Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:38:42 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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?

So you are saying that you knowingly posted BS again in trying
to support your confused claims?

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.

Not even when I provide exact quotes?

=============================================
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 awful.

IMO, whether it's awful, or not, is of secondary importance

To your claims?
When you post such rubbish as "authority" to support your (& the lint's)
confusion rather than paying attention & thinking?

to the
issue of the ethics of YOU claiming I personally said something which I
didn't.

Then next time don't say it.

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,

You've claimed it several times, BB.

it was quoted material from an
attributed outside source.

Which you were using as your authority figure to
support your own confused claims.

This is typical of conservatives & fundies.

They don't need to know anything, think or try to
understand much as they can just quote some "authority figure"
to support about anything.
Then go back to Lintland.
Bad nuns have done you in as I long ago spotted (see my first
posts on you & Aristotle & the lint).


Don't tell me you are unable to distinguish
the difference?

Between you & bad nun confusion?
Hard to tell at times.

How about next time you just say "Here's my confused argument
& claims backed by these "authorities" that used words I don't understand
and are probaby wrong anyway as I just used Google to search for
the words the lint whisperd in my ear"?

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?

Not as "="
E <> m.
Your claims make as much sense as saying that momentum can be
converted into time or energy into distance.
IOW: None.

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.

Your lint acting up again?

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.

Nope. 6 is a simple scalar constant
So is 3 as in 1 yard = 3 feet.

E<> 6*m.
E <> 9*10^10 *m either.

It's a simple conversion factor to change mass (in
kilograms), to Energy (in joules).

IT HAS UNITS !
Vector distance, time ....

REread the Wikepedia article above
again.

You should try it sometime.

If you don't like Wik,

Where it VERY CLEARLY said "relationship"?
But part of it is not as well written as it might be as it
clearly assumes that you know far more than *you* do already.

It does NOT say that E=m in ANY SYSTEM OF UNITS AT ALL.

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.)

So what?

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


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.

You don't get to toss out things like meters/second.

Consider E=m*c^2 and E =(m*v^2)/2
You have units of mass, "distance" & time on BOTH SIDES or the
"=" sign.
Thus it must remain.
BTW, In the two above "E" is mostly being *defined* s
what it is. Mostly.

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."

Generally speaking, if A=B then B=A.
Let a few nuns know <G>.

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".

Which one do you think that you claimed so many times?

You were wrong to claim I did.

And now you would claim that the other is wrong (or just that you
don't know what "=" means)?

And here you are STILL trying to claim *I* said it after I just showed
you that your "evidence" is/was baseless. LOL

Make up your mind.

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.

You posted it to support your claims.
IOW You posted it *as part of your claims*.

Are you now denying your claims?

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.

So no nuns or Aristotle to cloud your "thinking"?

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.

Your later material you posted to support your earlier claims <G>.
Or are you now claiming that you never knew what any of it was about
to begin with?

What are YOUR claims TODAY?

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.

<Sheesh>
So if you burn a tree fire is trees?

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 I know what it's about <G>.

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.

Ev/(c^2) IS NOT ENERGY !!
Ev is. But it's not mass.

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

Because they know what they are refering to in the later case and
are just using sort of shorthand notation (leaving some symbols out).
They know. You are confused by the words & terms.

For example, an electron and a positron,

Positron is an electron with a reversed time vector <G>.
Or the converse.

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.

More shorthand. Don't get confused.

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


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.

Try to grasp the subject now & then for a change.
[
You are AGAIN claiming the m=E and E=m.
See? You JUST DID IT AGAIN.
]

If
you serve no other purpose in this world it's to make people try and be
less ambiguous in their writing.

Better that you should know what it's about in the first place & not
get confused like poor jb <g>.
Or at least be willing to learn & put the lint in the doghouse.

Old dogs & nuns ...

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.

But you argue otherwise when corrected ... how very odd.

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.

I don't think you know or knew what you posted about. Even simple
units & vectors cause endless confusion <G>.

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.

Not at all in the sense of m=E OR E=m.

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.

I fear for the lint.

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.

See above <G>.

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.

I found many quotes.
Perhaps you need to search out your *first* statements
which you have been trying to support for a longish time?
I only sampled a few of the later ones for your enjoyment <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 .....

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.

<Snort>
--
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)