Quote:


Are you sure?

Quote:


Mass is not the measure of energy. Mass is mass. Things like joules and newtons and ft/lbs are measures of energy.

Quote:


So their output would be identical? Is that what you are saying?

Quote:


I assume the amount of energy transferred would be identical if everything leading to the propeller, and the conditions it is placed in, are identical. With your advanced understanding (compared to me) of science, please explain why the mass transfer would not be identical, if the props have the same mass, and the only thing different in the two experiments is the size of the props, and their materials. They have the same mass, so by your logic, they have the same energy. Please explain.

Quote:


If it has to harvest it, it doesn't have it yet, it has to get it from elsewhere. Therefore, it isn't energy.

Quote:


I thought an uncompressed spring has potential energy because as of yet, it requires compression to realise it's energy or energy potential, and therefore cannot provide energy for any thing else, it has to receive it from somewhere.

I thought a compressed spring would contain energy because it has the ability to release energy, it doesn't have to harvest it from anywhere.

That was my reasoning, sorry if I got the scientific terminology wrong, but that was the point I was trying to go with.

Quote:


Please tell me how. Can you prove Einstein's equation? Please tell me how you know I am wrong, when discussing theoretical science.

I'm trying to debate a theory, and you insist that the theory cannot be questioned, even though theory means it isn't fact.

1500 years ago people KNEW the earth was flat.

500 years ago people KNEW the earth was flat.

Why is my questioning wrong? I am essentially asking questions when I write. There is not such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers, is what I was taught.

I am questioning things, and you are presenting unproven ideas as fact. You know, I am trying to think outside the box, I am one of those guys who back in the day would have asked, but maybe the earth is round! And you would have said, shutup unbeliever.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 5:23pm:


My understanding of the theory is E=MC^2.

Your understanding is E=M.

My understanding of high school algebra (which is probably wrong), makes me think these are the only possible ways that formula can be interpreted:

0 = MC^2 - E

E divided by C^2 = M

E divided by M = C^2

And so on and so forth, like I said, I wasn't good at maths.

The original theory says E=MC^2. Einstein, the guy who thought up the theory, and therefore would have the greatest insight in to it, did not write E=M, probably because he did not think that was the case, I do not know.

What idea did you have that made you come to the conclusion that E must be equal to M?

I also do not think you understand the theory, otherwise you would be writing international best sellers and giving speeches at universities all over the world.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 6:06pm:


Does that mean a kilogram of Corn Flakes has the same energy (joules/kilojoules) as a kilogram of fat?

Amadd wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:13pm:


Quote:


Quote:


Given that the observable universe has large volumes of empty space, we know that the amount of matter is less than the container being the borders of space, even if itself is infinite. So while the universe may be infinite in size, the fact there is empty space before our eyes, means that the amount of matter within the universe is finite.

Also, it must be less than infinite, because All matter has mass and mass has attraction. An infinite amount of mass would have an infinite amount of attraction, attracting all matter in the universe to it and reaching singularity.

As there is observably not infinite attraction, there is clearly not infinite matter.

Calanen wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 6:42pm:


After writing that, what do you think of the big bang theory? Doesn't it imply that all the mass of the universe was compressed to a single dense point at one stage?

Quote:


I didn't start this tangent. I merely corrected mistakes as I saw them.

Quote:


Yes. But don't confuse the total energy with the available chemical or 'biological' energy. This seems to be what everyone is doing here. The identity of matter and energy means that our traditional view of energy only captures the minute fraction of energy that is easy to do useful work with. It's like talking about the amount of energy involved in two suns colliding in terms of the output of the solar panel on a calculator. You are missing 99.99999+% of the picture.

Quote:


Not necessarily. There are several reasons. If the universe is expanding as per currently accepted theory, and was sufficiently spread out, then yes it would tend to do that, but the acceleration would by sufficiently slow such that it takes a really long time for the next singularity (big bang) to come, or may never come at all, if the rate of expansion exceeds the 'escape velocity'. Also, there may be additional forces pushing matter apart. Finally, infinite mass separated by infite distance does not mean an infinite attractive force, as you are essentially dividing infinity by infinity. You would need other techniques and more information to figure out what actually happens. That is, it is not a logical result of the assumptions you have presented, but merely one of many possible results.

Quote:


That would be measuring the chemical energy, loosely speaking. The energy available biologically is significantly less I think. That is only a small part of the energy present. Even nuclear reactions, which release massive amounts of energy and only require a small mass, still only transfer a very small part of the mass/energy. Most of the mass/energy remains as spent fuel. In conventional burning, most of the mass ends up in CO2 and other gasses that float away. When you release all of the energy, you release all of the mass, so the light or whatever it gives off is the entire mass you started with. Or in other words, the light you get when you burn something is actually a minute part of the mass of what you are burning.