04 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by bikingvikingThere could be tons of reasons
Grizzled!! Are you sure, why do you think so?
There could be tons of reasons, I mean you simplify for the sake of simplification. (I've heard former president George W Bush's cummunicating skills, was kind of excellent, this is also a simplification of course). What are you suggesting... Ignorance;Lack of eagerness to research an area; Stupidity; Th ...[text shortened]... ould please be so kind. To explain this more. Can you? Best regards in advance! // Bikingviking.
tons of reasons?
I mean you simplify for the sake of simplification.
Are you sure, why do you think so?
(I've heard former president George W Bush's cummunicating skills, was kind of excellent, this is also a simplification of course).
His critics were devoted to oversimplifying everything he said.
What are you suggesting... Ignorance;Lack of eagerness to research an area; Stupidity; The loud mouth syndrome; The will of always speaking what you come of with within 5 seconds instead of 15 minutes or 15 days...... You know. Lot's of reasons.
I'm suggesting many scientists could do a better job of explaining themselves, but I suppose that would only make them skilled writers and not scientists.
Therefore I want to know if you could please be so kind. To explain this more. Can you?
I suppose I could, if I had time to go into this at greater length... and if you really wanted to know.
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by lemon limeI disagree. You're wrong on two accounts - space can exist without 'things' in it (i.e. vacuum), and 'things' don't need to have mass.
There is no area (space) between units of mass if there is no mass. Some things have to exist in order for there to be space between them. No things, no space.
Why do you ask, do you disagree?
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
04 Oct 13
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBoy oh boy! My left ear just fell of. There was one time a man named Einstein. He found out that there was a simple correlation between: Energy (E), Mass (M), The speed of light (c).
... and 'things' don't need to have mass.[/b]
The formula was derived from other equations very well know at the time. I COULD do this derivation in math in writing. Somehow I think the audience would not understand most of it, no correction, all of it.
This very formula implies that if there is a particle (something with either mass or energy), moving in correlation to surrounding particles in a system the particle.
1. If travelling slower than the speed of light can never reach the speed of light, since that would make it a particle with infinite(!) mass and that, according to physics laws, is not possible.
2. That a particle travelling faster than the speed of light will get infinite mass if they slow down to the speed of light. Perhaps SUCH PARTICLES (sp) exist, perhaps (sp) do not exist, we are unable to measure if they exist. If they do exist. Faster particles than the speed of ligth is according to my (rather limited) knowledge in this area (unfortunately) is possible according to this equation.
My guess is that 95-%-ish of you reading this will have seen Einsteins formula since it is famous (the derivation leading to this equation is more interesting but I will not post it here).
####### Correlation between Energy and Mass #######
Energy (E)
Speed of light (c), a constant, in this formula it never changes. In other more complicated formulas with other pre-considered state variables it does but not in this one.
Mass (M)
###### Einsteins paper from 1905 say that i.e. matter is energy and vice versa ########
*******************
E = M * c^2
*******************
Yes you have seen that formula before (or else you have been living under a rock the last 40 years). Perhaps you remember seeng it? Yes probably.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by lemon limeHey, I am not interested? No, not true. Your explanation of vaccum was a great one, appreciate it a lot. My wordings was perhaps not great but I am a human, not a computer. I critisized you because I beleve you were wrong in stating that communicating skills is the main lacking thing. The main thing beeing this. I've read a lot of things excellently formulated (this is popular science I am talking about, such as can be found in newspapers and in popular science magazines). My point beeing this: Communicating skills is not helping you if you do not know what you are talking about, this is seen a lot. Excellent text, excellent graphics, great explanations. BUT. That did not help the poor person who wrote the article SINCE she the writing person (or persons) got things which was (to people educated in the subject in question) extremely basic completely wrong. Happens all the time. Good communicating, poor knowledge about the subject.
I'm suggesting many scientists could do a better job of explaining themselves, but I suppose that would only make them skilled writers and not scientists.
I'll take an example to show you what I mean with this. In 1954 the big old university in the Swedish city of Uppsala (university city, has always been, or at least the last 500 years). Had an institution which purchased A COMPUTER. Most likely the first computer ever purchased by the university. Then one person who claimed to be an expert on computers (he was not, he was a popular science journalist). He explained to his readers that now every need for computers for the Uppsala was fullfilled FOR ETERNAL TIME. Never again was the university in need to purchase another computer since this one was all they needed for the next 100 years (long time since I read this article), perhaps his wordings was a little little different, but the words about ONE computer for ETERNAL TIME was his main message to his readers. Then one year later in 1955 Uppsala university purchased their next computer. The other one they had was taken out of service, since it was extremely outdated. Lot's of people wanted to save this BIG BIG old (one year) computer to the Uppsala university science museum. There was a debate about it. That ended with the desicion that they would have liked to save the computer if it had been possible. It was so big (a small house or so) that they had nowhere to put it, so it was mounted down and taken to the city rubbish dump. If I had the modell (brand? no dunno) of this computer I am speaking of I would have giving it to you, I don't. The ETERNAL TIME praised by the journalist turned out to be less than one year. Hi did not know what he was talking about, he most probably did quite some research. But he did not know the subject. Meaning he got very basic things very wrong. Happens again and again. Of cource, persons who see his basic errors, since they knows the subject better, knows he (and the women, a person) is extremely wrong. But others who do not have this knowledge is totally fooled by his excellent communicating skills.
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingGosh, that is a total new one on me. Can you go over it a bit slower though? I must have missed something along the way.
Boy oh boy! My left ear just fell of. There was one time a man named Einstein. He found out that there was a simple correlation between: Energy (E), Mass (M), The speed of light (c).
The formula was derived from other equations very well know at the time. I COULD do this derivation in math in writing. Somehow I think the audience would not understa ...[text shortened]... u have been living under a rock the last 40 years). Perhaps you remember seeng it? Yes probably.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by sonhouse
Can you go over it a bit slower though? Yes and no. I mean E= m*c^2 which means (exactly the same as) E = m * c * c. That's a fairly easy statement to accept. But one have to dig deaper. Not just assuming that this is correct but knowing it is. Since it can be derived. Derived from other equations know to be correct. To be correct means that so far we h ...[text shortened]... p. Hope that was a little bit clearer. I added information here, since I think it was relevant info.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
04 Oct 13
2 edits
Posted in the wrong frame and RHP seemingly say that I can't add (edit) information in an empty frame. I try again. Sonhouse wanted a slower version of my last post, if I could explain it slower.
Yes and no. I mean E= m*c^2 which means (exactly the same as) E = m * c * c. That's a fairly easy statement to accept. But one have to dig deaper. Not just assuming that this is correct but knowing it is. Since it can be derived. Derived from other equations know to be correct. To be correct means that so far we have not found a single event where it not is correct. It could be wrong in the future. Until then it is correnct, because we have not found an example which contradict this.
To show that E = m*c*c is correct one uses other equations. Lot's of different way to do that - they all shows the same thing. Like driving. You can follow different paths to get from point A to B (yes, I am mixing apples and lemons here, I know that).
The easiest way to show this correctness of the equation is this one. [url]http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html[/url] This is much better than simply saying that E=m*c*c and just assume that it is correct. If you do not understand this (fairly trivial, really) math - you are not alone. It is OK not to understand this.
Then when you have understood that one you can use this knowledge to explain other things.
Einstein is famous for having questioned results (or theories perhaps more correctly) by Werner Heisenberg. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg[/url]. One of the founding fathers (can one use that definition? not really) of Quantum Mechanics , which means the study of things that are extremely small. Here in this world (previous post) footballs falls upwards in the sky when you kick them because the football is affected by things making it do that (you could call this football a 'wave-particle'😉. Meaning an object which does not exist in other bigger worlds, the one you and me live in every day.
So Einstein thought that Heisbergs theory was too simple. (After all he was Einstein) so lots of people (who actually gives a damn about such things, we are a minority) knows what he wrote to Heisenberg.
Einsten wrote: A very famous phrase famous phrase, "God does not play dice" [url]http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html[/url] If you go to that page and press search, Ctrl + F, on the word "unhappy" you come to the place I wanted to show you.
Less known (still widely known but less known) is the response back from Heisenberg.
Heisenberg wrote back: Famous phrase. To Einstein - "Who are you to have opinions of what god can do and what god can't do".
My quote is almost correct, perhaps missing a word or two. So, not accurate perhaps but you get it. Fixing the exact sentance, I pass that ball to someone else to pice up. Hope that was a little bit clearer. I added information here, since I think it was relevant info.
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingYour sarcasm-o-meter is broken.
Posted in the wrong frame and RHP seemingly say that I can't add (edit) information in an empty frame. [b]I try again. Sonhouse wanted a slower version of my last post, if I could explain it slower.
Yes and no. I mean E= m*c^2 which means (exactly the same as) E = m * c * c. That's a fairly easy statement to accept. But one have to dig deaper. No ...[text shortened]... ope that was a little bit clearer. I added information here, since I think it was relevant info.[/b]
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingSo after your ear fell off, did you conclude that things must have mass, or not? Your post wasn't at all clear on the matter.
Boy oh boy! My left ear just fell of.
I believe it is unknown for sure whether photons have mass, but there is certainly no known law of physics ruling out the possibility that they are massless.
04 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSpace did not exist until after the big bang. If you believe space can exist in a state of nothingness then I disagree. Yes, space can exist without things in it, but I was talking about how space is defined. How would you define space in the absence of mass... or if you prefer, things?
I disagree. You're wrong on two accounts - space can exist without 'things' in it (i.e. vacuum), and 'things' don't need to have mass.
I was using the word mass generically, referring to anything that physically exists. I can say "anything that physically exists" or "everything that physically exists" (or things) instead of the word mass if it helps in understanding the meaning and intent of my message. The context of this discussion has to do with the difference (or not) between space and nothingness. Either nothingness is space, or it isn't. I'm saying it isn't.
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingIn America, we refer to a kicked football as being "propelled upward" into the sky by the force of the kick. The football "falls downward" to the ground by the force of gravity.
Posted in the wrong frame and RHP seemingly say that I can't add (edit) information in an empty frame. [b]I try again. Sonhouse wanted a slower version of my last post, if I could explain it slower.
Yes and no. I mean E= m*c^2 which means (exactly the same as) E = m * c * c. That's a fairly easy statement to accept. But one have to dig deaper. No ...[text shortened]... ope that was a little bit clearer. I added information here, since I think it was relevant info.[/b]
The Instructor
05 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe force of gravity is just the bending of space due to the mass of the Earth, local gravity anyway. We are still in the field of the sun which is a humungus mass,, 2 E30 Kg. That's a lot of hydrogen!
In America, we refer to a kicked football as being "propelled upward" into the sky by the force of the kick. The football "falls downward" to the ground by the force of gravity.
The Instructor
05 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingEinstein's notation is now no longer conventionally used. In modern notation, we generally write:
Boy oh boy! My left ear just fell of. There was one time a man named Einstein. He found out that there was a simple correlation between: Energy (E), Mass (M), The speed of light (c).
The formula was derived from other equations very well know at the time. I COULD do this derivation in math in writing. Somehow I think the audience would not understa ...[text shortened]... u have been living under a rock the last 40 years). Perhaps you remember seeng it? Yes probably.
E = gamma*mc², where gamma now takes care of the change in energy when going to a different reference frame. In Einstein's equation, the "mass" changes and is called relativistic mass. In the newer equation, it does not change and is known as rest mass. Particles can have zero rest mass, in which case they are known as "massless."
Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass
05 Oct 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIs the gamma part the dilation formula, X= sqr root of (1/V^2/C^2) ?
Einstein's notation is now no longer conventionally used. In modern notation, we generally write:
E = gamma*mc², where gamma now takes care of the change in energy when going to a different reference frame. In Einstein's equation, the "mass" changes and is called relativistic mass. In the newer equation, it does not change and is known as rest mass. Pa ...[text shortened]... in which case they are known as "massless."
Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass