# Einstein, Ignorance, and Atomic Bombs

1. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago

An exchange in a hub's comment section led me to wonder how many people are confused by misinformation about Albert Einstein's famously promoted equation: E=MC2.

This equation has nothing to do with conversion of matter into energy - in fact, it argues against that possibility.

All E=MC2 means is that energy and matter are codependent (energy contains mass and mass contains energy), and that a multiple of mass is equivalent to its energy.

Therefore, you cannot transform mass into energy or energy into mass as they are dependent upon each other.

1. 81
pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Aren't mass and energy the same thing?

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

No, mass is the amount of matter an object is, and a numerical value for it's inertia.  Not to be confused with weight, which is the mass multiplied by the gravity of where ever the object is (ie, gravity on earth is different than gravity in space, or on mars etc., so an object would have different weight).  Often measured in (Kg)

For example, if you went on a diet you wouldn't want to lose weight, you would actually want to lose mass.

Energy is the capacity for doing work kinetic or potential. Ie. In motion or at rest.  Often measured in Joules (J)

For example, a rock sitting in front of you has potential energy.  Now the rock falls off a cliff and has kinetic energy.

1. 81
pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

But its all energy right? Kinetic, Potential, mass, matter. Energy in motion, not in motion, changing form. Energy cant be destroyed. Mass cant be destroyed because its energy anyway?

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

What you are stating is correct, but they are defined by two different units. You're looking at it from a relativistic point, which just provides total energy.  Basically saying that energy is dependent on mass and vice versa.  It's like Coke and Diet Coke.  They are both Coke but different.  According to the Conservation of Energy you are correct.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred from one state to another.  Lastly, matter is definitely not energy, because it can be created and destroyed.

1. 81
pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Okay cool, I think I'm following your logic. (tell me if I'm not). How can matter not be energy? A tree has energy, but when we cut a tree down to make a table, that form of energy has changed but has not been completely destroyed. May have destroyed part or all of the tree but its now a table. The table is potential energy (I think thats what you call it) but when we burn the table the energy then becomes kinetic. The  ashes of what was once a table either gets absorbed into the earth and becomes part of earths composition be it minerals or whatever earth is made up of. Or it dissipates into the earths atmosphere becoming part of that. Therefore it appears it is not being destroyed at all just constantly changing form. Are you saying when energy becomes matter that energy no longer exists? Or that matter is not energy at all?
Please excuse my lack of education but I find it really fascinating.

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Matter is what makes up something, and mass is the amount of that matter.  So, matter describes the things around us, and energy is what's contained in or added to those things. Energy doesn't become matter. Energy just transfers from state to state.

I think the easiest way to look at matter in ones every day life is that energy is an addition to matter.  Take a look at your table:  I walk over to it jump on top, break it into a million pieces, and then break out a flame thrower.  Now, the matter (your table) is gone, well the majority of it any way.  But that energy that was in that table is not.  It has been expelled back into the world through convection, conduction, or radiation.  It's still out there.

However, I must caveat, that I think energy can be created and destroyed by GOD.  Additionally, if you believe in the Big Band, energy must have been created through the singularity.  So, without getting into Quarks and Kaons Here is a pretty good source for Matter and Energy:

Here this will help explain better than my informal explanations:

There are 4 fundamental states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma.  We will concern ourselves only with the first three since the plasma state does not occur commonly in nature.  Continuing with our example, the solid water (or ice) is shown at left.  In solids, molecules are tightly packed together.  As you can see in the representation, the molecules of a solid do move, however their movement is very limited.  As you add energy to ice in the form of heat, you increase the amount of movement by each molecule.  The molecules slowly separate from each other and form a liquid state.

Liquid water molecules
Unlike the solid state where the individual molecules are relatively fixed in place, molecules can easily move past one another in the liquid state as can be seen in the diagram at right.  As you add even more heat to the sample, the molecules separate further until the point at which there is relatively little interaction between them.  At this point, the individual molecules move very quickly.  This is called the gas state.  In water, the gas state is achieved by boiling water to form steam.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/2-matter.htm

This is a good one:
http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbasees/hframe.html

1. 81
pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

I get it now! Cool! Thanks for the excellent lesson in the different processes. Makes much more sense to me now.

Enjoyed it!

2. 60
couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

penny - mass is made of energy - energy grouped into objective form (forming an object as we know it).  Energy creates mass in proportion.  One atom - small mass, 15 billion atoms - larger mass.  Matter can be considered mass when speaking mathematically.  Energy is a term used in physics but the two are not exclusive to these fields  Technically, mass can be deconstructed but not literally destroyed.  I, however, only have a layman's knowledge on the subject.  Quantum physics is on my short list of things to learn.

2. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Mass is a concept that describes the inertia of an object.  Energy is a concept of that describes the ability to perform work.

Mass and weight are not universally interchangeable - if you moved to the moon your weight would reduce but your mass would stay the same.

2. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Sure you can turn mass into energy, what do you think the Atomic Bomb was?

1. 90
melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

I agree with Ediggity, this equation illustrates a direct relationship between energy and matter. The atomic bomb is the proof of the relationship here and the bomb also illustrates how much power there is in something as small as an atom. The bomb is a result of the release of the energy required to hold the protons in close proximity to each other in the nucleus of the atom. Without this energy the protons would repel each other at the speed of light. The equation also explains how light, energy, and matter in the universe make the existence of the stars and galaxies in the cosmos possible. Remember Einstein came up with the  this equation while trying to explain where all that light and heat were coming from within the sun. They were coming from the conversion of matter into energy.

2. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

The binding energy of the nucleus was converted - mass had no significant change.

"The main contribution is due to binding energy being converted to other forms of energy - a consequence not of Einstein's formula, but of the fact that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

Still, E=mc2 had a supporting role in the story of nuclear fission research. Not as the mechanism behind nuclear power, but as a tool: Because energy and mass are equivalent, highly sensitive measurements of the masses of different atomic nuclei gave the researchers important clues about the strength of the nuclear bond"

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

If you post quotes you should site a source.  Here is something that may help you understand.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/fi … /bomb.html

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/fi … /emc2.html

To state it simply:

A nuclear bomb has mass= a piece of unstable plutonium, and as it breaks down through fission it releases energy.  The more the original mass goes away the more energy gets released.  Viola mass turned to energy.

1. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Here is what Stanford University says about it:

"In fact Einstein's relationship tells us more, it says Energy and mass are interchangeable. Or, better said, rest mass is just one form of energy. For a compound object, the mass of the composite is not just the sum of the masses of the constituents but the sum of their energies, including kinetic, potential, and mass energy. The equation E=mc2 shows how to convert between energy units and mass units. Even a small mass corresponds to a significant amount of energy."

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Exactly!  Now you finally understand. It's a sum of the energy, and thus also converted from mass to energy:

"The equation E=mc2 shows how to convert between energy units and mass units. Even a small mass corresponds to a significant amount of energy."

I think you have now finally cleared up your own confusion.

3. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Mass is a descriptive concept of an amount of inertia - how does one make an idea explode?

Here is a hint: It can't be done.

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Oh, well why didn't you just say so in the first place.  Great scientific reasoning.  Bravo.  Where did you study again?

Here's a hint: It's there whether you describe it or not.

1. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Mass conceptually describes inertia.   Hint: Inertia doesn't explode.  The energy of an atomic explosion is from a chain-reaction release of the bonding energy of the nuclei.

It ain't from mass - Not Einstein's mass or the Pope's Mass.

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

You are so missing the point.

3. 60
Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Albert Einstein, was certainly not Ignorant ... just Wrongly Orientated in his approach to the Proper, in human Understanding ... he followed the Destructive Path, and knew it  ... By the way, Relativity Theory talks of Energy into Mass Convertability ... the Return Conversion being Implied ...

Winston, have you read his letter to the American President, "requesting" him to desist from Applying his Convertibility Theory based A-Bombs, on the Japanese ?

Einstein, i say once again ... was very well aware , of what he was talking about ... meaning, his    E= MC2, equation, demonstrates, the Proportionate interconvertibiliy of Energy, into Mass, at the constant of the Speed of light. ... [thus Critical Mass' ready Convertibility, into insane Energy]... his theory, has led to the scourge of Nuclear bombs in our time, meaning, the popular Fission and Fusion Devices.

I know, yet, I would like to know ... why are you, defending him ... belatedly, as an innocent scientist.

4. 61
Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Well put, hubmaster, but I also like to point out that there is more to the theory, even beyond that, and it has to do with the fact that, prior to the release of the atomic bomb, which merely transferred the energy locked inside an atom, it was tested in our own country. Reference the Manhattan Project. Now, in spite of the fact that up to and including the split in the aforesaid atom, that beyond a certain point, it was theoretical. They knew they could split it, they just weren't too terribly sure what would happen once the split was complete. A popular theory passed around at the project itself, was that the entire earth would be annihilated....and yet, they did it anyways. Now, some think that we should rely on men similar, or maybe worse to tell us what to think and what to believe. Damned if I will...They're all nuts!

5. 58

Well said, I would agree.

I'm not sure if 'codependent and dependent' would be the correct terms to use here.

Essentially, the formula states that "units" of mass can be transformed/converted to "units" of energy, and vice-versa, and that the formula does not state a physical conversion or transformation of properties takes place.

2. 92
rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

they are equivalent with each other as stated in the equation.  here Einstein explains it very simply. it holds various implications.

3. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago

What is energy? Can anybody objectively define energy without opinion or conjecture?
And don't give me synonyms for for this term....as that is circular.

Is 'it' an object (noun) that exists and is real, or is it a concept (verb)?

If energy is real, i.e. exists, then someone would have no problem illustrating 'it' with a simple diagram on a bar napkin....or even referencing an image of 'it' online.

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Energy is plain and simply the capacity for doing work.  If energy changes from one state to another it is doing work.

1. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

"the capacity for doing work" is an abstract concept. Capacities don't exist. Capacities have no physical presence; they have no shape/form/structure. Matter exists, but energy doesn't. Energy is not a synonym for matter.

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

In a closed system capacities do exist. If energy doesn't exist then what gives you the ability to walk around?  I never said energy was a synonym for matter.  It is the capacity for doing work, that's how energy is defined.  You're being to philosophical.

1. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Do 'capacities' exist like 'trees' exist? I can illustrate an image of a tree. Can you illustrate an image of a 'capacity'? If you can't, then "capacity" is not an object; it is a concept, and hence, does not exist.

"what gives you the ability to walk around?"

That would be my legs.

"You're being to philosophical"

Au contraire, my friend. It is you who is being philosophical because you clearly responded that energy is only a concept, and not an object. You cannot demonstrate that it's part of reality.

Philosophy is the study of concepts.
Physics is the study of objects which exist. Without objects you can't even begin to do physics. I mean, when was the last time you saw 'a' capacity (noun/object) fly over your head?

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Lol,

Why do I need to "illustrate an image of a capacity"?  Why does it need to be an object?  Physics studies predictability, ie what's going to happen, not just objects. Please don't butcher the definition of physics with your philosophy of what you think it is or should be.

Is height an object?  Is time an object?  What about temperature? I suppose those things are "opinion" and "conjecture" to you also. Lol. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Merriam Webster:

phys·ics
noun pl but singular or pl in constr \ˈfi-ziks\
Definition of PHYSICS
1
: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions
2
a : the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system b : the physical properties and composition of something

Here is an image of a capacity in a closed system:

Here's one for lung capacity (I suppose to you that lung capacity doesn't exist either)

http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/e … =857170098

Here's one for Calorimetry

http://scienceaid.co.uk/chemistry/physi … halpy.html

Lastly, one you may be familiar with.  it's kind of a big deal:

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/ … ystem.html

1. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

“Why do I need to "illustrate an image of a capacity"?”

If you can’t illustrate an image of this object which YOU call “capacity”, then it can’t possibly exist. You are practising a Religion.

“Why does it need to be an object?”

The universe either has objects (something) or space (nothing). There is no other option and no in-between. If it has shape/form then it’s an object. What is it that you don’t understand?

“Physics studies predictability, ie what's going to happen”

Are you an Astrologer, Tarot Card Reader, Palm Reader, or a relative of Sylvia Brown?
Physics only studies existence. It doesn’t study human ideas and their associated hormonal emotions. Without objects you can’t even begin to do Physics. There were no concepts conceived before your God created Adam & Eve. Humans absolutely invented all concepts. Only Philosophy studies concepts. Religion studies concepts which are said to exhibit motion.
You don’t even understand the Scientific Method (hypothesis + Theory). A Scientific Theory only explains consummated events i.e., they have already occurred in the past. A hypothesis & theory have no provision for fortune-telling!
Physics is not about fortune-telling. If you disagree, please go tell that to James Randi, as he offers \$1,000,000 to anyone who can predict what is going to happen in the future!
You don’t understand the difference between Science and Religion.

“Is height an object?  Is time an object?  What about temperature?”

You can easily answer this question yourself. If you want them to be objects, just draw an image of them.....then you’ll know.
In physics, no concept can be said to exist. Love doesn't exist. Justice doesn't exist. And height, time, temp, are just concepts. The day that concepts exist it's because you overdid it on the booze! In physics, only OBJECTS may﻿ be said to exist as they have physical presence....not "spiritual" presence as your Religion is asserting.

“Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.”

Exactly! That’s why objects are “hypothesized” to exist and illustrated in the Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method. But of course....you didn’t even know that.

“Merriam Webster:”

In Science, we don't care how many people vote for a definition. We throw all dictionaries in the garbage! Scientific definitions are those than can be used consistently. That's an objective standard. Your "Let's go to the booth and vote" proposal is subjective and does not address whether the definition is rational. The dictionary was written by lamebrain artsy-fartsy types... people with no ability to reason. We clean out our ass with the dict. In Science, the proponent has to define words SCIENTIFICALLY (i.e., in such a way that he can use them consistently)! We don't just transcribe defs from the dict w/o critical thinking and analysis.

So don’t dance around the issue any longer:
1) Is energy an object (something) or a concept (nothing)?
2) Can you show an image of this object which you call ‘energy’ or ‘capacity’?

If not, then you are no different than the Muslim who cannot produce an image of his supposed God object.

1. 59
ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Lol, "in science we don't care."  I'm glad you speak for everyone in the scientific community. We appreciate your help.  I'm sure everyone agrees with you.LOL!

Right Here you are wrong:
"The universe either has objects (something) or space (nothing). There is no other option and no in-between. If it has shape/form then it’s an object. What is it that you don’t understand?"

The universe has many other things, and if we ignored them like you propose then we wouldn't understand half the things we do today.Like I said earlier.  The universe has time, distance, velocity, acceleration, heat etc.. those are not objects. Imagine if we ignored all of those things. It doesn't matter if they are concepts or not, because they are the prime focus of physics, whether or not your philosophical definition of physics agrees or not.

"A hypothesis & theory have no provision for fortune-telling!"

That is exactly what a hypothesis & theory have.

Physics studies predictability.  ie. what is going to happen when this window breaks, or this rocket launches, or this ball falls, or this asteroid collides, or this bullet fires, or this light switch gets turned on etc..  I'm sure with all of your extensive physics background you must have learned that somewhere in there.  Or were you a rogue physics understudy who decided he was going to revolutionize the physics world early on in the classroom?

As I have stated before energy is simply the capacity for doing work.  Nobody is concerned with your philosophical object or concept? definition. I don't see how you can actually attempt to represent anything remotely close to the scientific community and believe the things you type.

Lastly, I also posted links to where my images came from if you can't see them.  Just click them.

1. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

“I also posted links to where my images came from if you can't see them”

They are working now, so I will respond....

“I'm sure everyone agrees with you”

Science is OBJECTIVE and we resolve these issues objectively! This is not about raising your hand and voting and agreeing and reaching consensus like they do in your Religion. The issue is whether you can illustrate a picture of energy -- not of the Earth, lungs, or containers with liquids/gases -- but of ‘energy’. If you cannot, then your CLAIMS are instantly debunked right there and then....not by me....but by you!

It’s very easy to find people who “agree” with your sweet metaphors and lovely poetry. Mother Nature pisses on majority rule. Authority is for gullible followers who are so INSECURE about their claims, that they always look around to see how many stand behind them.
What you're saying is that if you had been born in Biblical times you would have subscribed to the Flat Earth theory because the entire body of 'scientists' can't be wrong. And you would have subscribed to an Earth-centric universe covered by a firmament and supported by pillars because everyone “AGREES” with it. No wonder you don’t understand what science is about. I’ll let you resolve these issues with your Pastor during Sunday Service, ok? I hear he likes young, gullible, tender boys, like you.

“Right Here you are wrong: The universe either has objects (something) or space (nothing).”

Thank you for your opinion. But please explain WHAT ELSE is there in the universe other than ‘something’ or ‘nothing’. Is it souls and spirits like your Pastor told you? If you can’t explain, then we both agree that you haven’t a clue of what you’re talking about.

“the universe has time, distance, velocity, acceleration, heat”

Please reference a picture of these little critters which walk around your room in the middle of the night and tickle your feet.

“those are not objects.”

Exactly! They are nothing! They are only concepts which require a sentient observer to conceive of them while watching a movie of the dynamic “effects” (verbs) of objects.
Do “effects” scare you in the middle of the night, or is it objects like Dracula and Frankenstein which scare you? Which is it?

“they are the prime focus of physics”

Nope. You haven’t a clue what physics is about. Mother Nature only has OBJECTS. That is all that exists. Mother Nature couldn’t care less about your imaginary conceptual friends like God, Devil, souls, spirits which scare you in the middle of the night. Physics is the study of OBJECTS. Only objects can be the ACTORS in any Hypothesis & Theory. Just like actors are the objects in a movie. You need to be able to make a movie of your Theory in order to rationally explain your CLAIMS to the jury. You cannot make a movie of concepts/nothing. You cannot make a movie of your CLAIMED 'energy' nonsense.....I mean, you cannot even illustrate a picture of it. You need to learn the basics of reality before coming here and blowing smoke.

Fat: "A hypothesis & theory have no provision for fortune-telling!"

edi: “That is exactly what a hypothesis & theory have.”

So Science = Astrology = Fortune-Telling = Palm Reading = Tarot Card Reading to you, huh?

You don't know the basics, edi. Predictions ONLY have to do with the future. Explanations (Theories) ONLY have to do with the past. You can only explain a consummated event – that’s what Scientific Theories are about. Hypotheses & Theory are only used to EXPLAIN events of the past. You can only predict what that hasn't happened. How you managed to confuse the two is beyond words.
Learn this, and learn it well... A prediction IS invariably ALWAYS a description. A prediction NEVER contains an explanation (cause, why). A prediction ONLY states that on such and such day at such and such hour something will occur. That's only a description of a supposed event which hasn’t even happened, not an explanation of WHY it will occur.

You should try using a crystal ball, edi. They are more aesthetic and pleasant to the eye. Anyways, please predict which finger I'm gonna move next. Use fortune-telling, your crystal ball or the Zodiac if you have to. This is should be real easy, right edi? I mean, it’s just a finger, not astrophysics. Let’s see if you can get it right?
I mean, if you can’t predict something simple as which finger I will move next, how can we possibly believe your nonsense about predicting other events?

Here, edi, let me get your started: Fatfist will move his _______ finger before he reads my response. Fill in the blank, please!

“Physics studies predictability.  ie. what is going to happen when this window breaks, or this rocket launches”

If that was the case, then NASA and the other space agencies in the world would have ALREADY KNOWN that the shuttle or their rockets would FAIL/EXPLODE and killing those on board, BEFORE launching them!!!!!
So you are suggesting that NASA killed those on board the shuttles on PURPOSE. That’s murder and a conspiracy, because according to YOU, they ALREADY KNEW what was going to happen based on their PREDICTIONS (fortune-telling, predictability) during the launch.
That’s quite the fantastical Religion you got there, edi. Very amusing! Give my warmest regards to your Pastor this Sunday.

I can do predictions too, edi. Here, watch very closely.....as I will make my most important prediction ever, one that only I can make. Not even God can predict this one! Ready?
I predict that I am going to turn on the lamp in exactly 3 seconds......ready? Just watch...... three, two, one...click!
Do I get my name in YOUR 'science' hall of fame? When are you going to send me my Certificate of Predictability signed by you, a respected authority on Fortune-Telling?

“As I have stated before energy is simply the capacity for doing work.”

Yes, a concept, which is a relation of various abstract ideas. This statement of yours, and this statement alone, is what confirms that energy does not exist!

You are no different than the Muslim who claims that God exists. God is a synonym for your 'energy' spirit. Neither you nor the Muslim can explain anything. Why? Because you believe in 'nothing'. All you offer is your trite opinions.
Just like the Muslim, you have flushed your own CLAIM down the toilet, edi. But you already knew that!
But the funny thing is.....the Christians can illustrate God & Jesus....you can't even illustrate this 'energy' claim of yours. That's why, as per YOUR reasoning, you are out-voted on this issue! See, your very own arguments kill your reasoning.

"and believe the things you type."

And this is the reason why you are so confused about reality & physics. This is why ALL your "claims" & "arguments" here have been SELF-REFUTING. Reality is always rationally explained with physics. And the ACTORS used in the explanation (Theory) are always real or hypothesized (Hypothesis) objects i.e. ones which can be illustrated!!
Belief & crystal balls are used only by the followers of Religion, like you. In physics we don't perform subjective activities like "believe". In physics we only explain Theories, and we do so rationally.

2. 60
couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

fatfist - can you illustrate the concept of love?  Everyone knows it exists (for lack of a better word) yet there has never been a satisfactory definition of the word - the feeling, the emotion, the makeup - of love.  I use this analogy to illustrate that there are known quantities in the universe which defy explanation, at least currently.

I guess I don't 'get' this argument.  Concepts 'exist' whether they are man created or not.

1. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Hi couture,

“fatfist - can you illustrate the concept of love?  Everyone knows it exists”

You are asking me, fatfist, the only person on the planet who doesn’t KNOW that love exists??

1) This is YOUR presentation, couture. It is YOU who has crashed the Physics Conference with breaking news that “love exists”. The onus is on YOU to rationally explain your outlandish claims.
2) And the onus is on you to explain to the audience what this term ‘exists’ means. What does it mean when you say that “X exists”? Please don’t give me synonyms or opinions,.... just define it Scientifically, ok?
3) And what do you mean by ‘know’? Does this verb/action refer to something subjective to the individual (requiring sensory resolution) or to something objective in reality?

In physics we don't say "nudge, nudge,...wink, wink,...c'mon...ya' know what I mean!" We objectively define all the terms which make or break our argument. Otherwise we are just practicing philosophy & religion by demanding that people believe our claims.

“yet there has never been a satisfactory definition of the word”

Do you see your dilemma? On one hand you claim that EVERYONE “knows” that love exists, yet you haven’t the slightest clue what “exists” even means.
So you agree that love is conceptual, right? If that is the case, then it surely explains why the meaning of love is based on individual opinion.  Is the way you love any different than the way Jeffery Dahmer loved? It shouldn’t be, since according to you, “everyone” (including Dahmer) “knows” what love means. Yet Dahmer testified that he LOVED his victims.....that’s why he had to eat them, and experience their love, emotion, and spiritual energy. That was Dahmer's conception of "love".
So then, is love objective or subjective?

“Concepts 'exist' whether they are man created or not.”

First of all, concepts are “conceived” and objects are created (assembled). If you so desperately want ‘a’ concept to be a noun of Physics, and part of reality, then the onus is on you to unambiguously define this 'exist' term Scientifically, so that you can use it “consistently” in your dissertation in an OBJECTIVE manner,.... without any opinions from observers. Then you should have no trouble hypothesizing how love would look like, and illustrating it, right?

But let me ask you this.....are you perhaps using “Ordinary Speech” instead of “Scientific Language” to claim that “love exists”? Maybe that’s what is preventing you from explaining how love could possibly exist. In physics we don’t use metaphor, figures of speech or poetry.

1. 0
jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

one more fatfist
what is happening in sun?
nuclear fission or fusion as i think is just sub-atomic particles moving at great speed away from each other?
why shouldn't it occur?

1. 84
fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

Hi jomine,

“what is happening in sun?”

Gazillions of atoms are moving around real fast,....much much faster than the atoms comprising the Earth ;-)

Nuclear Physics does offer a reasonable description as to WHY one element has different properties than another, using their hypothesis of neutrons, protons, atomic numbers, etc. They are able to describe atomic reactions. What Nuclear Physics lacks is a rational model of the atom itself. The mechanics are still using Bohr's planetary model to “attempt” to explain everything from electricity to ionization to bonding. There is no evidence and certainly no rational explanation that an atom has been split, especially when nobody can unambiguously tell you what an atom is, or even looks like. Bohr’s planetary model has been thoroughly debunked. He illustrates the electron beads orbiting around the proton bowling ball. On page 3, he tells you that a neutron particle strikes the pins comprising a U-235 atom releasing an abstract concept called 'energy' in the process. Lovely bowling ball game!

Did you ever question this irrational explanation? Or, like everyone else, did you just swallow it because it came from an authoritative source which you dare not question for fear of being ridiculed? Does the fact that engineers were able to build an atomic bomb via a lengthy trial & error process mean that the theoretical mathematicians can explain the inner workings of the atom? These are the questions that rational humans ask.

There a literally hundreds of hypothesized models of the atom which have been proposed by humans. The establishment has used several, but the most popular are the planetary, cloud, plum-pudding, and ribbon/shell models. But the model that is mostly used is the planetary since the inception of quantum. The mathematicians give lip service to the ribbon and shell when they want to briefly talk about wave properties and energy and stuff like that. Then they forget all about these models and continue doin' physics with the 0D planetary model. Then, at the end of their presentation, the mathematician denies the planetary model and tells you that he doesn't have any clue what an atom looks like... despite the fact that the idiots of Math boast that they have taken pictures of individual atoms! Can these idiots ever get their act together?

QM attempts to explain the micro world with 0D particles and wave-packets. These are not valid entities for the purposes of Physics. There is no object such as a 0D particle or a wave-packet that an idiot of Math can point to or draw or even imagine. The 0D 'particles' of the Standard Model belong exclusively to Religion. They have no place in Science. The 0D 'particle' of QM is actually 'a' location. The mathematicians who usurped the title of 'scientists' have no use for architecture and reality. They don't even realize the importance of real objects in the field of Physics. They are ONLY concerned with motion and DESCRIBING how X BEHAVES. They are only doing a mixture of Philosophy & Religion, not Physics. There is not a single explanation to be found in any of their claims.

“nuclear fission or fusion”

Not even God can split an atom and put it back together again. What we should do is split the heads of the mathematicians who propose that an atom is made of discrete 0D particles, which don’t even exist. Does the Sun 'destroy' H atoms or compress them together into He? How can anybody claim that they split the atom when they don’t even have the slightest clue what an atom even looks like? Before you split it, you must rationally illustrate it.

“i think is just sub-atomic particles moving at great speed away from each other?”

Bingo! Good guess. We can only rationally say that atoms are violently vibrating and are moving away from each other. The mathematicians cannot rationally hypothesize the existence, nor theorize an explanation for the behavior of any alleged "sub-atomic" particle. You cannot split a hypothetical atom and release an abstract concept known as energy’. What happens when we split a person’s heart....do we release the concept of ‘love’? If so, then God help us!

2. 60
Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

In my Islamic Concept ..

"Energy, is the "Power, of the 'Bond" holding a Physical Structure in "Place" ...

As you would know, Things can only Exist, as Forms ...

The Primary Form, being that of the Elementary Particle, composing the next level of the Atom's Form, and Atoms Composing the next Elemental level of the Molecule's Form...

These are the three Distinct  States of Matter, which Constitutes all The Existing Physical Forms" ...

All States of Matter, are primarily, Composed of Structures, held together by "Energy" ...

Elementally, Energy, is the Electro-Magnetic Force ... Generated by Allah's Command ...  Thus, the Universal Anti-Clockwise Motion, of all The Created Forms, in an Anticlockwise Spin, on their Axi[s] ...

This Singular Motion, Defines the Dynamics, of all Elemental Forms.

These are Facts ... not to be found in Books of Secular Knowledge, dealing with Particle Physics, or the Cause, of Electro-Dynamics based Motion.

Hope you will understand.

Regards
Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari
7th December. 2010

4. 60
ss snehposted 6 years ago

Hi AKA Winston!

So many people are confused about the real meaning of Einstein's famous equation E=Mc*2 and that includes you also.

You say ["This equation has nothing to do with conversion of matter into energy - in fact, it argues against that possibility."]

What you are actually doing here is...spreading misinformation.

And you are doing it so by degrading the value of our favorite Hubpages.com

It's better you ask questions here and seek for the correct information, if you are not sure about a subject, rather than making some confident statements like you have done here which actually personify heights of "scientific ignorance".

Mass is a form of Energy.

Mass can be converted into energy.

Energy can be converted into mass.

So mass and energy are inter-convertible.

We can calculate the energy contained in a body by simply multiplying it's mass with the square of light's velocity "c".

c -Lights velocity = 299,792,458 meters per second

If you want to visualize this relation between mass and energy it's some thing like WATER AND IcE.

Water can be converted to ice and vice versa So does mass and energy, according to the equation E=Mc*2

This equation was discovered and formulated by Einstein. It was Einstein who declared the world that mass is a form of energy and are inter-convertible.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY Einstein's IGNORANCE?

Einstein was well aware of the destructive power of the huge amount of energy released when an atomic nucleus is split.

That's why Einstein wrote a letter to the then US president Franklin D. Roosevelt about Hitler's efforts to create a bomb. Einstein successfully created the seriousness of the consequences of Nazi's nuclear capability in the president's mind.

Apart from that Einstein did not have any part in the creation of the atomic bomb.

It was Robert Oppenheimer, the head of Manhattan Project, with a group of scientists and engineers who ultimately created the atom bomb after six years and spending more than \$2 Billion.

-- Thanks

5. 0
AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago

So much misinformation.

Yes, we are talking concepts.  Mass and energy are both concepts.

E=MC2 simply states that mass and energy are eqivalents, not that one can be turned into the other.  Equivalent is what the = sign means.

As a mathematical formula, if you know the Energy, you can determine the rest mass: M=E/C2.  If you know the Mass, you can determine the Energy by this: E=MC2.

Knowing how to calculate the energy of a mass in no way explains how to release that energy in either fission of fusion reactions.

If there was any connection between E=MC2 and the atom bomb, it is very subtle and not direct whatsoever.

working