Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert



Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:15:24 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

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

Cliff:

Just thought I'd clean up some loose ends while I had some extra time.

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.

Exact quotes of what you had posted.

Is this an official retraction on your part? So you're finally
admitting that the quotes in question that you attributed to ME, really
weren't? I accept your apology.


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."

Nope.

Nope what? You claimed I said: "energy is mass according to E=mc^2."
I clearly showed you that it was within quoted material from Wikipedia,
not something *I* said.


Side issue:
Ask this: What's the speed of light about a black hole?
What about E=m*c^2 THERE?

The speed of light in the local reference frame is still c. That's
covered in another subthread.



but when challenged to come up with a post that had ME
making that direct quote, you couldn't do it.

Which one confused you?

None. Since they weren't quotes that *I* made.

You don't seem to even have a vague grasp of what you have
posted about. Just words, right?

The point IS, you claimed I said something I didn't... and you STILL
can't find an instance of me saying it. So it's off to Cliffasions,
misdirections, and attempted demeaning rhetoric. SOP for you of late.



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.

What you posted so many times? And kept trying to support
with searched statements that were a bit similar?

Lately your powers of interpretation and comprehension seem to be
becoming more and more influenced by your biases. Is there an
underlying reason for this? Medical, psychological?


If you find some other place where I personally stated that "Energy is
mass and mass is energy" then fine, post it.

This has been covered in great depth <G>.

Which seems to translate into "I couldn't find where BB said what I
claimed he said, so I'll just try to obfuscate the issue as I usually
like to." LOL


But to repeat your current
baseless, and untrue claim that I said it does not reflect favorably
upon you Cliff ol' buddy.

I'm not the confused one, BB.

Oh? You were the one that made the fraudulent claim that I had said
something... when I didn't.

Per BB's sources & claims:

Well now, THAT's quite a bit different than erroneously claiming *I*
said something I didn't. Glad to see you make the correction (if
belatedly), by saying "sources". LOL



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.

None are as silly as the lint <G>. Or the nuns old rubbish from Aristotle.

Sounds like more Cliff nunsense to me.


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?

Not as "="
E <> m.

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

Oh?


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

So what?
That DOES NOT SAY that E = 9*10^10 *m or even anything near it.

Is says, paraphrased: Units of mass (kg), are converted to units of
energy (joules), by the conversion factor of c^2. If you truly don't
understand this, you better reread the Wik excerpt, and others, until
you DO understand what they are saying.


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

"a very convenient unit" but it's not mass. It's energy.
There is a handy *relationship* but that's not the same thing as "=".
You are probably the only one confused <G>.

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

You claimed that units of mass and energy are different.

Yep. They are.

Electron volts can used for units of energy or mass.


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

So it's not at all Energy = mass.


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.

They come out of the events .... see things like Feynman diagrams.

Positron + electron ==> 2 photons ....

That would appear to indicate that matter has indeed been converted to
energy.

2 photons ==> positron + electron ...

And conversely, that would appear to indicate that energy has indeed
been converted to matter.



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

So what?

So what? So if positrons are being used, and manipulated, in our
universe where time flows forward, then those positrons are not in any
kind of time reversal mode which would likely put them in the past and
out of OUR reach for manipulation.



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

It's not.
But what about conservation laws being observed?
You have no options, BB.
It is not allowed otherwise.

Nature usually sides with the hidden flaw even after you keep
stepping in it <G>.

Sorry, momentum is NOT inertia. Momentum also doesn't *FORCE* an
object to remain in place, like you claimed it does.


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's a little tid-bit for you:

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

The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old and is about halfway through its
main-sequence evolution, during which nuclear fusion reactions in its
core fuse hydrogen into helium. Each second, more than 4 million tonnes
of matter are converted into solar radiation and neutrinos.
==============================================================================

That should help you answer this question that you keep Cliffoiding:
Can matter be converted to energy? Yes or No?



I found many quotes.

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

Found quite a few of that ilk.

No, you did not. Intentional deceit just to be cute, or to try to win
a newsgroup argument is not a valid way toward increasing your level of
credibility.


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: 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)
  • Re: universal constants in cryptography?
    ... they are really the same thing, one needs a conversion constant. ... to inverse energy. ... Don't try to collapse them into dimensionless mush. ... physical process that its depenence is on mass, ...
    (sci.crypt)