E=mc2 questions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is a farce becaue theorist constant has a bee in his bonnet about accepting anything that any reputable scientific links say, or anything that mainstream science accepts.
This plainly obvious to anyone who has participated in his past threads, and openly admitted to in the "God trolls in science forums" debacle thread where he says........

This whole thread is aimed at telling you stereotypical trolls to stop posting Wiki links and Info that we all have the same access to and all understand the same has you. You are not doing any science by quoting back present information rather than discussing in detail ideas that are placed before you from individuals who have a far superior thought process and are able to think up different situations of a science nature.
You are complacent and happy to stick to the past, and can not see a future , froze in your boundaries of your own time, you have no idea what science is about and how to create and do science looking for untold answers of the truth.
My ''nonsense'' is never reputed, all's you ever do is quote back present information, and not discuss the idea being put before you. I will happily stand down if you can dispute my ideas on their own merit, and not just quote back present info , which I and everyone on this forum knows already.
You are just one boring individual happy to remain apart of stereotypical robotic society who would not even notice your own shoelaces undone.

I see science in everything I look at, my mind is far superior to your owns, you trolls will never out think myself, I have creative intent , axioms, rational thinking and life skills, I talk science, you make it a personal battle against an individual to get them removed just because they rebel against your preaching of discipline, trying to force your hand always by trying to get the opp banned. You are no better than a Joseph Witness at the door, so either put up or shut up, you do not own this forum and you certainly will never own me.

You can not think for yourself, or you would have a far better input to give in threads other that just quoting back Wiki , which any person can do.
 
I'm not sure what you are getting at there - this experiment is showing how pressure (in this case, atmospheric pressure) affects the boiling/freezing point (the point at which the water changes from a gas to liquid, and liquid to solid).

For example - you can put water under enough pressure that you can heat it well beyond the boiling point, yet it will remain liquid. However, if you release this pressure, it will flash into steam.

The video you provided is showing how water can be forced to boil by removing the atmospheric pressure - essentially, "lowering" the boiling point to room temperature.
 
Thank you ok, I understand now why you separate , in every day it is different, now you have answered the why's, thank you.

Yet it has taken you 8 pages to accept the fact that although I weigh 86kgs on Earth, I would only weigh 14kgs on the Moon as an explanation?
Or perhaps the threat of moderation has a hand in the change in your nonsensical obtuse attitude?
 
Last edited:
Yet it has taken you 8 pages to accept the fact that although I weigh 86kgs on Earth, I would only weigh 14kgs on the Moon as an explanation?
But he has accepted that there is a difference between mass and weight, even though in everyday language they use the same term. That's a huge step forward.
 
I'm not sure what you are getting at there - this experiment is showing how pressure (in this case, atmospheric pressure) affects the boiling/freezing point (the point at which the water changes from a gas to liquid, and liquid to solid).

For example - you can put water under enough pressure that you can heat it well beyond the boiling point, yet it will remain liquid. However, if you release this pressure, it will flash into steam.

The video you provided is showing how water can be forced to boil by removing the atmospheric pressure - essentially, "lowering" the boiling point to room temperature.
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?
 
Thank you for the great post, and yes I understand the density mass function
If you actually did you wouldn't use the bullsh*t term "density mass function".

a much greater density per cm3
Meaningless.

I see water at an equilibrium of E=mc2 per cm3
Meaningless.

and by entropy means of greater loss of energy to gravity turns into ice, and by entropy means replaces the loss to return to water
Meaningless AND bollocks
 
Yet it has taken you 8 pages to accept the fact that although I weigh 86kgs on Earth, I would only weigh 14kgs on the Moon as an explanation?
Or perhaps the threat of moderation has a hand in the change in your nonsensical obtuse attitude?
I already know a person would weight less on the moon, because there is less gravity, i never denied that, i was arguing the use of terminology.

And I have calmed down because the mod came,I calmed because alex give an understandable answer that in normal life words are different to the content I am learning and have learnt.

In real life the words are much more interchanging.

Also members calmed down when the mod came,
 
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?
Yes, but we're not talking about kinetic or potential energy, we're talking about the energy equivalent contained in the atoms. This is the energy released in nuclear reactions, not the energy produced by (for instance) dropping a mass from a given height and having it impact the ground. This energy is inherent in the atoms, and is why gravity plays no part in the equation.
 
Yes, but we're not talking about kinetic or potential energy, we're talking about the energy equivalent contained in the atoms. This is the energy released in nuclear reactions, not the energy produced by (for instance) dropping a mass from a given height and having it impact the ground. This energy is inherent in the atoms, and is why gravity plays no part in the equation.
yes it is atoms attracted to atoms that is gravity, the energy within attracted to other energies within,

an object on the ground is always under constant pulling towards the center of mass by gravity force, the energy aligns in the direction, energy is lost to gravity but gained from the environment, water is no difference except if the entropy input of energy is less than the loss, it will freeze?
 
Water is the middle stage of its existence, we have ice and vapour, these are all different states of energy of water.?


They are different phases of water, governed by temperatures and pressures.

But you now accept that weight and mass are different.
For whatever reason, at least we can be thankful for that.
 
That's the energy contained in the molecules of water, not the inherent energy of the atoms.

well doe sit matter where the energy is contained, an object is always at loss to gravity, the energy is directed , this is how it works , atomic elasticity, with a constant loss equal to G of E=mc2,

I am sure this is what happens..it makes sense that this is why water freezes at the poles,
 
They are different phases of water, governed by temperatures and pressures.

But you now accept that weight and mass are different.
For whatever reason, at least we can be thankful for that.
well doe sit matter where the energy is contained, an object is always at loss to gravity, the energy is directed , this is how it works , atomic elasticity, with a constant loss equal to G of E=mc2,

I am sure this is what happens..it makes sense that this is why water freezes at the poles,
A simple question, does water freeze in space?
 
density mass function, why what is wrong with that?
Because it's a meaningless term.

density and mass go side by side
Wrong.

i was arguing the use of terminology.
Rather a pathetic excuse from someone who has repeatedly claimed to have learned science.

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 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).
 
It's the difference between mechanical, molecular energy and atomic energy. They are different, just as weight and mass are different. Same everyday words, different scientific meaning, and on a totally different scale. You will never get the energy released in a nuclear reaction by dropping the same mass from a height.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top