Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:08 pm

This theory is a restated religious belief that everything is just "thought", or some type of magical energy.
We all live as a dream of some god. Matter is just the dream energy of god, this type of belief.

Matter is not energy. Energy is not matter in Physic.
I can have a piece of matter, Steel, and ADD Energy to it by raising it to a height, (potential energy) or dropping it, (Kinetic Energy or momentum), or I can heat it, (thermal energy).

But I sure as hell cant CREATE a piece of steel by just having the right amount of energy and "convert" it into a solid object of matter.
Conversely, I cant convert matter into energy. "OH, but what about the Atomic Bomb? " I hear you stupidly blabber. ...

The atom bomb id not convert matter into energy. Anymore that a firework converts matter into energy. The both cases, (the firework and the bomb) energy was potential, it was a chemical reaction waiting to be activated. Matter was neither created or destroyed in either process.

The AMOUNT of potential energy available in the atom bomb is just a lot more than in the firework. Dynamite has more energy than a gunpowder firework, Plastic explosives have even more potential energy. We don't say that Dynamite or a firework is converting matter into energy.

Ask yourself this simple question: "IF matter can be converted into energy as expressed in Einsteins equation, which states that say, 1kg of enriched uranium can be converted into a massive amount of energy, THEN...... BUT WAIT A MINUTE...... no where in his equation does it mention "enriched Uranium" The equation and theory says, MATTER.

So to PROVE Einstein's theory is true, I propose that Physicists DEMONSTRATE that 1 kg of DOG SHIT has exactly the same explosive force as 1 kg of enriched uranium when the energy is converted.

Whats that? You say that its easier to get the energy out of unstable, explosive uranium than from stable dog shit? How convenient.

As Potassium is highly reactive when introduced to water, this surely a suitable, very unstable element , or Hydrogen and oxygen, (also extremely unstable) just get the required 1 kg and compare to the results of 1 kg of enriched uranium.... after all, 1 kg of MASS is what the equation specifies, the TYPE of MATTER is IRRELEVANT.

EInstein's equation is saying, in plain English, "Matter is just a whole lot of Energy".

Now I have a problem with that. Because in Physics, Energy is a PROPERTY that Matter can possess, or NOT possess!

A cold rock does not possess the same energy as the same mass of a chunk of potassium. Because the Potassium has chemical energy. The rock very little.
Once the potential chemical energy of the potassium is released, then the combined MASS of the water, potassium and off gasses STILL weighs in at the same value! Energy was released, but the combined MASS remained the SAME! Proving that e=mc2 is incorrect.

Sun May 24, 2020 11:35 pm

Interesting perspective you have. It sounds like you are almost angry at this topic, as if the basis for E=m*c*c is some awful travesty. I don't know why you are expressing yourself that way. It also seems you have some misconceptions about how E=m*c^2 works that are not correct. How about we just talk about it in a straight-forward manner? I like dealing with things that are factual, consistent, proven by experiment, reproducible, ... kind of like science is intended to work.

I'll agree matter is not energy, energy is not matter or better, mass. It's better to say the evidence is if you account for all the mass and all the energy the sum total does not change. It is not correct to say 1 kg of (whatever) will give 8.98755*10^16 Joules whenever I want it to - *except as an example/illustration of what the equation states* Yet there are "web sites" or some books written at the very lowest level that state such things as this but....that's actually wrong as expressed. Now, *can* you show how that could be done? Absolutely but that is at a very high level of nuclear physics, not the day-to-day discussions. It seems you are taking that e=mc2 in such the same way: show you in lab or something this works by doing it. You cannot, and no one said you can. If you take it to the level of fusion in stars, it actually does work there on that very extreme level: start with a bunch of hydrogen atoms, add energy, and you can make uranium from it. We know this because...uranium exists. It's the "if we could do that" aspect: We cannot just turn 8.98755*10^16 Joules into 1 kg of anything just like that - so, expressed as you have here is moot - because the scenarios you express are not doable in a lab that you can see - and no credible person knowing of this would ever say such a thing. It's popular literature that expresses it that way. Incorrectly.

I agree matter can possess potential, kinetic, thermal, and a few more types of energy... such as electrical energy from the voltages and current in said matter. Gas and solids have sonic energy but that's just kinetic energy and thermal too I guess if you figure in friction, which can set up what we call "static electricity" so electric energy figures into it also. Then you have energy existence outside matter involved like electromagnetic (EM) energy from frequencies above gamma to UV, visible light, IR, microwave, radio and below. So we have all that. I suppose you can add more varieties, these are just examples.

Now, it would be possible to create steel from energy alone? Nope, not here on earth. Yet. Not a ton of the stuff, minute amounts sure but not going to day in and day out - because it would take enormous amounts of energy to do so. Of course, because to create something you need energy...in general, call it creating order from disorder, that is to decrease disorder means to decrease entropy, it needs energy into the system - that actually did happen as stars created the heavier elements from fusion, specifically when going supernova and the lighter elements fused into the heavier. Could we, mankind, do so? "Theoretically" but we are not capable given what it takes to do so on that huge level to make iron, chromium, carbon on that level. One can make small amounts in the lab I suppose. So the answer to your rhetorical question is yes we could, we know what it takes to do so, but as a practical matter we cannot, because we cannot create the environment to do so, yet the components needed to make steel do exist, and current understanding is they were formed by fusion of the lighter elements as stars went nova-supernova. (Current understanding because maybe that will change in the future with new evidence) . To do so took energy to jam the neutrons, protons, electrons together until they "stick" forming a new nucleus. Thus to make some other element, we need energy to "fuse" others together. Sort of matter1 + matter2 + energy = some other matter3. This we know. Then here on earth we use chemical means to create steel from the various elements.

The atom bomb did not convert matter (mass) into energy? We know it did because, well, we see it do that. by see i mean visually and other measurements. Well, it was certainly dominated by the nuclear reactions though there was some albeit very small amount of chemical energy interaction. Let's look at a chemical bomb, where the rapid combination of chemicals combining, such as oxygen and nitrogen, is exothermic, giving off huge amounts of kinetic and thermal energy and EM as electrons are exchanged and the kinetic energy of the elements involved is increased..and potential if you include the height off the ground things are flung to by the kinetic energy and electrical if you include the addition of a charge or voltage and of course EM in the visible light and IR you can feel...you can measure all the stuff you start with, all you end with, and see the change. It all adds up. This we know as fact, since there has never been an instance where something "disappeared" or "appeared" that could not be accounted for. Well, when all this was first being measured it was not as accurate or precise as it really needed to be. It did turn out E=m*c*c applied there, they just couldn't detect it. You and others - granted, most people - may not say a dynamite or firework is converting matter (actually better to say "mass") into energy, yet that actually is what is happening when you measure it to the accuracy and precision needed. Chemists know this. in fact this is a shortcoming in the principle: It does need to be more known to the "public" this does happen.

You state the nuclear bomb/A-bomb/and I'll presume you mean both the fission and fission-fusion-fission thermonuclear bomb behavior is a chemical reaction. I don't know how you drew that conclusion. We do know the energy there comes from the nuclear interactions with a chemical reaction to set it off (many books have been written on this previously classified process). So yes, the only place the kilo-tons or mega-tons of explosive energy can come from is the nuclear fission and fusion - because there is no other place for it to come from. Since 1 megaton refers to the energy from a mega-ton of TNT equivalent, if it was a chemical based situation you'd need 1 megaton of TNT to cause it. So I don't know how you draw the conclusion that which is an "Abomb" is actually a "chemical" reaction like dynamite.

You then go on to compare uranium to other stuff. Well, actually, if you wanted to see the elements uranium and it's various isotope vs. other elements and isotopes in other stuff undergo a fission event, or fusion for hydrogen (I'm speaking of here on earth, if want to observe heavier elements undergoing fusion look at any star) you can measure it. So yes, although the binding energy of nucleons within the uranium nucleus is in the range to make fission occur easily, it can be shown other things lower down on the periodic table can fission, break apart, you just need a different mechanism to make it happen. Examination of the "curve of binding energy per nucleon" is very descriptive; above iron it's easier than below iron. Could you set up in a lab to do it? Absolutely! And it has been done. Bombard elements with neutrons and you indeed can make them "split" or if not split transmute into other elements. That absolutely happens. That said, no one (well, I won't say 'no one' because there have been those who for the sake of illustration have said so - but it's illustration, not practical/realistic/doable - or others who don't really understand it) ever said one can take any matter and instantly convert it to energy or vice versa. That's not what Einstein said. You seem to be interpreting it that it means that: any mass of any kind into energy at any time. You're not using the principles in the way the work explains it - you have extrapolated it into a place it wasn't intended to go. So your premise is not consistent with the basis of what is going on with what we can physically do and observe here on earth. What we can and do do, is take the principle and test it against where we have energy levels high enough to create mass: starts. And yep, it works there. That is the power of it: It works on a small scale and the large scale.

Clearly the place where this is easily observed is in fission of Uranium and other elements like Plutonium. The mass difference can be measured: The sum of the masses before (neutron plus U-235 atom) and after (neutrons and fission products) don't add up - we know this because it is measured - there is some amount of mass missing. Only if you add in the energy of the neutron and U before and the neutrons and fission products after can it balance. There has NEVER been an instance where this has not been shown to be found. Here is where the energy added is equal to the difference in mass times our old friend "c squared". So if you do this, and you see it all balances out, the total of mass and energy together are the same, every time, never different, then, this proves e=mc2 is correct.

You continue on Potassium and water and such. You state Einstein said "matter is just a whole bunch of energy" No that's not what was said any more than he said Energy is just a whole bunch of matter. You have taken all this to a place that is....odd. Again there is no one who has EVER claimed what this says works the way you say it does...well I guess except you. Einstein wouldn't say that, nor would a physicist working with such things today say that. You cannot take E=m*c*c "on face value" and draw the conclusions you state. So you have set up a premise that is not the premise for e-=mc2, then you shoot it down with odd examples, and conclude e=mc2 is incorrect. Well, you have garbage in, a wrong assessment, and you get garbage out. Example, you ask: "I propose that Physicists DEMONSTRATE that 1 kg of DOG SHIT has exactly the same explosive force as 1 kg of enriched uranium when the energy is converted." - well, none will because that's not what is going on, and no physicist has EVER said that. None. If you have read that so-and-so did say that, granted, some can illustrate such things, but fundamentally it's wrong. But NONE has ever said it as you express it. So no, you cannot get that because it's not what any would say nor is it factual.

So on your final point, after the potassium, water, gasses are done, we know now they do not have the same mass - a very very small amount of mass has been converted to energy. Now you may say "they didn't state that in my chemistry class" - probably not, since to level at which these effects are considered are at very advanced levels, not the kind of thing Chem 101 or 202 is going to focus on. But any chemist who actually knows what's going on will tell you that: Yes if you measure it correctly that is what you see". So your final statement here is incorrect as it is not factual. For both chemical and nuclear interaction, we show every time - *every time* the sum total of mass and energy balance. There has *never* been an instance where that has not been true. (However, if you know of a published experiment that shows the opposite, I am glad to read it)

Well, that's a lot. However, I know it is not correct to just take a person's discussion as credible just because that person stated it - it only has merit if others agree as well; what you or I say here has no merit unless we can back it up with evidence. If you want references to the things I mentioned here I'll be glad to provide them. Likewise, reference to publications or papers that demonstrate the basis for your discussion is appreciated, I'll be glad to take a read.

ps there is no "religion" in this. I don't know how you conclude that.

Mon May 25, 2020 1:51 pm

Hi Nik,
Nice to see you here. You gave a lengthy reply, so Ill have to read it carefully and give you a decent response.

Ill try to give some comment about each point you raise.
But, briefly, yes, I'm no longer bothered to be 'Nice" and tippy toe around the crazy mess Einsteins has made, to try to avoid upsetting delicate feelings.
Relativists have jammed their stupid insane pseudoscience down everyone's throats for 100 years, Ive had a gut full of the BS.
And about connotative dissonance or Dunning Kruger effect, that's what "holier than thou" Relativists level at me often, so I try to get in before them these days.

I'm going to admit here that I have spent most of my interest on Special Relativity, so I'm not so brushed up on this branch of Einsteins stupidity. (E-mc2)

But before I reply in detail, ( in a day or two) I should state that there's no point me rambling on unless I state clearly that I believe that Science is effected by the same things as every other enterprise of human endeavor. suffers from. Its Professors, Universities and curriculum is just as polluted as are Politicians, Governments and Laws. Its a big mistake to assume that of all mans avenues of expression, ONLY Science has remained pure and is untouched by greed, and the constant push by the few to rule the many.

I draw your attention to the words of Woodrow Wilson, "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

And John F Kennedy, "But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it’s fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It’s preparations are concealed, not published. It’s mistakes are buried, not headlined. It’s dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.". (he was talking here about communism, which turns out is exactly the same thing as the current disease that is crippling this world) (its worse than covid)

In short, I maintain that Einsteins "theories" are invalid as possible scientific "models" (i detest that word, it too has stuffed up peoples thinking!. ) anyway, because his hypothesis is riddled with holes from every angle, the merest suggestion that there could be any significant chance that they are somehow representative of reality is beyond a sane persons wildest dreams.
(a few words in there I stole from Douglas Adams) If you don't know who he was, your life is empty.
So, BECAUSE a sane person can never conclude that Einstein's work is anything by fantasy, how could anyone suggest that "thousands of experiments" have actually provided supporting evidence?
It like someone suggesting Santa is real, so they spend 5 years devising experiments to prove that Santa really can fit down anyone's chimney without getting soot on his red suit, and the answer must be somewhere in Quantum Quackery.
When you examine ANY of Einsteins supporting evidence experiments, invariably, they involve the impossibly minute, impossibly nebulous, or impossibly distant, and are impossible to replicate by any ordinary man.

Very convenient.
So at this point, I have to direct you back to the words of Mr Wilson and Kennedy, (and there are thousands of others people who have spoken along these lines.) and so conclude that there are are, as George Carlin said, "that there are Powerful men, who get together, and plan how to increase their wealth or power, its a big club, and you and I aren't in it".
Its these people who run Politics from the shadows, run the international affairs, run the economics, run the Media, and tell you what they want you to know, through the TV. And these people are thorough, they also totally run Education, and Science is both Education and big business. Its OWNED and managed.
So there is the reason why there can be fraud in Science, why all experiments about Einsteins theories can be fraud, and that's the reason why I will only discuss the merits and weaknesses of Einsteins actual Hypothesis, to see if its a work of a rational mind, or is just BULL SHIT. Just how many mistakes do I have to find in Einsteins Paper before you agree that it cant possibly be correct?
In my way of looking at it, I only need ONE. Because they claim is that Einsteins paper of 1905 totally overturned all of Classical Physics, so it better damn well be the work of a real genius, without flaws of any kind! But I can show you several terminal errors.

You don't have the right to overturn Galileo and Newton unless you have a rock solid case I say!.

And Einstein's SR theory is as solid as a plate of jello. If were a decent theory, then people would not be still complaining about it after 100 years! And it would not be the source of endless Paradoxes. And Physics teachers would not have to preface every lecture with the disclaimer, "now this is going to seem very weird, very counter intuitive".
Ok, Ill reply to your comments when I get some more time. Cheers

Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:46 am

Hey, nikkoner, you still there?
Ive been away for quite a while.
Still interested in discussing these topics?

Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass

Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass

Re: Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass

Re: Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass

Re: Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass

Re: Basic info of the error of the Equivalence of Energy to Mass