Australian Politics Forum - energy and the theory of relativity

easel Gold Member Offline Posts: 3120	Re: Did Jesus exist? Reply #15 - Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 10:50pm Yeah and you will see in the equation that it equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Therefore it isn't equal to mass by itself.
Back to top	I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #16 - Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:12pm

Energy and mass are the same thing. The c^2 part is just a unit conversion. It's like saying $1 and 100c are the same thing, or c = 100 x $. The fact that there is a multiplier just refers to the units you measure it in. Like I said, if we used different units for speed, the formula would be E=m. The c^2 does not mean that the energy is part of sometyhing else. It is the mass. The c^2 just tells you how to convert between the two different measures of the same thing, like converting from pounds to kilograms. The c^2 is a constant, not a variable.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #17 - Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:13pm

Quote:

I'm with Calanen on this one. Infinite in size does not mean infinite in mass, or anything else. It could just be an infinite vaccum. As the diameter of your sphere of observation increases, the mass (or number of life forms or any other proxy) could approach the total mass asymtotically. Infinite space does not have to imply that anything else is infinite. I suspect that the big bang theory suggests a finite mass. I also think that relativity implies infinite space in a cartesian sense, but that in a real sense space folds back in on itself and has a finite size, but you can't reach the edge. That's about the limit of my memory of high school physics.

Then what if I asked, how many days are contained within an infinite amount of time?
My answer would be, the same amount as the number of hours, minutes, seconds or milliseconds; an infinite amount.

It seems to me to be the same as asking, how much matter is contained in an infinite amount of space.
Since infinite means boundless or unmeasurable, how can you put a measure on what's contained within the unmeasurable?

Just to add:
What does infinty x 1 million equal ?
It equals the same as infinity x 0.0001.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:28pm by Amadd »

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #18 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 10:29am

While we are off on irrelevant tangents(thanks FD), it brings to mind when some jehovahs came to my house once, and I asked them what Jesus looked like.

I asked them if there were any references in the bible, which described his appearance.

They did not know, but said they could not think of any, so I asked them if they thought our attitudes would change if he were represented as a grim, dark skinned middle eastern looking man, rather than the beatific european hippie that we are used to seeing.

We see plenty of images on our TV's of middle eastern zealots, and I cannot help but think that an image like that would be far less appealing to our western sensibilities.

Back to top

God4.jpg (57 KB | 48 )

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #19 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:10am

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:12pm:

Energy and mass are the same thing. The c^2 part is just a unit conversion. It's like saying $1 and 100c are the same thing, or c = 100 x $. The fact that there is a multiplier just refers to the units you measure it in. Like I said, if we used different units for speed, the formula would be E=m. The c^2 does not mean that the energy is part of sometyhing else. It is the mass. The c^2 just tells you how to convert between the two different measures of the same thing, like converting from pounds to kilograms. The c^2 is a constant, not a variable.

As far as I am aware, the theory of relativity has not been proven either way.

So you are saying energy = mass.

I disagree, but I am only basing that off basic human anatomy and understanding.

Eg, two guys can both have exactly 2kg of muscle in a bicep. One guy can move 20kg with that single muscle, the other guy can only manage 10kg. The 20kg guy can move 2kg at a speed much greater than the guy who can only manage 10kg. He can also last a lot longer before hitting failure. So he has more strength, speed, endurance and power than the other guy, even though their mass is exactly the same.

Therefore E cannot equal m.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #20 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:17am

Quote:

Then what if I asked, how many days are contained within an infinite amount of time?
My answer would be, the same amount as the number of hours, minutes, seconds or milliseconds; an infinite amount.

But time and days are a measure of the same thing. Volume, mass, number of lifeforms etc are not a measure of the same thing. It would be a better analogy to ask how many bell tolls, or how many grains of sand there are in an infinite amount of time.

Quote:

Since infinite means boundless or unmeasurable, how can you put a measure on what's contained within the unmeasurable?

Difficulty in measuring a quantity does not imply the quantity is infinite.

Quote:

As far as I am aware, the theory of relativity has not been proven either way.

It is not possible to prive a scientific theory. Only to attempt to disprove it.

Quote:

So you are saying energy = mass.

I am saying energy is mass. They are two measures of the same thing.

Quote:

Eg, two guys can both have exactly 2kg of muscle in a bicep. One guy can move 20kg with that single muscle, the other guy can only manage 10kg. The 20kg guy can move 2kg at a speed much greater than the guy who can only manage 10kg. He can also last a lot longer before hitting failure. So he has more strength, speed, endurance and power than the other guy, even though their mass is exactly the same.

Therefore E cannot equal m.

The guy who put more speed (kinetic energy) into the weight would lose slighly more mass (energy) from his muscle than the guy who moved less. Of course, the quantity of energy involved, when measured as mass, would be way beyond insignificant and undetectable compared to the wieght of the muscle. E=mc^2 refers to the total amount of energy, not the minuscule amount that is 'available' through biological or chemical processes.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:22am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #21 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:37am

Quote:

The guy who put more speed (kinetic energy) into the weight would lose slighly more mass (energy) from his muscle than the guy who moved less. Of course, the quantity of energy involved, when measured as mass, would be way beyond insignificant and undetectable compared to the wieght of the muscle. E=mc^2 refers to the total amount of energy, not the minuscule amount that is 'available' through biological or chemical processes.

I don't think you understood my analogy.

I don't buy your idea that for a second, here's why.

Ok, we have 2 generators, identical in all aspects, fuel, conditions, atmosphere etc.

Attached to these generators are identical contraptions, gears/cogs/pulleys/whatever which ends up with a shaft thingo. Both these contraptions are placed in water, not the same place, but identical in every way.

Now attached to these shafts are propellers. Say one is lead, one is titanium, both made with exactly the same mass and proportionate ratios.

Output is measured by infinitely accurate data readers, and prop cavitation is recorded.

What will the results be, even though everything is identical, including power source and mass of propeller? Now, the props are not going to be the same, but in proportion, so in scale of each other, but they will have exactly the same mass.

Your theory says that their output measured in the water through such things as thrust and cavitation, will be the same. I disagree.

Or maybe I am not able to understand what you are trying to explain. Can you make it clearer?

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #22 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:45am

FD, another thing.

If energy was equal to mass, then those special types of uranium would not be necessary to run reactors.

All uranium would be good to go.

Now, I have 1kg of lead, and 1kg of yellow cake uranium (I think that is the right terminology).

Which has more radiation (a type of energy), the lead or the uranium?

Quite clearly, energy does not equal mass.

I think (on Earth with our gravity) mass is equal to weight. Not sure.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #23 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 1:05pm

Quote:

While we are off on irrelevant tangents(thanks FD), it brings to mind when some jehovahs came to my house once, and I asked them what Jesus looked like.

I think that the comments are intertwined and relevant to the original question Mozz. As is yours, in that Jesus is portrayed as a pretty average looking bloke and not an unatractive nor overly attractive one. IMO, this is because Jesus is a reference point for all people to aspire to, and not such a bad thing.

Quote:

Difficulty in measuring a quantity does not imply the quantity is infinite.

I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about impossibility.

It's impossible to measure because there is no end.
Even if you went out into the furtherest reaches of space and found that the edge of space is a wall of gold ecompassing the entire universe, the question might then be, how much vacuum exists? It's still unanswerable because you don't know what's on the otherside of the wall. But if you asked, how much vacuum exists within this wall, then the wall would then be a reference point and it would be a measurable. The mass contained within this wall would also be measurable.

I'm talking about infinity, meaning forever, which is beyond comprehension and beyond reason.

Quote:

But time and days are a measure of the same thing. Volume, mass, number of lifeforms etc are not a measure of the same thing. It would be a better analogy to ask how many bell tolls, or how many grains of sand there are in an infinite amount of time.

All measurements are reference points.
I don't think you're coming to terms with what "infinity" means.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #24 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 1:41pm

easel wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:37am:

Quote:

The guy who put more speed (kinetic energy) into the weight would lose slighly more mass (energy) from his muscle than the guy who moved less. Of course, the quantity of energy involved, when measured as mass, would be way beyond insignificant and undetectable compared to the wieght of the muscle. E=mc^2 refers to the total amount of energy, not the minuscule amount that is 'available' through biological or chemical processes.

I don't think you understood my analogy.

I don't buy your idea that for a second, here's why.

Ok, we have 2 generators, identical in all aspects, fuel, conditions, atmosphere etc.

Attached to these generators are identical contraptions, gears/cogs/pulleys/whatever which ends up with a shaft thingo. Both these contraptions are placed in water, not the same place, but identical in every way.

Now attached to these shafts are propellers. Say one is lead, one is titanium, both made with exactly the same mass and proportionate ratios.

Output is measured by infinitely accurate data readers, and prop cavitation is recorded.

What will the results be, even though everything is identical, including power source and mass of propeller? Now, the props are not going to be the same, but in proportion, so in scale of each other, but they will have exactly the same mass.

Your theory says that their output measured in the water through such things as thrust and cavitation, will be the same. I disagree.

Or maybe I am not able to understand what you are trying to explain. Can you make it clearer?

You appear to be confusing energy with available, or productive energy. The amount of energy present is billions of times greater than the energy you see doing work.

Quote:

If energy was equal to mass, then those special types of uranium would not be necessary to run reactors.

Yes it would. Just because the energy is there does not mean you can harvest it.

Quote:

I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about impossibility.

Same principle. Ju8st because it is impossible to emasure something, does not mean the quantity is infinite. You are confusing two issues, by assuming that the quantity is impossible to measure because it is infinite. Rather, it is impossible to meausre merely because it is spread infinitely thin.

Quote:

I'm talking about infinity, meaning forever, which is beyond comprehension and beyond reason.

But it is not beyond comprehension at all, or reason. It is quite easy to comprehend a finite mass distributed over an infinite space.

Quote:

I don't think you're coming to terms with what "infinity" means.

Yes I am. You are merely confusing infinite space with infinite mass. The two are different things. If one is infinite that does not automatically mean the other is.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #25 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 1:50pm

Quote:

You appear to be confusing energy with available, or productive energy. The amount of energy present is billions of times greater than the energy you see doing work.

Kinetic energy?

Both propellers are provided with the exact same amount of energy. Exact same. They have the exact same mass (which you think is the same as energy, if it was I think Einstein would have not bothered adding the c^2 to his equation). Now is their output the same? Your theory implies it would be. Are you changing your theory now?

Quote:

Yes it would. Just because the energy is there does not mean you can harvest it.

What kind of energy is in lead apart from potential energy? Potential energy isn't energy, it means it is capable of acquiring energy. The uranium is leeching energy from it without anything having to be done, that's why I think uranium has the same more radioactive energy than the lead, which it does, and why I also think uranium has more energy overall than lead. Potential energy is not energy, it means it has the potential to have energy. I hear lead can absorb radiation though, or deflect it, or something.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #26 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 1:53pm

Also, when lead leeches energy, it isn't energy it is leeching, it is just other lead which is being removed from it, which is why you get lead contamination of things.

You get radiation poisoning from the uranium, not uranium poisoning. I think that's why you get such things as depleted uranium, when all the radioactive energy has gone.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #27 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 2:03pm

Quote:

Both propellers are provided with the exact same amount of energy. Exact same. They have the exact same mass (which you think is the same as energy, if it was I think Einstein would have not bothered adding the c^2 to his equation). Now is their output the same? Your theory implies it would be. Are you changing your theory now?

the theory does not imply anything like that, because the energy is not 'output', it remains there, in the form of mass. If the energy were output, the mass would be also.

Quote:

What kind of energy is in lead apart from potential energy?

There are all kinds of energy, potential, kinetic, chemical, nuclear etc. The mass is a measure of the total energy.

Quote:

Potential energy isn't energy,

Yes it is. that's why the call it energy.

Quote:

it means it is capable of acquiring energy

No it doesn't. The energy is already aquired. It merely refers to the capability ot loosing the energy in a simple mechanical manner.

Quote:

The uranium is leeching energy from it without anything having to be done, that's why I think uranium has the same more radioactive energy than the lead, which it does

It has a tendency to lose, or radiate the energy. That doesn;t mean it has more per unit mass.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: Did Jesus exist?
Reply #28 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 2:09pm

Quote:

the theory does not imply anything like that, because the energy is not 'output', it remains there, in the form of mass. If the energy were output, the mass would be also.

Do you have a complete understanding of the theory FD? Energy can be measured, like with bullets, energy is measured in ft/lbs of energy. Joules are energy. Newtons are energy. Rather, they are measurements of energy, energy quantified. These two propellers have the same mass. They are of the exact same proportionate dimensions. They are powered by the exact same amount of transferred energy. Therefore, if you were correct, measured output energy and cavitation would be identical.

Quote:

There are all kinds of energy, potential, kinetic, chemical, nuclear etc. The mass is a measure of the total energy.

I disagree with the last sentence.

Quote:

Yes it is. that's why the call it energy.

No, it isn't. It is potential energy. An uncompressed spring contains potential energy, a compressed spring contained that energy potential realised. It actually has energy, compared to the uncompressed spring which just contains potential energy.

Quote:

No it doesn't. The energy is already aquired. It merely refers to the capability ot loosing the energy in a simple mechanical manner.

No it is not already acquired. It has the potential to be acquired. If I put a piece of aluminium outside, it has the potential to contain thermal energy. If the sun comes out and shines on it, and transfers that heat to the aluminium, then it now contains thermal energy.

Quote:

It has a tendency to lose, or radiate the energy. That doesn;t mean it has more per unit mass.

I think you are wrong.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: energy and the theory of relativity
Reply #29 - Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 2:19pm

Quote:

Do you have a complete understanding of the theory FD?

No, but I have more than enough to respond here without challenging my understanding.

Quote:

Energy can be measured, like with bullets, energy is measured in ft/lbs of energy. Joules are energy. Newtons are energy. Rather, they are measurements of energy, energy quantified.

Mass is the measure of all the energy.

Quote:

These two propellers have the same mass. They are of the exact same proportionate dimensions.

Therefor they have the same total energy. This has nothing to do with the attached motor.

Quote:

They are powered by the exact same amount of transferred energy.

Any transferred energy will also result in a change in mass, though in this scenario it would be far too small to be significant or measurable.

Quote:

I disagree with the last sentence.

Well, that's what the theory says.

Quote:

No, it isn't. It is potential energy.

That is energy. It is just a reference to a certain form of energy. The potential refers to the ability to harvest the energy mechanically, not to the absence of the energy.

Quote:

An uncompressed spring contains potential energy

Wrong. A compressed spring contains potential energy.

Quote:

I think you are wrong.

I know you are wrong.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged