Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[genuineoriginal]

I did no such thing and you can't quote one single post in which I do!!!! You really ARE stupid-on-steroids!!!!

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

The conservation of mass is an extrapolation (consequence) of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT). Just like trigonometric functions can be manipulated to extrapolate other trigonometric functions, E = mc² can be manipulated to extrapolate m = E/c² to obtain the mass - energy equivalence.

Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed

The conservation of energy is an absolute law, and yet it seems to fly in the face of things we observe every day. Sparks create a fire, which generates heat—manifest energy that wasn’t there before. A battery produces power. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion. Each of these situations, however, is simply a case of energy changing form. Even the seemingly paradoxical dark energy causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate, we will see, obeys this rule. The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing. Potential and kinetic energy are two of the most basic forms, familiar from high school physics class: Gravitational potential is the stored energy of a boulder pushed up a hill, poised to roll down. Kinetic energy is the energy of its motion when it starts rolling. The sum of these is called mechanical energy. The heat in a hot object is the mechanical energy of its atoms and molecules in motion. In the 19th century physicists realized that the heat produced by a moving machine was the machine’s gross mechanical energy converted into the microscopic mechanical energy of atoms. Chemical energy is another form of potential energy stored in molecular chemical bonds. It is this energy, stockpiled in your bodily cells, that allows you to run and jump. Other forms of energy include electromagnetic energy, or light, and nuclear energy—the potential energy of the nuclear forces in atoms. There are many more. Even mass is a form of energy, as Albert Einstein’s famous E = mc2 showed. Fire is a conversion of chemical energy into thermal and electromagnetic energy via a chemical reaction that combines the molecules in fuel (wood, say) with oxygen from the air to create water and carbon dioxide. It releases energy in the form of heat and light. A battery converts chemical energy into electrical energy. A nuclear bomb converts nuclear energy into thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy. As scientists have better understood the forms of energy, they have revealed new ways for energy to convert from one form to another. When physicists first formulated quantum theory they realized that an electron in an atom can jump from one energy level to another, giving off or absorbing light. In 1924 Niels Bohr, Hans Kramers, and John Slater proposed that these quantum jumps temporarily violated energy conservation. According to the physicists, each quantum jump would liberate or absorb energy, and only on average would energy be conserved. Einstein objected fervently to the idea that quantum mechanics defied energy conservation. And it turns out he was right. After physicists refined quantum mechanics a few years later, scientists understood that although the energy of each electron might fluctuate in a probabilistic haze, the total energy of the electron and its radiation remained constant at every moment of the process. Energy was conserved. Modern cosmology has offered up new riddles in energy conservation. We now know that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate—propelled by something scientists call dark energy. This is thought to be the intrinsic energy per cubic centimeter of empty space. But if the universe is a closed system with a finite amount of energy, how can it spawn more empty space, which must contain more intrinsic energy, without creating additional energy? It turns out that in Einstein’s theory of general relativity, regions of space with positive energy actually push space outward. As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume. So even the expansion of the universe is controlled by the law of energy conservation.

There is significantly more to the FLoT than “the relationship between heat and work” and the mass - energy equivalence is integral (related/essential/fundamental) to it. Where do you think the “heat” comes from… thin air?

If you actually knew anything about physics/thermodynamics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you... again.

You are conflating three different things and claiming they are the same thing.
The relationship between work and heat in a closed system is the first law of thermodynamics.
The law of conservation of energy is a separate law stating that a closed system never loses any energy.
It can be argued that the first law of thermodynamics is a subset of the law of conservation of energy, but not the other way around.
Einstein's theory of special relativity has been used to claim that matter and energy are interchangeable.
You take the law of conservation of energy in a closed system, pretend that it doesn't make any difference if the energy is matter because of the theory of special relativity, then mis-label it as the first law of thermodynamics.
That is where it becomes science fiction.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe ... uses a dictionary.

Yes, because I was speaking English.

Entropy is not “disorder”
Entropy change measures the dispersal of energy (at a specific temperature), i.e. qrev/T

* Energy dispersal; energy becoming spread out. In simple physico-chemical processes such as ideal gas expansion into a vacuum , ”spread out” describes the literal movement of energetic molecules throughout a greater volume than they occupied before the process. The final result is that their initial , comparatively localized, motional energy has become more dispersed in that final greater volume. . Such a spontaneous volume change is fundamentally related to macro entropy change by determining the reversible work (=-q) to compress the gas to its initial volume, RT ln (V2/V1) with the result being ΔS =R ln (V2/V1). On a molecular thermodynamic basis, gas expansion into a vacuum would be described in terms of microstates by the Boltzmann equation via:
ΔS = kB ln W2/W1
= kB ln [(V2 /V1 )N ]
= kBN ln V2 /V1
= R ln V2 /V1.
Thus, the amount of the spontaneous dispersion of molecules' energy in three-dimensional space is related to molecular thermodynamics, to a larger number of microstates, and measured by changes in entropy.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The initial statement above (about the movement of molecules into a larger volume as solely due to their motional energy) is only valid as a description of entropy change to high school students or non-scientists when there will not be any further discussion of entropy. Such a statement “smuggles in entropy change” wrote Norman C. Craig. I interpret this to be ‘smuggling’ because thermodynamic entropychange is not simply a matter of random molecular movement, but consists of two factors, not one. Entropy change is certainly enabled in chemistry by the motional energy of molecules (that can be can be increased by bond energy change in chemical reactions) but thermodynamic entropy is only actualized if the process itself (expansion, heating, mixing) makes accessible a larger number of microstates, a maximal Boltzmann probability at the specific temperature. [Information 'entropy' only has the latter factor of probability (as does the 'sigma entropy' of physics, σ = S/kB) This clearly distinguishes both from thermodynamic entropy.]

Which all has nothing to do with the challenge to evolution from entropy.

Have you figured out yet whether a drop of water or a crystal ice had more entropy?

Have you read my answer?

Barbarian obfuscates:

All predictions should be testable.

Predictions are not all that matter.

All new mutations increase information in a population.

Nope.

Or are you confused how sunlight provides the energy for organisms to live and eventually to produce mutations?

Evolution works because Blablaman says so.

If you understood what information is, you'd have already figured out your issue.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I did no such thing and you can't quote one single post in which I do!!!! You really ARE stupid-on-steroids!!!!

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

The conservation of mass is an extrapolation (consequence) of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT). Just like trigonometric functions can be manipulated to extrapolate other trigonometric functions, E = mc² can be manipulated to extrapolate m = E/c² to obtain the mass - energy equivalence.

Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed

The conservation of energy is an absolute law, and yet it seems to fly in the face of things we observe every day. Sparks create a fire, which generates heat—manifest energy that wasn’t there before. A battery produces power. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion. Each of these situations, however, is simply a case of energy changing form. Even the seemingly paradoxical dark energy causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate, we will see, obeys this rule. The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing. Potential and kinetic energy are two of the most basic forms, familiar from high school physics class: Gravitational potential is the stored energy of a boulder pushed up a hill, poised to roll down. Kinetic energy is the energy of its motion when it starts rolling. The sum of these is called mechanical energy. The heat in a hot object is the mechanical energy of its atoms and molecules in motion. In the 19th century physicists realized that the heat produced by a moving machine was the machine’s gross mechanical energy converted into the microscopic mechanical energy of atoms. Chemical energy is another form of potential energy stored in molecular chemical bonds. It is this energy, stockpiled in your bodily cells, that allows you to run and jump. Other forms of energy include electromagnetic energy, or light, and nuclear energy—the potential energy of the nuclear forces in atoms. There are many more. Even mass is a form of energy, as Albert Einstein’s famous E = mc2 showed. Fire is a conversion of chemical energy into thermal and electromagnetic energy via a chemical reaction that combines the molecules in fuel (wood, say) with oxygen from the air to create water and carbon dioxide. It releases energy in the form of heat and light. A battery converts chemical energy into electrical energy. A nuclear bomb converts nuclear energy into thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy. As scientists have better understood the forms of energy, they have revealed new ways for energy to convert from one form to another. When physicists first formulated quantum theory they realized that an electron in an atom can jump from one energy level to another, giving off or absorbing light. In 1924 Niels Bohr, Hans Kramers, and John Slater proposed that these quantum jumps temporarily violated energy conservation. According to the physicists, each quantum jump would liberate or absorb energy, and only on average would energy be conserved. Einstein objected fervently to the idea that quantum mechanics defied energy conservation. And it turns out he was right. After physicists refined quantum mechanics a few years later, scientists understood that although the energy of each electron might fluctuate in a probabilistic haze, the total energy of the electron and its radiation remained constant at every moment of the process. Energy was conserved. Modern cosmology has offered up new riddles in energy conservation. We now know that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate—propelled by something scientists call dark energy. This is thought to be the intrinsic energy per cubic centimeter of empty space. But if the universe is a closed system with a finite amount of energy, how can it spawn more empty space, which must contain more intrinsic energy, without creating additional energy? It turns out that in Einstein’s theory of general relativity, regions of space with positive energy actually push space outward. As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume. So even the expansion of the universe is controlled by the law of energy conservation.

There is significantly more to the FLoT than “the relationship between heat and work” and the mass - energy equivalence is integral (related/essential/fundamental) to it. Where do you think the “heat” comes from… thin air?

If you actually knew anything about physics/thermodynamics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you... again.

You are conflating three different things and claiming they are the same thing.

:doh:

Only TWO things are the same... mass (matter) and energy.

E = mc², among other things, describes the relationship between mass (matter) and energy.

If Energy = mass times the velocity of light squared...

then...

mass = Energy divided by the velocity of light squared.

It is known as the mass - energy equivalency.

The relationship between work and heat in a closed system is the first law of thermodynamics.

Quite true, but FLoT describes much more than that one quality.

The law of conservation of energy is a separate law stating that a closed system never loses any energy.

NO IT ISN'T (see also the bolded, highlighted, and underlined section above. FYI, "increased" means "created or added" and "decreased" means "destroyed or subtracted").

It can be argued that the first law of thermodynamics is a subset of the law of conservation of energy, but not the other way around.

:doh:

There is no argument among physicists and engineers... it must be a genuineoriginal postulate.

If the "law of conservation of energy" is true then it's corollary, the "law of conservation of mass" is true through E = mc².

Einstein's theory of special relativity has been used to claim that matter and energy are interchangeable.

Claim? E = mc² has been tested thousands of times in nuclear detonations.

You take the law of conservation of energy in a closed system, pretend that it doesn't make any difference if the energy is matter because of the theory of special relativity, then mis-label it as the first law of thermodynamics.

That is where it becomes science fiction.

Reading isn't your strongest ability. I walked you through it step-by-step a second time in my last post. I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you. Read it again. If you still don't understand, it proves stupid can't be fixed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

:doh:

Only TWO things are the same... mass (matter) and energy.

E = mc², among other things, describes the relationship between mass (matter) and energy.

If Energy = mass times the velocity of light squared...

then...

mass = Energy divided by the velocity of light squared.

It is known as the mass - energy equivalency.

That is science fiction.
You may be able to get energy out of matter, but you cannot get matter out of energy.

Quite true, but FLoT describes much more than that one quality.

No it doesn't.
The people that claim it does are lazy, liars, or ignorant.
I assume you are the last one.

NO IT ISN'T (see also the bolded, highlighted, and underlined section above. FYI, "increased" means "created or added" and "decreased" means "destroyed or subtracted").

:doh:

There is no argument among physicists and engineers

Lazy liars brainwashed the current generation of ignorant physicists and engineers into believing that there is no difference between the following types of energy:

• magnetic
• kinetic (movement energy)
• heat (thermal energy)
• light
• gravitational potential
• chemical
• sound
• electrical
• elastic potential
• nuclear

The first law of Thermodynamics deals only with the relationship between kinetic and heat energy.
The law of conservation of energy deals with the entire list of types of energy, but falls short of proving that it really is a law because some of the types of energy cannot be converted into some of the other types.
Or have you managed to convert sound into gravitational potential, elastic potential, or nuclear?

If the "law of conservation of energy" is true

As I have just stated, it has not been proven to be true.

then it's corollary, the "law of conservation of mass" is true through E = mc².

That has been proven false.

The conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions coming from classical mechanics. The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity under the principle of mass-energy equivalence, which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity. For very energetic systems the conservation of mass-only is shown not to hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics.
~wikipedia​

Claim? E = mc² has been tested thousands of times in nuclear detonations.

So?
That has nothing to do with any science fictional "law of conservation of mass" that has never been proven in any experiment.

Reading isn't your strongest ability. I walked you through it step-by-step a second time in my last post. I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you. Read it again. If you still don't understand, it proves stupid can't be fixed.

I can read quite well, much better than you in fact.
You are doing quite well at proving that your problem is not ignorance, but pure stupidity.
:loser:

 

[Silent Hunter]

:doh:

Only TWO things are the same... mass (matter) and energy.

E = mc², among other things, describes the relationship between mass (matter) and energy.

If Energy = mass times the velocity of light squared...

then...

mass = Energy divided by the velocity of light squared.

It is known as the mass - energy equivalency.

That is science fiction.
You may be able to get energy out of matter, but you cannot get matter out of energy.

This is simply not true. In high-energy particle colliders, matter creation events have yielded a wide variety of exotic heavy particles precipitating out of colliding photon jets.

Quite true, but FLoT describes much more than that one quality.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does, QED.

The people that claim it does are lazy, liars, or ignorant.
I assume you are the last one.

So, according to you, the ENTIRE physics community consists of nothing but ignorant lazy liars. I'm glad you think so highly of the people who brought you radio, TV, space flight, the internet, and nuclear weapons.

NO IT ISN'T (see also the bolded, highlighted, and underlined section above. FYI, "increased" means "created or added" and "decreased" means "destroyed or subtracted").

:doh:

There is no argument among physicists and engineers... it must be a genuineoriginal postulate.

Lazy liars brainwashed the current generation of ignorant physicists and engineers into believing that there is no difference between the following types of energy:

• magnetic
• kinetic (movement energy)
• heat (thermal energy)
• light
• gravitational potential
• chemical
• sound
• electrical
• elastic potential
• nuclear

Basically, there is no difference between the various forms of energy except for the potential possessed by each. Again, if you actually understood the subject I wouldn't need to explain any of this to you. If you think poisoning the well (which is actually your misguided belief about physicists) is a valid argument, you are sadly mistaken.

The first law of Thermodynamics deals only with the relationship between kinetic and heat energy. The law of conservation of energy deals with the entire list of types of energy, but falls short of proving that it really is a law because some of the types of energy cannot be converted into some of the other types.

Or have you managed to convert sound into gravitational potential, elastic potential, or nuclear?

You have been shown repeatedly how and why your understanding of the FLoT is erroneous, your argument from ignorance not withstanding.

If the "law of conservation of energy" is true...

As I have just stated, it has not been proven to be true.

Using your extensive understanding of philosophy, er, thermodynamics, please explain, in detail, how energy leaves a closed system.

... then it's corollary, the "law of conservation of mass" is true through E = mc².

That has been proven false.

The conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions coming from classical mechanics. The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity under the principle of mass-energy equivalence, which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity. For very energetic systems the conservation of mass-only is shown not to hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics.
~wikipedia​

Are you under the uneducated impression that physical "laws" are somewhere set in stone? There are exceptions to almost every law, a noteworthy example, Newton's laws of motion and gravity don't hold at the quantum level either.

Claim? E = mc² has been tested thousands of times in nuclear detonations.

So?

That has nothing to do with any science fictional "law of conservation of mass" that has never been proven in any experiment.

I explained, quite clearly I think, why the laws of "conservation of energy" and "conservation of mass" are corollaries (via, E = mc²). If one is true the other MUST be equally true. Like I said, I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

Reading isn't your strongest ability. I walked you through it step-by-step a second time in my last post. I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you. Read it again. If you still don't understand, it proves stupid can't be fixed.

I can read quite well, much better than you in fact.

So, you read it again and you still don't understand? If so, you are living proof stupid can't be fixed.

You are doing quite well at proving that your problem is not ignorance, but pure stupidity.

Coming from you, a better complement can not be given.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You have been shown repeatedly how and why your understanding of the FLoT is erroneous

No, you keep proving that it is your understanding of the first law of thermodynamics that is in error.
I keep trying to correct you, but you would rather wallow in your own stupidity than cure your ignorance.
:loser:

So, according to you, the ENTIRE physics community consists of nothing but ignorant lazy liars.

I did not say the people are lazy, liars, and ignorant who claim that the first law of thermodynamics includes the so-called "conservation of matter".
I said they are lazy, liars, or ignorant. (pick one)
If they are ignorant, they will believe like you do that thermodynamics is about changing energy into matter and vise-versa.
If they are lazy, they know the truth and just think it is too much effort to educate the ignorant on the differences.
If they are liars, they know the truth and are pushing the lie that you believe.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I explained, quite clearly I think, why the laws of "conservation of energy" and "conservation of mass" are corollaries (via, E = mc²). If one is true the other MUST be equally true.

You are incorrectly assuming that being able to use trigonometry on a mathematical formula means you can do the same in real life.
It is possible to convert wood into charcoal by adding heat, but it is impossible to convert charcoal into wood by adding or removing heat.

Your "conservation of energy" is false, your m = E/c² is false, and so your "conservation of mass" is doubly false.
:loser:

 

[Stripe]

Energy is only approximately equal to mass and the rest, anyway. The equals sign should be squiggly.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You have been shown repeatedly how and why your understanding of the FLoT is erroneous, your argument from ignorance not withstanding.

No, you keep proving that it is your understanding of the first law of thermodynamics that is in error.

I'll just let my college coursework in physics, statics and dynamics, AND thermodynamics, as well as my degree in engineering speak for themselves.

I keep trying to correct you, but you would rather wallow in your own stupidity than cure your ignorance.

Something interesting occurs below concerning your reading comprehension level... read on.

So, according to you, the ENTIRE physics community consists of nothing but ignorant lazy liars. I'm glad you think so highly of the people who brought you radio, TV, space flight, the internet, and nuclear weapons.

I did not say the people are lazy, liars, and ignorant who claim that the first law of thermodynamics includes the so-called "conservation of matter".

Well, that's good to know... since it does.

I said they are lazy, liars, or ignorant. (pick one) If they are ignorant, they will believe like you do that thermodynamics is about changing energy into matter and vise-versa.

Since I said nothing of the sort it goes directly to your reading comprehension level that you think that I did. Perhaps you would be so generous as to quote where I made such a statement or implied as much.

If they are lazy, they know the truth and just think it is too much effort to educate the ignorant on the differences.

If they are liars, they know the truth and are pushing the lie that you believe.

Since no one in the physics/engineering community, myself included, even remotely thinks the FLoT is about changing energy into matter and/or vise-versa they would indeed be in error if they did.

I explained, quite clearly I think, why the laws of "conservation of energy" and "conservation of mass" are corollaries (via, E = mc2). If one is true the other MUST be equally true.

You are incorrectly assuming that being able to use trigonometry on a mathematical formula means you can do the same in real life.

I used the analogy that it is possible to manipulate trigonometric formulas to derive the various trigonometric identities to illustrate how E = mc² can be (and is) rearranged to derive the mass - energy equivalency. Both types of formulas (trigonometric and Einstein's equation) are derived through basic algebra.

It is possible to convert wood into charcoal by adding heat, but it is impossible to convert charcoal into wood by adding or removing heat.

Well, this problem would be related to the second law of thermodynamics (SLoT) and not the FLoT. Your total failure to understand the FLoT precludes us from ever discussing the SLoT.

Your "conservation of energy" is false, your m = E/c² is false, and so your "conservation of mass" is doubly false.

It a good thing nuclear devices (reactors and weapons) and high-energy particle colliders work in spite of your denial(s).

Let's review...

1) The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

2) The law of conservation of mass is an extrapolation (consequence) of the FLoT.

How do we know this?

3) Because Einstein's equation, E = mc² can be manipulated to extrapolate m = E/c² to obtain the mass - energy equivalence. While mass and energy are equivalent this equivalency is not routinely (rarely, if ever) considered when discussing the FLoT (i.e., mass and energy remain separate "entities" (though theoretically possible, one is not usually considered to change into the other).

4) Since mass (matter) and energy are equivalent (3) then the law of conservation of mass is a corollary of the law of conservation of energy (1 & 2).

5) The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant (1) then by the law of conservation of mass (2) the total mass of an isolated system is constant.


That you think I've said something more than this goes to your total misunderstanding of the subject.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Energy is only approximately equal to mass and the rest, anyway. The equals sign should be squiggly.

... and mass is only approximately equal to energy and is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

I never thought I would ever say this...

Good job, Stripe!

 

[iouae]

... and mass is only approximately equal to energy and is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

I never thought I would ever say this...

Good job, Stripe!

For very energetic systems the conservation of mass-only is shown not to hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics.
~wikipedia

Wiki is NOT disputing but affirming E = mc2

There is NO squiggly between E and mc2 EVER.

(Energy + matter) in the universe is a constant.

I also did not believe one sentence in the above discussion that the universe is accelerating outwards because of "positive energy". That would violate (energy + matter) being constant.

I am not trying to argue with anyone, or take sides, but just trying to find out what y'all are concluding.

Also, on an atomic level, particles pop into and out of existence, as energy fluctuates at that point. Why? Because all particles are waves, and when two waves pass one another, they superimpose their energies, and create a temporary particle - as I understand it, and then as the waves travel on, the "particle" returns to energy.

Electrons are just standing waves around the atom.

Photons are particles and waves, as shown by the photoelectric effect where photons must be of big enough size/energy to dislodge the electron of a metal.

But in God's accounting system, (matter + energy) remains constant, just like all the forces in the universe add up to zero, and all the momenta in the universe too add up to zero, because for one force in one direction, there is an equal and opposite force in the opposite direction.

Einstein was enthralled by the simplicity of it all.

 

[Stripe]

I am not trying to argue with anyone, or take sides, but just trying to find out what y'all are concluding.

Me too. I'm not sure what the essence of the disagreement between those two is.

Einstein's equation is the result of taking only the first sum of a Taylor series, so no matter what, it will always be an approximation.

 

[iouae]

Me too. I'm not sure what the essence of the disagreement between those two is.

Einstein's equation is the result of taking only the first sum of a Taylor series, so no matter what, it will always be an approximation.

In the Hiroshima explosion, a coin-sized bit of uranium was turned to energy I believe.

Are you saying that as far as our measurements go E = mc2, but it's just hard to measure accurately?

I would love to see any experiment which proved E not equal to mc2.

 

[Stripe]

In the Hiroshima explosion, a coin-sized bit of uranium was turned to energy I believe.

Are you saying that as far as our measurements go E = mc2, but it's just hard to measure accurately?

I would love to see any experiment which proved E not equal to mc2.

No.

I think Einstein's ideas are off.

 

[Stripe]

I would love to see any experiment which proved E not equal to mc2.

I doubt that would ever happen. The best we could hope for would be to show that different equations provide better results than Einstein.

 

[Silent Hunter]

... and mass is only approximately equal to energy and is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

I never thought I would ever say this...

Good job, Stripe!

For very energetic systems the conservation of mass-only is shown not to hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics.
~wikipedia

Wiki is NOT disputing but affirming E = mc2

There is NO squiggly between E and mc2 EVER.

(Energy + matter) in the universe is a constant.

This is true. However, my statement holds true because of the second law of thermodynamics, not all of the mass/matter is converted to useful energy (and vice versa) due to entropy even though the total (mass + energy) remains constant. The "squiggly" remains, QED.

I also did not believe one sentence in the above discussion that the universe is accelerating outwards because of "positive energy". That would violate (energy + matter) being constant.

I am not trying to argue with anyone, or take sides, but just trying to find out what y'all are concluding.

Also, on an atomic level, particles pop into and out of existence, as energy fluctuates at that point. Why? Because all particles are waves, and when two waves pass one another, they superimpose their energies, and create a temporary particle - as I understand it, and then as the waves travel on, the "particle" returns to energy.

Electrons are just standing waves around the atom.

Photons are particles and waves, as shown by the photoelectric effect where photons must be of big enough size/energy to dislodge the electron of a metal.

But in God's accounting system, (matter + energy) remains constant, just like all the forces in the universe add up to zero, and all the momenta in the universe too add up to zero, because for one force in one direction, there is an equal and opposite force in the opposite direction.

Einstein was enthralled by the simplicity of it all.

:thumb:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I'm not sure what the essence of the disagreement between those two is.

I don't understand his opposition to my carefully explained description of the conservation of energy/conservation of mass relationship in regard to the first law of thermodynamics (FLoT). Through some as yet unexplained lack of reading comprehension skill he thinks I'm saying the FLoT IS the mass - energy equivalency of E = mc². If energy is conserved (remains constant) in a closed system then mass is conserved (remains constant) in a closed system. For the purpose of the discussion, it matters not that matter and energy are equivalent through Einstein's equation; the point is the total energy/mass NEVER changes. That you understand this concept and he doesn't is what surprises me .

 

[Silent Hunter]

In the Hiroshima explosion, a coin-sized bit of uranium was turned to energy I believe.

If I remember correctly, about one GRAM (though I seem to recall this being as much as an ounce, 28g, I'd have to do the calculation to be sure), of the five KILOS of plutonium in the "core", was actually involved in fission for a yield of 15-20 kilotons of TNT.

 

[CabinetMaker]

[MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION] what are qualifications regarding thermodynamics? Have you studied it and worked with it?

 

[CherubRam]

The missing links are missing because life did not evolve in this Universe.

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

"God formed"