E=mc^2

[The Gregorian]

This really does have to do with creation/evolution, trust me... but this time I want to start way out on a tangent and work my way in.

Einstein says E=MC^2.... right? Energy=Mass x speed of light squared.

Now, I forget which unit of mass einstein used... so I'm going to use the pound... If you know which unit of mass he used, feel free to correct me, and just substitute out any time I use the word "Pound" here as the proper unit of mass for the calculation:

Mass... say one pound is equal to a certain amount of energy... but mass is less than energy because it takes a lot of energy to make mass. That's what einstein was getting at, and I agree... the most fundamental building blocks of matter... is energy. But why the C^2 part?

Assuming C to be exactly 186000 miles per second (a little off, but it's the generic number

E=1 pound times 34,596,000,000 miles per second?

Are we to drop the "miles per second" thing? to find the amount of energy in one pound we just multiply that one pound times about 34.6billion? So why doesn't Einstein just say "Energy=massx34.6 billion?" Or does the "miles per second" part have to be there?

Energy=massx34.6billion miles per second.

I mean, that's how you figure out torque... inchpounds... right? So one pound has 34.6 billion poundmileseconds in it. So... who uses 'poundmileseconds' as a unit of energy?

What if einstein weren't from america... would he assume E=MC^2 still? Even though in metric light is about 300,000 KM/second... therefore E=M x 90,000,000,000... now E=M times 90 billion?

So one pound has 90 billion poundkilometerseconds in it? I mean... if it's in billions you wouldn't measure it in kilometers... so 90 trillion pountmeterseconds?

Or what if it's a measure of light years per year instead of miles per second? 1... so E=m x 1 (since 1 squared is one).

OK... so what's my point other than to publically announce that I don't agree with what junior highschool teachers are professing about physics?

My question is why does einstein butt 'light' into everything? Why not just say E=M times a certain number?

 

[JohnR7]

If you know which unit of mass he used

I do not think he attended mass, he was Jewish, not catholic.

Why not just say E=M times a certain number?

Something like that would not catch on.
The public wants things as simple as they can get them.
They do not want to have to actually work for anything.

 

[The Gregorian]

btw, the thing that got me wondering this is... how can you say ALL mass has the same amount of energy per mass? Does one pound of molten lava have the same energy as a one pound chunk of ice? Different temperatures under different pressures... they can't have the same energy. Granted, there is much more energy in the molecular structure of the one pound chunks than the heat/pressure energy dictating their stage, whether frozen or molten... but you can't assume that a pound of helium has exactly the same energy as a pound of einsteintinium (for the sake of irony and the fact that I know it's one of them new fangled ones with a really high atomic mass.)

Of course they DO have different masses, and it could be implied that their mass is the only thing that gives them the differing energy... But why not just give a number... why a speed? and why the "speed of light squared?" Using one lightyear per year squared, you get a completely different number than 300,000,000 meters per second squared... why not simplify his statement to e=M(enter number here based on which unit of distance and time you want to use squared)

 

[chaoschristian]

What if einstein weren't from america...

Einstein was German

 

[USincognito]

Does one pound of molten lava have the same energy as a one pound chunk of ice?

I think you're conflating "energy" with "heat" in this example. There's more to energy than just heat.

 

[SteelEdge]

Using different systems of units will give the appropriate answers in those relevant units.

In the SI system, m is in kilograms, c is in metres per second. Energy or E is a derived unit expressed in joules or [FONT=Myriad Roman,Syntax,Gill,Gill Sans,Arial,Helvetica]m2·kg·s-2.

If different systems are used, ie imperial, a different answer will result. Really, this is just basic high school stuff.

[/FONT]

 

[SteelEdge]

Something like that would not catch on.
The public wants things as simple as they can get them.
They do not want to have to actually work for anything.

More superflous fluff from someone who obviously hasn't got a clue about science at all.

 

[Lucretius]

For a derivation of E=mc^2 go here.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You have a very poor understanding of physics, others have shown you where to look up what E=MC^2 means and how to calculate it so I won’t bother to correct you on that subject.

Could you cut to the chase? What point, besides the horrible state of the U.S. educational system, are you trying to make with this?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Gregor,

You need to at least take high school physics to the point where you begin to understand the use of dimensional analysis and units of measurement before you even attempt to make any connection between creation/evolution and mass/energy equivalence. It is painfully obvious that you have no understanding of what you are posting. Continuing will only serve to make you look foolish and reinforce the image of creationists as ignorant of all science.

Lucretius has a good link but it is over your head right now. If you want to learn something, come back with another thread and maybe we can help you but this is not the way to do it.

Sincerely

Cheese

 

[ApocryphaNow]

There are at least two good reasons to use "c" instead of an arbitrary number. These reasons are: 1) physicists like to show that their equations are derived from "first principles" by using the same set of symbols because this gives a better feel of how things are inter-connected in science and 2) the symbol "c" is invariable between the different units of measurement (British Imperial vs. metric for example use the same symbol but mean a different number).

 

[Kripost]

This really does have to do with creation/evolution, trust me... but this time I want to start way out on a tangent and work my way in.

Einstein says E=MC^2.... right? Energy=Mass x speed of light squared.

Now, I forget which unit of mass einstein used... so I'm going to use the pound... If you know which unit of mass he used, feel free to correct me, and just substitute out any time I use the word "Pound" here as the proper unit of mass for the calculation:

Also, ask yourself: what is a unit of energy? In the metric system, it is joule, and in the imperial sytem it is calories, or inch-pound

It does not matter whether you use SI units or imperial units. Personally, I prefer SI units because it is a lot easier to use.

Mass... say one pound is equal to a certain amount of energy... but mass is less than energy because it takes a lot of energy to make mass. That's what einstein was getting at, and I agree... the most fundamental building blocks of matter... is energy. But why the C^2 part?

Not quite. 1 pound is not equal to a certain amount of energy. A better way of expressing is: When totally converting 1 pound of matter into energy it yields a certain amount of energy.

The difference is that 1 pound =/= any amount of energy, since the units are not equivalent.

Also, the fundamental building blocks of matter is not energy, but rather mass is equivalent to energy.

Assuming C to be exactly 186000 miles per second (a little off, but it's the generic number

E=1 pound times 34,596,000,000 miles per second?

Are we to drop the "miles per second" thing? to find the amount of energy in one pound we just multiply that one pound times about 34.6billion? So why doesn't Einstein just say "Energy=massx34.6 billion?" Or does the "miles per second" part have to be there?

You cannot drop the miles per second.

Energy=massx34.6billion miles per second.

I mean, that's how you figure out torque... inchpounds... right? So one pound has 34.6 billion poundmileseconds in it. So... who uses 'poundmileseconds' as a unit of energy?

Firstly, when you are talking about inch-pound, pound here is a unit of force, not mass. The common usage of pound is pound-mass. In physics, using pound for both force and mass can be rather confusing.

Another reason to use metric system.

Secondly, the above section should be:
Energy=mass x (34.6x10^9) (miles per second)^2.
Units make a whole lot of difference.

What if einstein weren't from america... would he assume E=MC^2 still? Even though in metric light is about 300,000 KM/second... therefore E=M x 90,000,000,000... now E=M times 90 billion?

Again, remember your units. Do not forget to include (kgm^2s^-2) .

So one pound has 90 billion poundkilometerseconds in it?

90 billion poundkilometerseconds of what? Poundkilometerseconds is meaningless. Pound-kilometre-squared per second-squared is what you are looking for. Even so, it is horribly ugly, since you are mixing metric units with imperial units.

I mean... if it's in billions you wouldn't measure it in kilometers... so 90 trillion pountmeterseconds?

Since the previous steps are already wrong, this is wrong too.

Or what if it's a measure of light years per year instead of miles per second? 1... so E=m x 1 (since 1 squared is one).

You can, but you will get kg(lightyear per year)^2 as a unit of energy. Most people prefer working in joules, so you will still need to convert the units on the right hand side (kgm^2s^-2) by dividing the number of the right hand side.

1 lightyear = x metres.
1 year = y seconds.

So you will still have to multiply the number of the right by (y/x)^2 in order to get the correct number of joules. You might as well work with c in terms of metres per second anyway.

 

[madarab]

First, a "pound" is properly a unit of force (or weight) rather than mass; the english unit of weight is the "slug". While it's true that in the common vernacular we mix the usage of weight and mass interchangably because we commonly spend our time in a more or less uniform gravitational field, it causes confusion when we try to inappropriately mix things like pounds into equations like E=m*c^2. Second, trying to make a distinction between a pound or hot lava and a pound of ice or any other pound measurement by weight is just silly. They may take up more or less space, but that's rarely an issue unless you can't get all of the material on your scale. You have hit on an important notion though. (I'll be using the metric system from here on out for complete clarity.) A gram of any material has the same mass as a gram of any other material. That includes the energies contained within the mass (even the binding energies). A gram of iron at 0C will have slightly more iron atoms than a gram of iron at 100C.

 

[JohnR7]

More superflous fluff from someone who obviously hasn't got a clue about science at all.

I know to many people with a Phd in "science" that know nothing about their Bible. To the point where the average third grader knows more about it than they do.

I at least know enough about science to be a high school graduate. Can you claim that same proficency in knowing your Bible? Do you know enough about your Bible to pass a high school proficency test?

What do you know about carpentry, electrical, plumbing, drywall, drafting, design? Perhaps we need to check into just how much of a clue you have. What do you know about ancient history and the geneologys?

 

[SteelEdge]

I know to many people with a Phd in "science" that know nothing about their Bible. To the point where the average third grader knows more about it than they do.

So what? Where is the requirement that for anyone to get a science Ph.D. they must show knowledge about the bible? Note, it is Ph.D., not Phd, so I doubt you really know many, unless it they are ones with phoney "Phd"'s from diploma mills.

I at least know enough about science to be a high school graduate. Can you claim that same proficency in knowing your Bible? Do you know enough about your Bible to pass a high school proficency test?

I didn't go to any type of religious schools during my education, so I don't really know what sort of questions about the bible would be in a high school proficency test (whatever that is).

What do you know about carpentry, electrical, plumbing, drywall, drafting, design? Perhaps we need to check into just how much of a clue you have. What do you know about ancient history and the geneologys?

I could ask your knowledge about a whole range of non relevant things like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, vacuum furnaces, scientific charts etc, but that would be just stupid to do so.

 

[Kripost]

First, a "pound" is properly a unit of force (or weight) rather than mass; the english unit of weight is the "slug".

Urm... I think you mean 'slugs' as a unit of mass, as opposed to weight.

 

[tocis]

Does one pound of molten lava have the same energy as a one pound chunk of ice?

The energy that has been "crystallized" into matter is the same in both cases... only that the lava also has more kinetic energy, i. e. the atoms and molecules vibrate faster.

Much faster.

And this translates into what we call "heat", as the heat we feel is basically just a measure of how fast those atoms move around.

 

[The Gregorian]

oooo this is why I like debating physics.. everyone assumes if they don't understand something it must be because the other person doesn't understand it. Yes I've taken highschool physics, and college physics, and read at least a few of hawking's work (good comedy). I've discussed this topic on various forums for at least... a good 200-300 hours... I'd say I've heard the theories just fine.

OK... let's start:

90 billion poundkilometerseconds of what? Poundkilometerseconds is meaningless. Pound-kilometre-squared per second-squared is what you are looking for. Even so, it is horribly ugly, since you are mixing metric units with imperial units.

e=mc^2 says, regarless of any other factor, one unit of energy is equal to one unit of mass times a constant (light squared). This easily converts to any unit of mass times a constant is equal to a x units of energy. Using 300,000 kilometers per second (little less than that, but round numbers are nice), you can easily square that to 9x10^10. So one pound=9x10^10 kilometerpoundseconds worth of energy, or 9x10^16 meterpoundseconds

you said "Poundkilometerseconds is meaningless." And you're right. And E=MC^2 says exactly that because no one would question einstin on anything having to do with light.

Keep in mind Kripost said " You cannot drop the miles per second." So you're left with all units of measurement.

Example.... inchpounds is a certain amount of force applied at a certain arm. Likewise inchpoundseconds is what you're left with in E=MC^2.... oh I don't want to figure it out in inches... what's the speed of light in inches per second?

Firstly, when you are talking about inch-pound, pound here is a unit of force, not mass. The common usage of pound is pound-mass. In physics, using pound for both force and mass can be rather confusing.

Yes, I know pound is both a mass and a force... one pound of force is the amount of energy needed to overcome gravities pull on one pound of mass...

Just because I question a basic concept doesn't mean I don't understand it. I understand it. It's wrong.

 

[The Gregorian]

But the question was never answered (maybe I asked it wrong).

One thing I do remember is E is energy in jouls... a compeltely different form of measurement than inchpoundseconds... Doesn't this specify that whatever the unit of measurement on the right side of the equasion, it should be dropped, as you're only trying to get jouls?

Imporper math, but it happens.... He didn't believe gravity existed, so why should he believe in proper math? He always admitted to being horrible at math. And if he was horrible at math, how did he reach this conclusion... was he in his office converting matter into pure energy and measuring? Or did he just say "ooo something else I can tack light onto"

So there are 63,360 inches in a mile, so light travels (assuming 196,000 miles/second) 11,784,960,000 inches per second. So in inchpounds, a common unit of energy... one pound has 138,885,282,201,600,000,000 inchpoundseconds.

Anywho... if E=MC^2 is right... if all other energy is negligable, and the energy latent in the foundation of matter is all that must be calculated to convert a unit of mass to a unit of energy... here's my question?

if E=MC^2... then one photon has the same energy as any other particle of the same mass. I mean... the kinetic energy in a photon going the speed of light is negligable, right? If the kinetic energy in a photon is not negligable than kinetic energy, heat energy, potential energy, etc. can not be nglected either.

What I'd like to see.... is someone lay out the math for me... go step by step and show me how much energy, in jouls there is in one kilogram... maybe I can use your math as a reference.

 

[Mystman]

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your point (maybe because I didn't read the entire thing but whatever), but anyway:

(almost) all formulas are in SI units.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI#Units

You can't just use "any" unit in any formula. If you want to use pounds instead of kilograms for example, you'll need to change the formula.