|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/09/2011 : 20:29:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Well thank you. |
You're quite welcome for the science and math lesson.| Now if you could just come to understand the maths of Feynman and Schrodinger. |
I already do, which is why I kept pointing out that the units are important, why S is not ΔS, why several different equations give the same result, etc.| No one reading in here will care a cow's lick about your pedantry...... |
I agree that you don't care at all about what the science and math actually mean, and instead twist it all to your own prior bias, but you really shouldn't be so arrogant as to speak for others here.
And if you think this is just pedantry on my part, then don't let me distract you from all the unanswered and non-pedantic questions in the other thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 07:13:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I just agreed with you that it is formally called the law of conservation of energy and you want to argue with that? What are you arguing now? |
I am argueing your statement that matter is not destroyed in a nuclear reaction.
I use Einstein's formula as does everyone I am aware of--E=MC^2. This means that energy equals the mass of matter. Are you following me at all?
|
Maybe not, but I know that matter and energy are not he same thing. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 08:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by JerryB
I just agreed with you that it is formally called the law of conservation of energy and you want to argue with that? What are you arguing now? |
I am argueing your statement that matter is not destroyed in a nuclear reaction.
I use Einstein's formula as does everyone I am aware of--E=MC^2. This means that energy equals the mass of matter. Are you following me at all?
|
Maybe not, but I know that matter and energy are not he same thing.
|
Well then Robb--With all due respect, I can only advise you to study some science. Try googling the formula, it is all over the Web, |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 09:07:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by JerryB
I just agreed with you that it is formally called the law of conservation of energy and you want to argue with that? What are you arguing now? |
I am argueing your statement that matter is not destroyed in a nuclear reaction.
I use Einstein's formula as does everyone I am aware of--E=MC^2. This means that energy equals the mass of matter. Are you following me at all?
|
Maybe not, but I know that matter and energy are not he same thing.
|
Well then Robb--With all due respect, I can only advise you to study some science. Try googling the formula, it is all over the Web,
|
Jerry, Robb is looking to you for an explanation, not Google. As a matter of fact, so am I. I have a lot to learn on this topic.
Do please elaborate.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:26:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by JerryB
I just agreed with you that it is formally called the law of conservation of energy and you want to argue with that? What are you arguing now? |
I am argueing your statement that matter is not destroyed in a nuclear reaction.
I use Einstein's formula as does everyone I am aware of--E=MC^2. This means that energy equals the mass of matter. Are you following me at all?
|
Maybe not, but I know that matter and energy are not he same thing.
|
Well then Robb--With all due respect, I can only advise you to study some science. Try googling the formula, it is all over the Web,
|
Pretty condensending. I did operate a nuclear reactor for 4 years in the navy so I am familiar with that equation.
Are the units for energy and mass the same in that equation? If not, then how can matter and energy be the same?
Actually there is no need to respond anymore since you want me to do a self study. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:50:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
"Energy is directly proportional to mass. Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. Both of these statements are true, according to Einstein."
Well thank you. Now if you could just come to understand the maths of Feynman and Schrodinger. No one reading in here will care a cow's lick about your pedantry......
|
He's actually correct. Consider:
16 = 4*2^2
You can't say that 16 equals 4... or even 4*2... |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 13:42:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by JerryB
I just agreed with you that it is formally called the law of conservation of energy and you want to argue with that? What are you arguing now? |
I am argueing your statement that matter is not destroyed in a nuclear reaction.
I use Einstein's formula as does everyone I am aware of--E=MC^2. This means that energy equals the mass of matter. Are you following me at all?
|
Maybe not, but I know that matter and energy are not he same thing.
|
Well then Robb--With all due respect, I can only advise you to study some science. Try googling the formula, it is all over the Web,
|
Pretty condensending. I did operate a nuclear reactor for 4 years in the navy so I am familiar with that equation.
Are the units for energy and mass the same in that equation? If not, then how can matter and energy be the same?
Actually there is no need to respond anymore since you want me to do a self study.
|
No, I don't mean to be condescending and I will explain if you were just wanting conversation; but if you operated a reactor, surely they introduced you to E=MC^2, but also maybe not, I suppose.
Let's look at the big bang. Almost everyone I'm familiar with theorizes that there was a source of infinite energy somewhere (the primeval atom) that somehow exploded and formed all of the matter we now see in the universe. Here is energy ----> matter.
Can energy be converted to matter?
"Yes, This happens all the time in the target area of a particle
>accelerator. Both stable and unstable particles can be made in this
>way. You always make particle-antiparticle pairs, so you need energy
>equivalent to twice the rest mass of a particle to get anything."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00101.htm
Another example: "If an electron, an anti-neutrino, and a proton come together with enough kinetic energy, they may join into a neutron. The neutron has more mass than the original three
particles. If the neutron is within an atom, it may stay put."
"Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of this century. One of his most well-known accomplishments is the formula E=MC^2 Despite its familiarity, many people don't really understand what it means. We hope this explanation will help....."
".....One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter."
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html
Of course, matter -----> energy is much more common and can be demonstrated by nothing more complex than a campfire.
So, according to Einstein, you did not destroy matter in your nuclear reactor, you converted it to energy and then powered something with it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 14:08:16 [Permalink]
|
I'm correct, mostly. If we were to use Planck units, then E=m really is correct, since c would be defined to be 1, and 1 squared is still 1, so mc2=m (except for the units).
Of course, one might note that Jerry didn't think to mention that.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 14:25:51 [Permalink]
|
| And one might note that Jerry doesn't give a flip because of it's lack of importance to the discussion..... |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 14:44:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Of course, matter -----> energy is much more common and can be demonstrated by nothing more complex than a campfire. |
Huh? You think matter is destroyed in a campfire? No, there is the same amount of matter before and after a campfire has burned. A fire is a chemical change where the wood in changed during combustion to water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and the ash. No matter is lost. It is an exothermic reaction that gives off heat. There is no e=mc^2 happening in a fire.
| So, according to Einstein, you did not destroy matter in your nuclear reactor, you converted it to energy and then powered something with it. |
Do you think that the US government was wrong when they taught me about nuclear fission? Matter is destroyed in a nuclear reaction, the mass before and after are different. Units of energy and mass are not the same. Mass has units of kilograms and energy has units of Joules (kg*m/s^2). how can they be equal? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 15:03:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And one might note that Jerry doesn't give a flip because of it's lack of importance to the discussion..... |
One might note that Jerry cares enough to waste his valuable time claiming he doesn't care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 15:20:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
A fire is a chemical change where the wood in changed during combustion to water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and the ash. No matter is lost. It is an exothermic reaction that gives off heat. There is no e=mc^2 happening in a fire. |
Actually, there is. If you have precise-enough scales and weigh all the water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ash, you can find that the mass represented by the energy of the chemical bonds which were broken by the reaction will be missing. If a campfire gives off 2500 MBTU (about 2.65 GJ), then the missing mass will be about 30 millionths of a gram. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 15:42:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
A fire is a chemical change where the wood in changed during combustion to water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and the ash. No matter is lost. It is an exothermic reaction that gives off heat. There is no e=mc^2 happening in a fire. |
Actually, there is. If you have precise-enough scales and weigh all the water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ash, you can find that the mass represented by the energy of the chemical bonds which were broken by the reaction will be missing. If a campfire gives off 2500 MBTU (about 2.65 GJ), then the missing mass will be about 30 millionths of a gram.
|
I don't agree, but I will look into it when I get a chance. How do you come up with that calculation?
edited to add: Don't all chemical reaction equations have to balance? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
| Edited by - Robb on 01/10/2011 15:45:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 16:14:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
How do you come up with that calculation? |
I took the 2,500 MBTU and ran it backwards through E=mc2. All that energy has to come from somewhere.| edited to add: Don't all chemical reaction equations have to balance? |
Indeed they do. But when your lab balance only goes down to milligrams, 30 micrograms is indistinguishable from zero.
If you take something simple, like the burning of hydrogen with oxygen to make water, and add up all the bond energies and molecular masses, you'll find that two H2O molecules mass less than two H2 molecules plus one O2 molecule. The difference in mass is the difference in bond energies, which is the energy released by the reaction.
But we're talking about a difference in mass on the order of one ten-millionth of one percent, so unless you've got atomic mass measurements that run to nine or ten significant digits, you'll never see the missing mass because it'll be lost in the noise. We know it's there, but need insanely sensitive equipment to measure it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 16:56:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
A fire is a chemical change where the wood in changed during combustion to water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and the ash. No matter is lost. It is an exothermic reaction that gives off heat. There is no e=mc^2 happening in a fire. |
Actually, there is. If you have precise-enough scales and weigh all the water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ash, you can find that the mass represented by the energy of the chemical bonds which were broken by the reaction will be missing. If a campfire gives off 2500 MBTU (about 2.65 GJ), then the missing mass will be about 30 millionths of a gram.
|
I don't agree, but I will look into it when I get a chance. How do you come up with that calculation?
edited to add: Don't all chemical reaction equations have to balance?
|
They have to balance, yes. But when you see Na(s) + 0.5Cl2(s) = NaCl(s) + 411 kJ you can know that the energy is coming from a loss of mass in the chemical bonds. Want to create mass from energy? Just perform an endothermic reaction in the lab and you have it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Big Bang Bankrupt
