E=mc2 questions?

[theorist-constant12345]

Because it's a meaningless term.


Wrong.


Rather a pathetic excuse from someone who has repeatedly claimed to have learned science.


This is entirely rubbish and virtually meangless.
It demonstrates NOTHING whatsoever to do with e=mc^2 and NOTHING whatsoever to do with gravity.
Also there's no energy "added to the water" (as is clearly stated in the video).

If i extract all the energy out of water what happens to that water?
And it has everything do with E=mc^2 because I am saying that any object on earth is E=mc^2-E/G

It makes that sense that energy is lost to gravity from matter on the surface has can be seen with your caesium clock.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Water will boil off due to negative pressures if taken to the near vacuum of space. Then that vapour will in turn freeze.
This has been observed by the Astronauts on the ISS, when dispelling urine and wastes into space.

Is ice the lack of energy in water?

if no, why not when we add energy to ice we get water?

 

[Dywyddyr]

If i extract all the energy out of water what happens to that water?

What?
Didn't you watch the video?
What do you mean "extract all the energy"?

And it has everything do with E=mc^2

No it isn't.
AlexG pointed this out earlier.

because I am saying that any object on earth is E=mc^2-E/G

You can say anything you like.
It doesn't make true. Nor science. Nor anything else.
In this case it's bollocks.

It makes that sense that energy is lost to gravity from matter on the surface has can be seen with your caesium clock.

Wrong again.

 

[AlexG]

And it has everything do with E=mc^2 because I am saying that any object on earth is E=mc^2-E/G

Again, you are mixing up molecular energy with atomic energy. A nuclear bomb will release the same energy regardless of the height it's detonated at or the gravitational field it's detonated in. And it's the nuclear energy which is given by the equation E = mc^2

 

[paddoboy]

Its been mentioned to you before, you need to try and stop putting on airs and trying to sound smart. Come down to Earth.
I have answered your previous question.
You have not answered mine.
Do you now confidently accept the fact that weight and mass are not the same thing?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

What?
Didn't you watch the video?
What do you mean "extract all the energy"?


No it isn't.
AlexG pointed this out earlier.


You can say anything you like.
It doesn't make true. Nor science. Nor anything else.
In this case it's bollocks.


Wrong again.

Dy you are the one person I wish would try harder to understand because I do know you know your knowledge well.

Forget the video was probably not a good idea to post that , if I have some water, it contains E=mc2 to volume, if i extract some of that energy from the water, I make ice, is this not the case because if i add energy to ice, I make water, the energy levels increase making tighter bonds from the hexagonal bonding of the ice, water becomes more dense by a tighter bond?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Again, you are mixing up molecular energy with atomic energy. A nuclear bomb will release the same energy regardless of the height it's detonated at or the gravitational field it's detonated in. And it's the nuclear energy which is given by the equation E = mc^2

arr i see, thx.

 

[AlexG]

water becomes more dense by a tighter bond?

Molecular bonds, not atomic.

 

[paddoboy]

Is ice the lack of energy in water?

if no, why not when we add energy to ice we get water?

I have answered your previous question.
You have not answered mine.
Do you now confidently accept the fact that weight and mass are not the same thing?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Molecular energy equation anyone?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I have answered your previous question.
You have not answered mine.
Do you now confidently accept the fact that weight and mass are not the same thing?

Yes now you explained that everyday words mean jack when it comes to science.

 

[brucep]

Ok, i will try ask it another way.

I presume that water per cm3 has a energy amount contained within it and using E=mc2 this gives that amount of energy per cm3 of water?

In talking about entropy, what is lost is gained by entropy means by atmospheric energies, retaining the water has water , x amount of energy lost to gravity from the water but gained by entropy means from the atmosphere.
We add energy to water and it vapours and rises away from gravity being more ''charged'' than in its normal equilibrium to gravity of E=mc2.

Now if we removed the atmosphere around the water in its normal entropy state of gain and loss, then we only have loss, making ice.

in the North pole the light is not has strong , but now the gases are increasing in their Thermodynamics the ice now is gaining more than the loss of energy to gravity that kept it froze?

in making a vacuum we suck out the air and energy and that is why the water freezes because there is more loss than gain for the water?

This is a great forum for you. One where the class clown can be in charge of the lesson plan.

 

[AlexG]

Yes now you explained that everyday words mean jack when it comes to science.

Which is why the emphasis on mathematics rather than language. Math is far, far less ambiguous.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dy you are the one person I wish would try harder to understand because I do know you know your knowledge well.

Try harder at what?
Explaining to you where and how you're wrong?

if I have some water, it contains E=mc2 to volume, if i extract some of that energy from the water, I make ice

No.
One more time: e=mc^2 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turning water into ice.
That equation is for the energy contained in the MASS - nuclear energy, not the chemical/ molecular energy that's "extracted" when water turns to vapour in the video.
If e=mc^2 were at all involved then not only the water but also the lab the experiment took place in would have been vaporised.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Which is why the emphasis on mathematics rather than language. Math is far, far less ambiguous.

I sore the point in the maths a while back, it saves time in the long run. Something's however also need explanation, and the Thermodynamics of water i feel is important to understand especially if considering global warming and the why's. I am at an almost certainty that energy from mass is lost to gravity at a constant rate, and if this energy could be replaced then the object would have no weight on earth.

 

[paddoboy]

We have certainly been side-tracked from the question of mass and weight.
Again, theorist constant, do you finally accept t

Yes now you explained that everyday words mean jack when it comes to science.

No, not entirely true.
It's more "familiarity" and "convention" that is what we perceive in general on Earth, and that mass and weight are simarily inferred and the difference is not obvious.

But that is not your problem. Your problem is as I posted in post 161.
Do not blame science for your obtuse ignorance and refusal to accept any mainstream science.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Try harder at what?
Explaining to you where and how you're wrong?


No.
One more time: e=mc^2 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turning water into ice.
That equation is for the energy contained in the MASS - nuclear energy, not the chemical/ molecular energy that's "extracted" when water turns to vapour in the video.
If e=mc^2 were at all involved then not only the water but also the lab the experiment took place in would have been vaporised.

Yeah i got it.

 

[AlexG]

Something's however also need explanation, and the Thermodynamics of water i feel is important to understand especially if considering global warming and the why's.

Yes, but that's a separate subject from E = mc^2.

 

[paddoboy]

I am at an almost certainty that energy from mass is lost to gravity at a constant rate, and if this energy could be replaced then the object would have no weight on earth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I am at an almost certainty that energy from mass is lost to gravity at a constant rate

Wrong.

and if this energy could be replaced then the object would have no weight on earth.

Crap.