E=MC2 Advanced by an Italian?

[Joe Keenan]

I read about this years ago and thought it a internet myth, it's not actually!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/11/rorycarroll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

[junglelord]

I have never understood that equation. People either say they understand it (physicist) yet what they really do is repeat memorized answers, and those that do not (general public) but know the "equation" anyway././ it is in the public conscious.

One of the biggest lies about math that is spouted by both parties, and yet how many really understand>?

Along with the bastarization of Schwarchilds Radius and Maxwells Theorums (which is Heavisides dumbdown and is nothing close to Maxwells theorums) IT IS A LIE. In this case, like the schwarschild radius, used to "prove" black holes, which Stephen Crothers has proven is just unsound mathematicaly, so it is with this equation. It was APM and Dave Thomson that explained Mass to me and what this expression is when taken at face value.

There is NO EQUALITY in e=mc^2
e is measured in joules
m is measured in kilograms
1 joule is not equal to 1kg
c^2 means nothing since the two units do not equal.


it is an "expression" at best, but it is not equal in the scheme of algebra or SI Units.
They say it was the seed of the atom bomb....in truth that was just human insanity to kill....and the glorified seed is a LIE.

[rangerover777]

From the little I understand E = MC^2 is a private case for radioactive matters.
Radioactive substances emits alpha, beta & gamma rays. The reason for that is
Because they are saturated with energy/particles (which for now we’ll leave their
nature, open). The radioactive matters where built up under high density / high
pressure conditions (not by supernova, as science claim to be the case).

Once they are out of their forming environment (like the face of the earth for
instance), they want to become normal again by releasing this excess of
energy/particle load.

No other matter than radioactive elements or isotopes had ever converted to
Energy by fission or fusion according to E = MC^2. What I do not know and
suspect it’s integrity, is if all the radioactive matters are equally “overcharged”
by these energy/particles property. In other words, even among them, it’s not
sure that all of them behave the same way, when converted to energy.

This case proceed much further into how science define elements and isotopes,
Since if there is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen or Helium for instance, then
science claim that these elements contain either one or two electrons or protons.
But the next question should be, Where all this energy/particle coming from ?
Which leads the question “is there something wrong with the periodic table” ?

Further consequences even shows that each matter release a different amount
of energy/particles, when converted to it’s most basic components….. And there
is no uniformity as indicated by Mr. Einstein.

I tends to agree with you JungleLord, that there is something not so clear
about E = MC^2.… or misrepresentative to say the least.

Cheers.

[Drethon]

My take on e=mc2 it is Energy = 1/2mv2 (mass times velocity squared).

E=MC2 is the conversion of matter to pure energy, which energy is supposed to travel at the speed of light. This means matter with virtually no speed has the potential to become energy at the speed of light (v=c)

Thus Momentum = 1/2mc2. or there about mc2.

I'm not sure what happens to the 1/2 but I suspect it was just removed as a simplification.

[edit] Of course I believe this equation is for the pure conversion of matter to energy (say an antimatter reaction). Nuclear reactions only produce a fraction of this potential...

[StevenO]

E=mc^2 in Einstein's interpretation is the "equivalence of mass and energy". That's how he got his assumption that bodies "increase in mass" at high speeds since he has to account for the observed lower acceleration at higher energies somewhere.

That is just a convenient assumption in the mathematical formulas. Though matter can be converted to pure energy (in nuclear bombs for instance), that is not what happens at high speeds: the forces are becoming smaller due to shrinking speed differences between the force(==speed) and the mass, which has a high intrinsic speed from itself.

[Drethon]

That's a good point StevenO. While I believe E=MC2 is supposed to be fairly accurate for nuclear reactions (though I've heard they have been surprised on those too), its possible a different behavior entirely is being described.

While this is supposed to be the conversion of matter to energy, perhaps what is really being done is the electrical potential of the atomic bonds is being released (seen the nice lightning in some nuclear explosions?).

Just a thought...

[rangerover777]

Maybe I’m missing something, but does anyone knows of a test that when a matter
converted to energy which confirmed E = MC^2, and the matter was not a radioactive
element or isotope (both in fusion and fission) ?
I wonder should anyone knows the answer to that ?

If I’m not wrong the old atomic bombs worked on critical mass principle, which
means they did not put all the uranium together, only when it was time to. With
the hydrogen bomb it’s a bit different but done with radioactive matters as well.
So this critical mass can be done only w/ radioactive matters, which means they
posses properties other elements does not. So should we investigate the nature
of radioactive matters and if at all we can put them under the same roof w/ all the
rest of the elements when converting mass to energy ?

I read somewhere on the net that the energy stored in a chocolate cake, is equal
to the energy the nuclear plant near Palo Verde producing for ¼ of a year or so.
I know nature is quit surprising, but this is a wild one…..

Thanks.

[Tone]

.

We report the results of a unique study of the lightninglike phenomena
that were seen to accompany the MIKE shot of operation IVY on October 31 1952.

MIKE was a thermonuclear surface burst yielding 10.4 MT, which took place on Enewetak Atoll.

During the period of approximately 10 ms after detonation,
five discrete luminous channels were seen to start from the ground or sea surface
at a distance of approximately 1 km from the burst point and to grow up into the clouds.

From http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JGR....92.5696C

I dont have a visual in my head, but the idea to me reminds me of this:

Unusual Light Pillars Over Latvia



Link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090112.html

.
. .