[The rest of the post includes calculations]
Einstein says E=MC^2.... right? Energy=Mass x speed of light squared[..]
My question is why does einstein butt 'light' into everything? Why not just say E=M times a certain number?
36 comments
Well the answer to why it needs to be a speed has to do with how E=m*c^2 is derived from F=m*a. It's part of the fundamental definition of the unit of energy.
Also, the segments in here weren't posted by JohnR7. He was quoting the user named "The Gregorian". Of course, JohnR7's stuff was a bit strange, too, but this isn't it.
Because stating it as "the speed of light" covers the possibility that the speed of light may be more accurately measured in the future. If one used a particular number (the best measurement of the speed of light at the time the equation is written), the next increase in accuracy in the measurement of the speed of light would make the equation incorrect.
"Also, the segments in here weren't posted by JohnR7. He was quoting the user named "The Gregorian". Of course, JohnR7's stuff was a bit strange, too, but this isn't it."
I also noticed this and I sent an e-mail. The quote I submitted was actually John replying to this.
That thread actually gets even worse after that. After other posters point out the many misconceptions in The Gregorian's posts he says, "Just because I question a basic concept [E=m*c^2] doesn't mean I don't understand it. I understand it. It's wrong."
Wow. After reading this, I laughed out loud, and listening to that laugh, it was the most evil thing I had ever heard.
...that said, I don't read the things on this site aloud, or else it probably wouldn't have been.
--
This is getting a very low rating, I'm the first non-1, it seems. I guess this isn't very religious, per se, but it is extreme ignorance mixed with arrogance on a grand scale, and the very question to me, coming from ANYBODY, screams fundy, so I gave it a 5. Then again, I am an engineer, so maybe it just hits home more for me.
Wow, this is just funny. Physics wants to slap this man. Let's see. If you read the whole article, it's just chock full of erroneous thought. For example, he tries to use pound instead of kilogram, forgets to square units, doesn't know units, and compares it to torque or some shit. I laugh at you.
Oh, and Dr. Rosen, the speed of light itself doesn't change according to relativity, time and distance do. Either way, he's dead wrong.
It should be kept in mind that 'c' isn't really "the speed of light", it is instead "the speed of light in a hard vacuum ". Even more specifically, one should add the qualifier that in other spaces, 'c' may possibly be different; depends on which theory you give the most credence (if I remember correctly, there's at least one that says this).
<<< Why not just say E=M times a certain number? >>>
Because the certain number happens to be the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum (colloquially known as "the speed of light" even though light actually moves considerably slower in certain media) squared, which is believed to be the upper bound on the speed of anything (a consequence of relativity).
Kyle: You must be an engineer (or possibly a physicist). Using 'j' instead of 'i' in Euler's formula was a dead giveaway.
Yeah, it makes so much more sense when you read it as:
Energy = mass multiplied by (a constant which coincidentally happens to be the velocity at which all forms of electromagnetic radiation propagate through a vacuum) squared!
Awesome - thanks Gregorian, the world will never be the same again, science is deeply in your debt!
FUCKHEAD!
EDIT: (oh Crosis beat me in)
My question is why does einstein butt 'light' into everything? Why not just say E=M times a certain number?
Because he has a certain regard for reality? Let me explain this to you, fundies: Scientists try to explain the world around them. This means they have to report what they see, and can't just make stuff up because it suits them. This is why we point out that fundies aren't scientists; they just make up whatever they like and claim it's science.
Also, the rest of his post is hilarious; it should be here too. He spouts gibberish about how the formula is completely different if you use different units of measurement, confuses what units mean, displays a total lack of knowledge about the topic, and then says: K... so what's my point other than to publically announce that I don't agree with what junior highschool teachers are professing about physics?
Absolutely hilarious. (Oh, by the way, the citation link goes to the wrong post; it was a reply to The Gregorian, written by John R7.)
I find it hilarious that he says he understands how this works, considering that a high school physics student can work out how to relate this and all the other high school level quantum stuff they teach. =/ You can, through rather simple substitution, show how this is equivalent to any number of other things using the various formulae and theorems that came out after it.
<<Its important because the speed of light may change or be different in other galaxies,>>
No, it couldn't be different in other galaxies. In other realities, possibly...
From the "Calculations" part of his post:
"Now, I forget which unit of mass einstein used... so I'm going to use the pound... "
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH
*Pause for breath*
AHAAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(For those not up on your systems of measurements, pounds are a measurement of force to begin with. The appropriate English system unit of measurement for mass is the slug.)
You're missing the point. The speed of light is a practical constant. Energy, and mass are variable. In order solve an equation for either mass, or energy, you will need to solve an exponential function. Do the math. It works.
Oh, man, this is just making my brain hurt, especially the followup posts. This is raising ignorant stupidity to the level of an art form.
~David D.G.
You know, I can remember a time (not too long ago) when I thought I knew just about everything and that no theory was too great for me to fuck with.
But even then, I didn't really think that Einstein was wrong. And the jab at Hawking, too? If this guy's brain was chocolate, he wouldn't have enough to fill half a smartie.
"you said "Poundkilometerseconds is meaningless." And you're right. And E=MC^2 says exactly that because no one would question einstin on anything having to do with light."
This guy must not realize that Einstein came up with this stuff as a patent clerk. It's not like King Einstein dictated this from on-high and everyone just accepted it. That's how religion works, so it seems to be a Christian thing to assume that that's how science works, too.
"This guy must not realize that Einstein came up with this stuff as a patent clerk. It's not like King Einstein dictated this from on-high and everyone just accepted it"
exactly, when Einstein came out with this, almost the whole community laughed at him, at first. We accept it now because it's stood up to countless experiments. Science doesn't dictate and people follow, science provides evidence and convinces.
This guy goes on to claim:
"oooo this is why I like debating physics.. everyone assumes if they don't understand something it must be because the other person doesn't understand it. Yes I've taken highschool physics, and college physics, and read at least a few of hawking's work (good comedy)."
As a guy working with relativistic physics, I want to be on record as saying that The Gregorian is in dire need of a brain transplant.
I could explain why c pops up there, but the chances that he'd even try and understand seem neglible.
Because...the *right number* IS the speed of light?
Because...this equation describes the relationship between mass and energy?
Because...you're an imbecile?
I dunno, man. You got me.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.