass
is truly mind-boggling (see The Power of Tiny Things.)
===============================================================================


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.

Yes really.


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>.

THE point IS, that I never said: "Energy is mass and mass is energy".
You were wrong to claim I did.
And here you are STILL trying to claim *I* said it after I just showed
you that your "evidence" is/was baseless. LOL



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.

THE point IS, that *I* never said it as you have repeatedly and
erroneously claimed. I may have posted quoted material that said it,
but that's a different matter entirely.



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?

I posted it, yes. But *I* didn't say it, now did I.

And just WHO is confused again? You're the one who doesn't seem to be
able to discern the difference between direct personal quotes and quoted
and attributed material.


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?

By changing a small amount of mass into a large amount of energy,
a-la-atomic bombs or nuclear reactors.

It's a pretty phrase.

I'd say I made it up, but I'm sure I must have heard it or seen it
written before.

But mass & energy do seem to have quite different basic units .... so
not the same at all.

We went through this before for a bazillion posts, is your memory
failing you now as well? Electron volts (divided by c^2), can be used
as the measure of mass as well as energy.

==============================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt

Using electronvolts to measure mass

Albert Einstein reasoned that energy is equivalent to (rest) mass, as
famously expressed in the formula E=mc² (1 kg = 90 petajoules). It is
thus common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often
interchanged, to use eV/c² or even simply eV as a unit of mass.

For example, an electron and a positron, each with a mass of 0.511
MeV/c², can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy. The proton (which
is a member of the baryon family of particles) has a mass of 0.938 GeV,
making GeV a very convenient unit of mass for particle physics.
================================================================================


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.

LOL I swear Cliff, IF there is ANY way to misunderstand, misconstrue,
or distort what someone says you're certainly the guy to find it. If
you serve no other purpose in this world it's to make people try and be
less ambiguous in their writing. But newsgroup posts are not published
scientific papers where every word is subject to intense peer review.
We're just chatting here, so a little leeway in precise word usage is
generally acceptable for the sake of understanding the main points that
are being made.

My comment that mass and energy are "interchangeable" quantities was
meant in the sense that they are "interconvertable" (can be changed from
one to the other), NOT that the TERMS are interchangable.


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.

Those are graphic examples that mass can be converted to energy and
that energy can be converted to mass.

And you are probably wrong about those bombs too <G>

OH? And just where do you think nuclear energy comes from if not the
conversion of matter to energy.


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?

Show me ONE quote where *I* said mass is energy and energy is mass.
Not a quote from an outside source, or one of your infamous
misrepresentations.


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.

I never suggested it did. And you've not been able to support your
claim that I said anything of the kind.


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 .....

Again, personal quotes are NOT the same as posting attributed quoted
material. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to work on
discerning the difference.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
.

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: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... it wasn't ME who said it at all, it was a quote from Wikipedia. ... 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. ... is the conversion factor required to formally convert from units of mass ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)