# Thread: E = mc^2 Credibility

1. E = mc^2 is not credible. See below:

Let us consider the nuclear fission bomb.
This bomb is the result of heavy nuclei being fragmented into smaller nuclei components by shattering the nuclear binding force. The cause of the explosion is the coulomb repulsion between the freed protons.

Where did this energy come from? Well, as I said, a force has created this energy that was confined by the nuclear binding of the supposed strong force. This can be considered to be potential energy of the nuclei. There was no matter being converted to energy. All that happened here is what one would call 'mass fragmentation'.

As a matter of fact, There may have had a mass increase! This would be opposite to mass fusion that appears to convert a small quantity of mass into energy. This may also be false because the apparent mass loss has created a new force in this binding process and that is the 'strong force' and subsequent potential energy.

The point here is that there appears to be a mass loss during fusion of hydrogen to helium. If this process is reversed to separate the helium nuclei back to hydrogen, the original apparent mass loss would be restored back to its original quantity by the fission process.

Mike NS

2.

3. the mass of each nucleon decreases until u reach iron, Fe. then the mass increase again. when fission of uranium is done the mass of the uranium atom is larger thanthe mass of its daughters.

and no its not the coulumb force, its because of the enourmus energy released by this process.

4. Sorry, but there is overwhelming proof that E=mc^2 is correct.

You are correct that nuclear bombs simply release nuclear binding energy. But what you clearly weren't aware of is that you can actually measure the nuclear binding energy’s mass in different atoms! The mass of different elements does not properly equal the mass of the individual protons and neutrons that make up the element's nucleus - there is also a slight mass defect that exactly corresponds to the nucleus' binding energy via E=mc^2.

For even more direct proof, you can directly convert matter into energy by reacting matter with antimatter. The amount of energy produced will be exactly proportional to the mass of the matter and antimatter that you reacted via E=mc^2.

Also, the mass of subatomic particles increases exactly as predicted by E=mc^2 when they are accelerated to high speeds in particle accelerators; their kinetic energy increase as they reach very high velocities is accompanied by a change in mass as predicted by E=mc^c.

5. Scifor Refugee is exactly on target! I would just like to point out that the increase in mass observed is particle accelerators is due to the fact that E=Mc² is not the whole formula. The whole formula is E=Mc²/(c²-v²) <sup> 1/2 </sup>, which reduces to E=Mc² for v=0.

6. ure both right
the formula for V=0 is E=M0C²
for moving its E=MC²
M=M0/sqr(1-v²/c²)

7. Yep. How did you get the squared though? You could use the same method to make m sub 0.

8. no u cant, i use alt+017(8)(9)
the 8 for square, and 9 for cube

9. Originally Posted by Zelos
no u cant, i use alt+017(8)(9)
the 8 for square, and 9 for cube
<sup>that sounds alot</sup> more complicated <sub>than the way i do it</sub>

E=m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>

10. tell us ur secret then
Fe<sup>3+</sup> + 3 e<sup>-</sup> -> Fe
haha
simply write < sup > thing here < /sup > to get it over, but dont have the " " parts in it. and say sub instant of sup to have to below
how do i write like its isotope and nuclear charge?

11. Originally Posted by Zelos
tell us ur secret then
Fe<sup>3+</sup> + 3 e<sup>-</sup> -> Fe
haha
simply write < sup > thing here < /sup > to get it over, but dont have the " " parts in it. and say sub instant of sup to have to below
how do i write like its isotope and nuclear charge?
thats what i do.
and i wouldn't know about isotope and nuclear charge, don't even know how there represented on paper let alone on the net.

12. <sup>12</sup>C
<sup>1</sup>H + <sup>1</sup>H -> <sup>2</sup>H + e<sup>+</sup>
this the way to write isotope
<sub>1</sub>H
nuclear charge

<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>H<sup>+</sup>

this is a hydrogen atom with 2 nuclear particles, one of them is a proton, and it have lsot one electron so it have the charge +

13. <sup>T</sup><sub>h</sub><sup>a</sup><sub>n</sub><sup>k</sup><sub>s</sub>--<sup>f</sup><sub>o</sub><sup>r</sup>--<sub>t</sub><sup>h</sup><sub>i</sub><sup>s</sup>!

14. sorry! double post

15. ?<sup>?<sup>?<sup>?</sup></sup></sup>

16. Zelos quote
the mass of each nucleon decreases until u reach iron, Fe. then the mass increase again. when fission of uranium is done the mass of the uranium atom is larger thanthe mass of its daughters.

and no its not the coulumb force, its because of the enourmus energy released by this process.

To All

This subject matter does not really need any mathamatics for clarification.
The nature of matter and energy is that they are not interchangeable or convertible.
Matter is substance and energy is an effect of forces which is motion. Without the forces, there would be no energy.
Of course, forces are intrinsic to matter. However, the matter is not involved in any production of energy.

All the higher elemental nuclei have charged particles locked in together by the 'strong force' that overpowers the coulomb force that would ordinarily repel them (protons) because of their similar charges. This then is a potential energy that is used in the fission bomb when the nuclei are shattered to separate the particles beyond the range of the SF with its extremely short range of just one nucleon (10^-14 meters).
Because of this short range, it would seem that it would not need a strong collision to separate these particles beyond the range of the SF.

In the fusion process, four hydrogen atoms are fused into a helium nucleus. This process creates an atomic mass reduction in the HN (alpha particle) that equals .0297 of an atomic mass unit. This reduction is then included with the total reduction that I observed in all the nuclei when the alpha particle components are figured in each of the higher elemental compositions.
When the number 4 (AP's) is divided into the masses of iron or the heaviest stable element bismuth and then multiplied by .0297, this then is the mass deficiencies in these subsequent heavier elements formations.
That is the alpha components
For iron, this loss iisit is ..415 AMU's. For bismuth, it is 1.55

The mass total loss for iron (iron atom x hydrogen atom) is 56.373 - 55.935 = .438
Subtracting alpha componants, you have .438 - .415 = ,023
So .023 was the mass loss required for fusing the 14 AC's into the iron.

In the case of the bismuth, it was Bi x 1^H = 210.616 - Bi = 1.635
Subtracting the aplpha componants = 1.635 - 1.55 = .085
So .085 was the mass required for fusing the bismuth.

Comparimg the mass losses outside the alpha componants for the iron and bismuth, it is proportional with no variation.

NS

17. first of all let me clear up the fusion provess
<sup>1</sup>H+<sup>1</sup> -> <sup>2</sup>H + e<sup>+</sup> + Energy
<sup>2</sup>H + <sup>1</sup>H -> <sup>3</sup>He + Energy
<sup>3</sup>He + <sup>3</sup>He -> <sup>4</sup>He + 2 <sup>1</sup>H + Energy

ure calculatio is not correct about the mass loss if im getting it right. mass of <sup>56</sup>Fe is 55,934921 U
proton: 1,0078250321 U
neutron: 1,0086649233 U
when we calculate the loss of mass we get that ison have lost about 0,5284775336 U, if we turn that to energy it would be about 492,27 MeV.
if we count that per nucleon it would be ca 8,5 MeV/nucleon.

18. Originally Posted by Zelos
first of all let me clear up the fusion provess
<sup>1</sup>H+<sup>1</sup> -> <sup>2</sup>H + e<sup>+</sup> + Energy
<sup>2</sup>H + <sup>1</sup>H -> <sup>3</sup>He + Energy
<sup>3</sup>He + <sup>3</sup>He -> <sup>4</sup>He + 2 <sup>1</sup>H + Energy

ure calculatio is not correct about the mass loss if im getting it right. mass of <sup>56</sup>Fe is 55,934921 U
proton: 1,0078250321 U
neutron: 1,0086649233 U
when we calculate the loss of mass we get that ison have lost about 0,5284775336 U, if we turn that to energy it would be about 492,27 MeV.
if we count that per nucleon it would be ca 8,5 MeV/nucleon.
I am not interested in the intermediate steps.
I just consider that 4 HA's make up a helium nucleus. That is all I am concerned with.

I used a book on 'The Elements' by John Emsley that is printed by The Oxford University Press.
It has all the elements and the isotopes included that separates the stable ones from the decaying ones.

The proton mass above that you quote is the mass of the HA.
If you consider the ratio between the two particles, the proton will be equivalent to 1.007276 atomic units.
The only mass for the neutron that I can come up with is 1.674954^-27 kilograms. I cannot convert this into atomic mass units.
But that is beside the point. Both hydrogen particles are fused to create the neutrons and the helium atoms.

However, as I said, I cannot accept the idea that mass and energy are convertible. Therefore, I conclude that these mass deficiencies are do to some other causes like the creation of the 'strong force' and a neutrino?

As I said in my article, mass and energu are two different forms of physics. Mass is 'substance' and energy is 'motion'.
Can you visualize how mass can be converted into energy by eliminating matter?
Give me an example of 'pure energy' that has no matter.

NS

19. why dont YOU TRY IT YOURSELF instead of continuously accusing other people's work
and i think u are ignoring, the word not interesting is a common excuse for ignoring or not accepting facts
but...
u need a little uranium
for the fusion i doubt you will survive coz u need lots of energy for it
for fission, do it old school
split it with an alpha particle
just dont put too many together
or u may get sick

as for the pure energy u cant have pure energy
there will always be some residue in the process of obtaining energy from matter...
if u cannot accpet that energy and mass are not convertible....
u are indirectly assualting another scientist
he said that light was described as PARTICLES
i think he was issac newton
for me i think the conversion of light waves to particles and back are constant

anyways why waste time over such a thing
it is just an opinion and NOTHING more

20. [b]Announcement[/b]
This thread has been moved to pseudoscience for the following reasons.
a) It rejects well validated science, whilst offering no meaningful counter arguments.
b) The thread opener appears to have made an emotional decision, based on common sense, that matter and energy cannot be equivalent.
c) The thread opener seemingly refuses to entertain any of the explanations offered by other posters.
d) I am amused and appalled in equal measure that someone who cannot convert from kilograms to atomic mass units thinks that they can challenge fundamental science.

21. However, as I said, I cannot accept the idea that mass and energy are convertible. Therefore, I conclude that these mass deficiencies are do to some other causes like the creation of the 'strong force' and a neutrino?
Accept how it is even if you dont like it. i dont like you bieng a idiot but i accept it

Code:
`As I said in my article, mass and energu are two different forms of physics. Mass is 'substance' and energy is 'motion'.`
They are the same

Give me an example of 'pure energy' that has no matter.
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS!!!!!!!!!!
also known as photons

22. Zelos wrote
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS!!!!!!!!!!
also known as photons
Then what you say above, E (photon) = 0 (mass)

This refutes Einsteins formula. Ha ha.

NS

23. No rest mass.

Stop being ignorant, please. Study up on this some more. You have an inquisitive and imaginative mind. It would be a shame to waste it.

24. you are ignorant mike, ask martillo to create the "The club of ignorant people who dont think physics is right now and have the right answer".

photon move with C and thereofr cant have restmass. You dont seem to study much and just say things is wrong just becuase youd ont understand it

25. NS Comment

Sure, photons have NO mass. And they are not the EM fields that surround the charged particles.

They are Quantum pulses as the quantum theory says. They just use the EM fields to move their momentum through it at the velocity of light.

These photons are the vast majority of energy in space and they have no mass.
So, Einsteins M/E formula is also falsified by this data.

A more appropriate formula for these photons would be E = 1 / wavelength.
These photons have varying energy levels, so the wavelength has to be included.
The shorter wavelengths create higher energy levels as this formula would reveal.
The above is another reason why Einsteins M/E formula is not correct because the energy levels of the various wavelengths is not included.

NS

26. Mike, dont be silly

Einsteins theory claims that the photon cant have restmass else it cant move with C. the E=MC² isnt falsefied by that fact. that energy represents some mass but is energy.

thats not einsteins formula, thats plancks.
E=hf
c=fw
w=wavelenght
f=c/w
therefor E=hc/w
then you can off course add E=mC² but then it makes no sense. It was planck who came with photon energy formula, einstein later used it

27. Zelos

It seems kind of ludicrous to think that you can explain all this starlight that ties in with the stars with this simple mass/energy formula.

And I have explained that the fission bomb does not comply with the mass/energy formula.

In my opinion, only 'forces' create energy.

NS

28. And I have explained that the fission bomb does not comply with the mass/energy formula.
with false information. or atleast using information that isnt right by misstage, or on purpose you tell us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2

It seems kind of ludicrous to think that you can explain all this starlight that ties in with the stars with this simple mass/energy formula.
thats the only source of energy they can get, else we get energy from nowhere wich we both can agree on cant happen

In my opinion, only 'forces' create energy
E=Fd, thats the definition of energy yes, but it can come from other sources. but it is really is a force, strong nuclear force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...sical_overview
The total mass of the fission products (Mp) from a single reaction, after their kinetic energy has been dissipated, is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus. The excess mass Δm is associated with the released energy which carries it away, according to Einstein's relation E=mc², where the mass is Δm. In comparison, the specific binding energies of many lighter elements [elements 1 (hydrogen) through approximately 12 (magnesium)] are also significantly less than that of intermediate-mass nuclei, so if the lighter elements undergo nuclear fusion (the counterpart to nuclear fission), this process also releases heat energy (is "exothermic").
please read the links i have given you, they show that neutron has more mass than you have said and by using that you´ll see that it works out perfectly

29. Originally Posted by Mike NS
Zelos

It seems kind of ludicrous to think that you can explain all this starlight that ties in with the stars with this simple mass/energy formula.

And I have explained that the fission bomb does not comply with the mass/energy formula.

In my opinion, only 'forces' create energy.

NS
and in my opinion i think you are biased

30. biased? what does that mean?
he is a know-nothing smart stuborn dude thou. Mike why dont you read the links i have provided you? they give you information that einstein stuff works, and also why would the science community accept it if its false?

31. Zelos and notime

My science is 'objective', not subjective as you are doing.

Your math is primarily subjective and does not explain the way a 'fission' bomb works. Fission is not the same as fusion.
Fusion is supposed to cause a mass reduction and since fission does just the opposite, it causes a mass increase while energy is transformed from potential to kinetic with a mass increase.
So, how does that comply with Einsteins M/E formula?

NS

32. Originally Posted by Zelos
biased? what does that mean?
A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective.

stuff from wiki
yeah 1 point of view
thats what it means

33. My science is 'objective', not subjective as you are doing.
please dont twist thigns around, i dont disclaim a theory until i understand it perfectly unlike you. doing like you is doing subjective. Objective is more waiting until you udnerstand it

Your math is primarily subjective and does not explain the way a 'fission' bomb works. Fission is not the same as fusion.
no, but they do the same thing, decrease the mass

Fusion is supposed to cause a mass reduction and since fission does just the opposite, it causes a mass increase while energy is transformed from potential to kinetic with a mass increase.
wow your blind, go get glasses. I have given you links telling the exact mass of neutron(okey approximently) and those comply to my value, and the nuclear reaction i showed you sometime ago gave with my value mass reduction, therefor fission complies to E=MC². by just ignoring facts ive provided you , you have acting subjective. i have taken a look at teh stuff youve said and found them wrong, you said 1,006, i said 1,008, i checked it with several soruces, got 1,008 from them, thereofor i must be right there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu
http://www.earthmatrix.com/theschema...tron%20mass%22
http://www.mcelwee.net/html/table_of...constants.html
http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astr...ml#neutronmass
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eutrondis.html
http://britneyspears.ac/physics/constants/constants.htm

as you can see i have many sites backing me up, with so many its more likly im right than you. Game set and match

34. zelos

You said the mass of two Ag elements and the free neutrons released added up to more mass than the Pu235 isotope.
You, yourself admit that the components of the Pu235 fragments weighed more than the Pu 235.
So, that is a mass INCREASE.

NS

35. okey, maybe i did, my bad, but its a bad exemple, to many free neutrons.
lets take U-235 -> 3n + Kr-92 and Ba-141
well i dont ahvge the isotope mass book here, i´ll make this math when i got it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

but anyhow fission gives rise to energy by losing mass, certain reactions isnt allowedf if you dont add energy, such as my bad exemple, it wont happen unless you add energy

36. Zelos

I said that the energy is already in the heavy elements as 'potential' energy. It is this potential energy that is released, not any matter sacrifice. The coulomb repulsion between the particles (protons) is released by collisions of the particles.

Can't you understand that?

NS

37. HAIL MIKE NS
oh wait *BEEP* MIKE NS is more accurate, just becuyase you say it wont make it so

38. and here ends another episode of mike ns (who is predjuced against e=mc^2) and zelos who fights him all day long

shall zelos rid this thread of anymroe nonsense?
or shall mike ns terrorise our forum again?
go zelos (looks like hes running out of gas)

find out in our next episode of the fight over the simplest and most stubborn things

end transmission~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mike , not everything u say has to bve corrct(including this)
i dont think the your 'potential energy' so called is enough compared when
besides where does your potential energy come from?
how does the potential energy go into ur atom?

stubbron guy i recon
oh wait, ill bring in the news report version

~~~

welcome to the channel 6 news im notime

today we have mike ns again in our forums and zelos who fights him off
but fails to do so as mike is real stubborn

a flame war in our forum

like i said in a metaphor gonna have meltdown!!!!
so...
thats all ,,, boring huh

end trasmission

39. Originally Posted by Mike NS
The nature of matter and energy is that they are not interchangeable or convertible.

For those of you who are at a loss to grasp this concept I shall enlighten you, NS is suggesting that e=mc^2 does not 'compute' from which I am sure he will then go on to prove the Sun does not radiate, Hiroshima was not 'nuked'

"To stay silent is to risk being considered a fool, to speak is to have it confimed!"

40. Code:
```Scanning.....

...Scan complete
Species: 2746....Human
Cerebral Capacity: Negible
Cerebral Processing: None
Desegnation: Mike NS
Assimilated Data: None
Conclution: Useless organism
Action: System Shutdown```

41. While Mike gives all the appearance of talking utter bilge can we please keep our negative comments directed towards that bilge and not to Mike himself.
Mike has endured a torrent of abuse and ridicule on this forum, with good humour and little in the way of personal response. Please show the same restraint.

42. Originally Posted by notime
mike , not everything u say has to bve corrct(including this)
i dont think the your 'potential energy' so called is enough compared when
besides where does your potential energy come from?
how does the potential energy go into ur atom?
I presume you read my entire post? When you have 2 protons contained by a strong force (See my article on the GUT Theory). What do you think would happen if these 2 protons are jarred apart by a particle collision to partly separate? The repulsive coulomb force will do the rest.
I hope you can understand that.

Your observations are humorous Ha ha,

NS

43. Originally Posted by billco
For those of you who are at a loss to grasp this concept I shall enlighten you, NS is suggesting that e=mc^2 does not 'compute' from which I am sure he will then go on to prove the Sun does not radiate, Hiroshima was not 'nuked'
Before you evaluate a math formula, you have to understand the component parts.

Matter does not create energy. Only forces do that. Energy is motion and forces cause motions. Matter has intrinsic forces but if the matter is neutral, no motions are created.
The stars are the result of gravitational force compressions with a possible coulomb assist. By that, I mean some separated electric charges in the central regions of star energy formations.

The strong force and neutrinos are created to bind the hydrogen atoms to create the helium atoms. This could be the reason for the apparent mass loss which is miniscule. But regardless, new photons are created
If there is a mass loss in this fusion process, than the fission of the nuclei would do just the opposite. It would restore this missing mass. But the fission bomb still releases a lot of energy with a mass gain. So, Einsteins mass/energy is falsified.

Forces create the energy, not matter. The energy in stars is graduated to certain levels, so all light in not equal. So you would have to replace matter with forces and include the energy levels. Einstains formula does not have these components in his formula.

These are other reasons why his formula is falsified.

NS

44. Logic dictates that if it was falsefied science wouldn't use it. Therefor it is true.
Conclution: You are a know-nothing smart guy. And from this day forward i shall refer to those kind oof people as KNS people

45. Originally Posted by Zelos
Logic dictates that if it was falsefied science wouldn't use it. Therefor it is true.
Conclution: You are a know-nothing smart guy. And from this day forward i shall refer to those kind oof people as KNS people
Einsteins math/energy formula is not correct because it has components that do not conform to real physics.

Energy is a product of forces because forces create all motions.
Light has different energy levels, so the wavelength of light, has to be included.
Light moves as a single dimension, so why should the velocity of light be squared?
The velocity of light is not an absolute spatial constant because the emitting objects of light are moving relative to space and so the carrier of these light photons is also moving with the emitter. The carrier velocity relative to space has to be included.
My opinion is that even within the EM fields, the VoL has a slight variable velocity because of the energy levels, although this is very minute.

So, this formula would be much more complex than the simple formula Einstein proposed.

NS

46. Einsteins math/energy formula is not correct because it has components that do not conform to real physics.
Fission does. we just took a bad exemple. it apperently isnt allowed by physics.
I´ll demonstrate another more accurate exemple where 3 neutrons is released and by that is more common.
<sup>235</sup>U + n -> <sup>141</sup>Ba + <sup>92</sup>Kr + 3n

Leftside mass: 235,0439231 + 1,0086649233 = 236,052588023
Rightside mass: 1,0086649233*3 + 140,914411 + 91.926156 = 235,86656177
left side - rightside = 0,18626253
Its more mass before the fission than after.
Conclution: Einstein is right and you are wrong. But i apologise for the bad exemple before. so many neutrons were a bad exemple since it doesnt get that many

Light moves as a single dimension, so why should the velocity of light be squared?
since if it isn't the fomrulas dont make sense and its demanded. and also else we get wrong units. by just taking C we get somekinda momentum while square of it gives joules

The velocity of light is not an absolute spatial constant because the emitting objects of light are moving relative to space and so the carrier of these light photons is also moving with the emitter. The carrier velocity relative to space has to be included.
C is a constant. have been proven experimentaly. Your movement relative to space doesnt change the lights speed.

So, this formula would be much more complex than the simple formula Einstein proposed.
not really. its as easy as it is. thats why its so important. it's so powerfull yet so simple. Our universe are so simple, yet can give rise to such complicated things.

47. Originally Posted by Zelos
its as easy as it is. thats why its so important. it's so powerfull yet so simple. Our universe are so simple, yet can give rise to such complicated things.
This is the most important thing that we have learned about the Universe: that complexity can arise out of simplicity; that the sum is greater than the individual parts.

It could be argued that science is about understanding the underlying simplcity while determing the processes that give rise to complexity.

48. yes i agree, i know the same thing from computer programing. simply algorithms can give rise to complicated paterns

49. Originally Posted by Mike NS
Originally Posted by notime
mike , not everything u say has to bve corrct(including this)
i dont think the your 'potential energy' so called is enough compared when
besides where does your potential energy come from?
how does the potential energy go into ur atom?
I presume you read my entire post? When you have 2 protons contained by a strong force (See my article on the GUT Theory). What do you think would happen if these 2 protons are jarred apart by a particle collision to partly separate? The repulsive coulomb force will do the rest.
I hope you can understand that.

Your observations are humorous Ha ha,

NS
would not the force be strong enough to break these protons and other stuff
into quarks and blablabla
and issac newton did decribe lgiht as particles..
if e=mc^2 was true then it would agree with the light particle thign form issac
even if u dun like e=mc^2
give issac some recognition
and i am the humerous sort
but please tyr not to double post

50. Originally Posted by Zelos
Fission does. we just took a bad exemple. it apperently isnt allowed by physics.
I´ll demonstrate another more accurate exemple where 3 neutrons is released and by that is more common.
<sup>235</sup>U + n -> <sup>141</sup>Ba + <sup>92</sup>Kr + 3n
That ‘n’ (neutron) added to the uranium nucleus is not a part of the element. It is being used as a projectile(?) to force a fission. Who knows what happened to it or other neutrons that rapidly decay after the fission is completed. There are what they call ‘prompt’ neutrons that decay rapidly and cannot be measured.

Leftside mass: 235,0439231 + 1,0086649233 = 236,052588023
Rightside mass: 1,0086649233*3 + 140,914411 + 91.926156 = 235,86656177
left side - rightside = 0,18626253
Its more mass before the fission than after.
Conclution: Einstein is right and you are wrong. But i apologise for the bad exemple before. so many neutrons were a bad exemple since it doesnt get that many
Besides, what I said above, this example of yours does not represent the fission of the nuclear bomb because those particles are reduced completely to isolated particles like alpha particles, electrons, protons, rapid decay neutrons and etc.
These isolated particles DO add up to more mass collectively than in the original content of the bomb.

Lets take the alpha particles….they represent 4 atomic mass numbers as compared to the uranium AMN of 235 atomic masses. Divide the 235 by 4 and you have 58.75 alphas.
58.75 x 4.0026 = 235.1527. This figure is greater than the 235 Ur mass of
235.0439.
This would be true regardless of what particles you would use to add up the totals.

since if it isn't the fomrulas dont make sense and its demanded. and also else we get wrong units. by just taking C we get somekinda momentum while square of it gives joules
Joules is a single dimension and there is no interacting energy to cause the squaring of ‘c’ since the photon pulse is a single dimension in its transition through the EM field..

C is a constant. have been proven experimentaly. Your movement relative to space doesnt change the lights speed
This would be true in the ‘expansion of space’ as the cause of the cosmological redshift that refutes Doppler as the BB does but observations can detect Doppler variations in distant spiral galaxies. So these velocity variations are detected as spatial variations.
Another example of thr fallacy of the EoS as the cause of the CRS.

NS

51. Notime

Newton was limited to his science data at his time.

Since then, the M-M experiments and Plancks refute of light as a continuous wave emerged.

In the Heliocentric era, I consider Newton to be the 'greatest scientist' because he was a great mathmatician that invented calculus and also invented the reflecting telescope named after him.
Another European scientist also invented calculus simultaneously.

NS

52. That ‘n’ (neutron) added to the uranium nucleus is not a part of the element. It is being used as a projectile(?) to force a fission. Who knows what happened to it or other neutrons that rapidly decay after the fission is completed. There are what they call ‘prompt’ neutrons that decay rapidly and cannot be measured.
its swololed by the nucleus and makes the nucleon unstable

Lets take the alpha particles….they represent 4 atomic mass numbers as compared to the uranium AMN of 235 atomic masses. Divide the 235 by 4 and you have 58.75 alphas.
58.75 x 4.0026 = 235.1527. This figure is greater than the 235 Ur mass of
235.0439.
yeah, since its on the leftside of iron and not the right. the up part on the elftside is far greater than on the right side

Joules is a single dimension
Joule=kgm²/s²
since v=m/s

then kg times v² equals kg(m/s)² wich is joules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_ve...ving_E_.3D_mc2
here you can see why its C² even more since here is the derivation

but if we talk planck units, the formua changes to E=M
since C=1 there

This would be true in the ‘expansion of space’ as the cause of the cosmological redshift that refutes Doppler as the BB does but observations can detect Doppler variations in distant spiral galaxies. So these velocity variations are detected as spatial variations.
Another example of thr fallacy of the EoS as the cause of the CRS.
i take it as you say C isnt constant. if so we can conlcude that youre either mad or just stupid
since C is constant

53. Originally Posted by Zelos
its swololed by the nucleus and makes the nucleon unstable
As I said, it is not a component of the 235 Ur nucleus.

Originally Posted by Zelos
yeah, since its on the leftside of iron and not the right. the up part on the elftside is far greater than on the right side
What difference does that make?
The important thing here is the AMN as a comparison.
The alpha particle seems to be the building blocks of the heavier elements.

Originally Posted by Zelos
Joule=kgm²/s²
since v=m/s
That formula above pertains to gravity?
It has no application to light because there is no weight involved.

Joules pertain to a variety of circumstances and is a complex issue to deal with.

Originally Posted by Zelos
i take it as you say C isnt constant. if so we can conlcude that youre either mad or just stupid since C is constant
I said 'c' is constant to the emitter EM field, but not to space.

NS

54. What difference does that make?
The important thing here is the AMN as a comparison.
The alpha particle seems to be the building blocks of the heavier elements.
it makes a huge differens

look and you´ll see its not as easy to take aplha particles to that. and yes it is for ehavier elements upto iron afterwards its more chaotic since the explosion of a supernova isnt as predictible as the fusion

That formula above pertains to gravity?
It has no application to light because there is no weight involved.
no not to gravity. its just base unit calculations. or dimension analyse

I said 'c' is constant to the emitter EM field, but not to space.
it is allways constant relative to anypoint

55. giving all a big headache
gotta poop...
...(after coming back)
hmm NS maybe u have too much of the P factor
and a lot of BA factor(not so much of this)

56. Zelos

That chart above shows that the helium nucleus has the same binding energy as the Ur nucleus. That cannot be much since a neutron can fracture it (Ur). Ha ha.

I was not concerned with the binding energies anyway, only the 'mass reductions' throughout the nuclear range of the elements and it is uniform except with the first fusion of hydrogen to helium where the mass reduction for this fusion is the greatest.

The reason I asked about your given formulas was that the final item on one of them has ''s^2' which applies to gravity and not to light in any way.
That is 'seconds squared' because of the changing acceleration of the falling objects.

NS

57. That chart above shows that the helium nucleus has the same binding energy as the Ur nucleus. That cannot be much since a neutron can fracture it (Ur). Ha ha.
its actualy so its less than helium
and that chart is binding energy PER NUCLEON

I was not concerned with the binding energies anyway, only the 'mass reductions' throughout the nuclear range of the elements and it is uniform except with the first fusion of hydrogen to helium where the mass reduction for this fusion is the greatest.
that chart explains verywell why energy is released. Binding energy is acctualy the mass of each part alone minus the mass of the nucleus divided with the amount of nucleons.

as you can see hydrogen has 0 binding energy, so does a neutron

The reason I asked about your given formulas was that the final item on one of them has ''s^2' which applies to gravity and not to light in any way.
That is 'seconds squared' because of the changing acceleration of the falling objects.
why its m² is since it is m², distances squared but it has nothing to do with gravity

58. Zelos

Your posts are 'off' topic because we are talking about the mass/energy formula that includes 'c' which is the velocity of light.

There is no matter involved in the creation of photons. These photons are created during electron transtions only and not matter decaying.

NS

59. These photons are created during electron transtions
you are so wrong
ever heard of gamma rays?
their energy is to high for electron transition. its the nucleeus going from one energy to another lower one without sending out particles.

60. Originally Posted by Zelos
you are so wrong
ever heard of gamma rays?
their energy is to high for electron transition. its the nucleeus going from one energy to another lower one without sending out particles.
Gamma rays are supposed to be 'high velocity protons' from what I remember reading about one report. That was the ones striking our atmosphere.
I figure the only source of these gamma rays are the decaying neutron stars. My opinion.

NS

61. Looks like the Borg assimilated something that didn't agree with him!
Even I know gamma rays are not photons!

62. Assimilation is perfect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_rays

Originally Posted by Wiki
Gamma rays (often denoted by the Greek letter gamma, γ) are an energetic form of electromagnetic radiation produced by radioactive decay or other nuclear or subatomic processes such as electron-positron annihilation.
the exact same thing is said in every book i have read. ever seen. and ever physic teacher ever said.

gamma rays comes from nuclear decay. and since at those points no particle is ejected it must the nucleon can have energy levels that is to BIG

billco, be more carefull or else you´ll prove me right about best-before-date

63. Zelos

Gamma rays are considered to be more particle than wave.
The fact that they can penetrate lead is an indication that they are like particles.

NS

64. Originally Posted by Mike NS
Zelos

Gamma rays are considered to be more particle than wave.
The fact that they can penetrate lead is an indication that they are like particles.

NS
Huh?
Gamma rays are exactly like visible light, except with a smaller wavelength.

65. The exact nature of gamma rays is speculation.

I think they will turn out to be highly-motivated, pink fluffy things.

66. Gamma rays are considered to be more particle than wave.
The fact that they can penetrate lead is an indication that they are like particles.
energy amount is irrelevant for particle/wave. Its a photon. and since its a particle and a wave its both.

The exact nature of gamma rays is speculation.

I think they will turn out to be highly-motivated, pink fluffy things.
the exact nature of gamma rays isnt speculative. we know its normal photons with much higher energy. they can penetrate lead since the energy is to much for atoms to absorb. Some do and shoot it away again (with a little less energy) and so on until it stops.
CASE CLOSED

67. Originally Posted by billco
I think they will turn out to be highly-motivated, pink fluffy things.
This is highly unlikely. Indeed, it is offensive to any self respecting gamma ray.

Gamma rays are all hard radiation. They wouldn't be seen in a collapsing wave form in pink. Try suggesting they are pink while conducting the two slit experiment and there is no way you will coax, coerce, or compel them to pass through either slit.

No, these guys are rock hard, steel grey beasts.

You were right about them being highly motivated though.

68. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by billco
I think they will turn out to be highly-motivated, pink fluffy things.
This is highly unlikely. Indeed, it is offensive to any self respecting gamma ray.

Gamma rays are all hard radiation. They wouldn't be seen in a collapsing wave form in pink. Try suggesting they are pink while conducting the two slit experiment and there is no way you will coax, coerce, or compel them to pass through either slit.

No, these guys are rock hard, steel grey beasts.

You were right about them being highly motivated though.
I see the mistake in my text, and apologise profusely to any Gamma ray's that might drop in on this forum, I hope they will also notice I was not the first person to refer to them as 'pink slits' I think the old Master's Baiting them.

69. The borg have triumphed again

70. Originally Posted by Zelos
The borg have triumphed again

Zelos I am quite convinced you have absolutely no idea what ophie and I are joking about - our entire discussion if you look closely was a debate on reproduction. It's so damn nice to know when it cums to inuendo ol borgy boy is in the dark

71. beam me up scotty

72. looks like ur fighting billicos now haha jk

73. Originally Posted by william
Huh?
Gamma rays are exactly like visible light, except with a smaller wavelength.
Willi
The ground state standing wave of the hydrogen atom is calculated to be 'one angstrom' or 10^-10 meters.

I read that the range of the gamma waves are from 10^-10 to 10^-14 meters which is close to the size of a nucleon.

A neutron would be the size of 10^-14 meters and its survival could allow it to penetrate lead up to several centimeters. This is the only way I can see a gamma ray penetrating lead for such distances.
Waves would be absorbed close to the surface only.

However, I do not discount the wave nature of gamma rays also.

An experiment done with gamma rays going through a magnetic field separated the beta rays and alpha rays to leave rays that were not diverted by the magnetic fields. These could be neutrons that would not be diverted.
But that still does not refute the wave part, I presume.

Anyway, this is not a topic of interest because I am interested in the Cosmology of the universe mainly.

NS

74. Gamma rays are electromagnetic waves. End of story. Atoms cant absorb them easly if they arent of right quantity.

75. Originally Posted by Mike NS
However, I do not discount the wave nature of gamma rays also.

An experiment done with gamma rays going through a magnetic field separated the beta rays and alpha rays to leave rays that were not diverted by the magnetic fields. These could be neutrons that would not be diverted.
But that still does not refute the wave part, I presume.
I wasn't aware that electromagnetic waves were diverted by magnetic fields. I am also unaware of what you mean by "beta rays" and "alpha rays". I'm aware of alpha particles - they are stripped helium nuclei, and I'm aware of beta particles, which are in fact electrons. If there was a "ray" which was split into alpha particles and beta particles, then that ray was not a gamma ray. There were undoubtedly gamma rays in the radioactive decay that produced the alpha and beta particles, but it was in no sense made up of them. Gamma is a third separate and distinct emission due to radioactivity.

In point of fact it sounds like the kind of experiments Rutherford and Chadwick were doing in the first decades of the 20th century. In those days, sadly, they assigned nomenclature willy-nilly and there was also a disinclination to change the names of things after their true nature was discovered. Thus, although apparently α, β, γ are part of a single series, they aren't at all - alpha and beta are particulate and gamma is electromagnetic.

76. Originally Posted by Silas
Originally Posted by Mike NS
However, I do not discount the wave nature of gamma rays also.

An experiment done with gamma rays going through a magnetic field separated the beta rays and alpha rays to leave rays that were not diverted by the magnetic fields. These could be neutrons that would not be diverted.
But that still does not refute the wave part, I presume.
I wasn't aware that electromagnetic waves were diverted by magnetic fields. I am also unaware of what you mean by "beta rays" and "alpha rays". I'm aware of alpha particles - they are stripped helium nuclei, and I'm aware of beta particles, which are in fact electrons. If there was a "ray" which was split into alpha particles and beta particles, then that ray was not a gamma ray. There were undoubtedly gamma rays in the radioactive decay that produced the alpha and beta particles, but it was in no sense made up of them. Gamma is a third separate and distinct emission due to radioactivity.

In point of fact it sounds like the kind of experiments Rutherford and Chadwick were doing in the first decades of the 20th century. In those days, sadly, they assigned nomenclature willy-nilly and there was also a disinclination to change the names of things after their true nature was discovered. Thus, although apparently α, β, γ are part of a single series, they aren't at all - alpha and beta are particulate and gamma is electromagnetic.
Silas,

There's no point trying to interject here.

77. Silas

Well, I should have said that they are particles, but there are radiations associated with them when they are ejected, right?

Regarding the experiment, those neutral radiations could have been ejected neutrons also, right?

Just speculating.

NS

78. Regarding the experiment, those neutral radiations could have been ejected neutrons also, right?
gamaray? no
it has been determend that gammarays are EM

Well, I should have said that they are particles, but there are radiations associated with them when they are ejected, right?
could yes. but usualy the gammaray comes slightly after any eventual particle release but catch it up easly

79. so is the post still about e=mc^2 credibility or what?

80. yes, but it goes off half topic just to prove points

81. We know that momentum is constant in any closed system, and that mass is energy is constant. So when energy becomes mass, the mass is preserved and so is the momentum, hence all masses moves in the speed of light. But not allways through room, mostly through time, hence the time dimension is ict also derived from relativity. The room is really four dimensional, but one dimension is allways imaginary, since else mass wouldn't be preserved. To put it this way, an object can have vectors, but it have to move in one direction, only one. Mass moves through time. So when a photon collides with an atom, what really happens is they keep the momentum but change the vector. But here comes the spooky part. It seems the smallest building block would be "free", it would oscillate freely through the dimensions, if we are to trust heisenberg about his relations. And that is interesting. Perhaps a particle is really a curl in a fourdimensional ocean with no particular objection or will but to be a curl

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement