Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert



Cliff wrote:

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


Cliff:

So now you're trying to change your original erroneous accusation from
claiming that *I* SAID it, to simply I POSTED it?

Cliff:

I guess there's one positive effect of you taking time to write these
mishmashes of Cliffphysics posts of yours... it takes time away from
those replies that drag in political kooks from all over usenet that
trash the newsgroup due to your crossposting. LMAO!


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

Nope. I not saying that at all. I'm saying that *I* didn't state the
things you claimed I did (this of course, concerns the disputed quotes).


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?

But you DIDN'T provide any exact quotes that *I* made (we're talking
about the disputed quotes now). You're just CLAIMING you did when the
facts showed quite clearly that they were otherwise.


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.

Then next time don't say it.

*I didn't. That's the central point here. You claimed I said "energy
is mass according
to E=mc^2." but when challenged to come up with a post that had ME
making that direct quote, you couldn't do it. The first time you did
this could be attributed to a simple mistake in searching, but TO
CONTINUE to repeat the SAME untrue claim after being shown that it
wasn't *I* that said it, but a part of copied Wikipedia material brings
into question your ethics, honesty, and integrity since you are
repeating something you now KNOW to untrue.

If you find some other place where I personally stated that "Energy is
mass and mass is energy" then fine, post it. But to repeat your current
baseless, and untrue claim that I said it does not reflect favorably
upon you Cliff ol' buddy.

I'm going to delete the stuff we've gone over and over before, since
it's obviously pointless to rehash things that you're unable/unwilling
to support with credible physics sites.



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

Not as "="
E <> m.

Why have you Cliffvoided the question? Can mass be "changed" or
"converted" into energy? Yes or No?


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

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



==============================================================================
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?

Take special note in the above material of this part:
"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."



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

You claimed that units of mass and energy are different. I just showed
that in particle physics they use electron volts as units of energy and
electron volts/c^2 for mass. Opps there's that pesky c^2 conversion
factor you say can't be used again. LOL


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

Is this more Cliffphysics? LOL *IF* positrons were created going
backwards in time then how could we ever experimentally determine
they're existence and manipulate them in our forward flowing time
universe? Think about it.

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

Today, positrons are routinely produced in Positron Emission Tomography
(PET) scanners used in hospitals and in accelerator physics laboratories
used in electron-positron collider experiments.
===============================================================================


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

*I'm* not the one who thinks and has stated that momentum *FORCES* an
object to remain stationary, AND then goes on to simultaneously claim
that momentum is not a force. LOL



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

I fear for the lint.

The question too difficult for you? Let's try it again: Where do you
think nuclear energy comes from if not the conversion of matter to
energy?


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.

But you haven't YET found any direct quotes of mine that said "Energy
is matter and matter is energy".


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.


Cliff, why don't you find a productive hobby of some sort and quit
wasting everyone's time in here.

--
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: 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)