N_las

There isn't really a distinticion necessary. On could delete the concept of mass completely and only use energy. Giving the mass of particles in electron Volts is common, but reading my weight on the bathroom scale in Exajoule would need getting used to

When they hit something, the hitted thing will have more energy and thus more mass. The overall mass always stayes the same. Thats my point. It itsn't that one terminates mass and generates energy in the process. Every bit of energy has a corresponding bit of mass glued to it. Yes, thats what i mean. Energy and mass aren't distinct, different, and exchangeable but rather that energy has mass. And what do you mean by mass has mass? If i have a particle, and observe the property 'mass', than i can conclude there has to be an intrinsic amount of energy in this particle. The mass of the particle is simply the mass of this intrinsic energy. The mass of an electron for example comes from the intrinsic energy the electron has because of its interaction with the higgs field. The mass of a Proton comes (mostly) from the intrinsic energy in the bonds between the quarks. A neutrino has relativistic mass, simply because it is moving. If there is any rest mass, who knows. But the notion, only rest mass is real mass, and relativistic mass shouldn't be considered mass is unsubstantiated.

The nuclear reaction gets its energy from the potential energy in the nucleus, just like a chemical reaction gets its energy from the potential energy of the electrons around the nucleus. The mass differential is not the source of the energy. The decrese in energy of the fission products in comparision to the energy of the original nucleus also means that the mass of the products will be smaller, since mass is a measure of the energy content. So the mass difference is caused by the release of energy, not the other way around. No, the mass energy equivalence is much more profound than a simple exchange between them. The don't annihilate into 'pure energy', but into two (sometimes three) photons. The relativistic mass of these photons is the mass of the electron and the proton. So there is no 'missing mass' that is turned into energy. The mass is still there. The mass didn't become energy. If the neutron decays, and you consider the relativistic mass of the resulting proton, electron and electron antineutrino, than there is no missing mass. You can close your eyes to relativistic mass, and only consider rest mass, then your interpretation would make sense. If you consider the relativistic mass of the resulting electron, the myon neutrino and the anti-electron neutrino, then there is no missing mass. Yes, energy and mass are totally equivalent, but not in the sense that you can switch between them, but that mass is just a scale of the energy content of a system. And i am certanly nobody from the non-physics crowd, I have a degree in physics.

Spread the word. This is one of the most common misconceptions about E=mc². Nuclear fission is often explained faulty by saying, that energy is released because the mass of the reaction products is smaller than the start material. Such half-truths about so many topics in physics are rampant among science enthusiasts.

Not it dosen't violate anything. If you decrease the energy (and hence mass) of a system, another system has to gain that energy (and correlating mass). I don't know what to tell you man, but you are simply wrong. If you imagine different forms of energy, for example potential-energy and kinetic-energy, there isn't such a thing as mass-energy. Mass isn't just another from of energy, and you can't convert kinetic energy into mass like you could into potential energy. The equation E=mc² isn't like 10€ = 14$, it isn't a conversion. It is more like the equation 'mass = volume x density'. If density is always constant, then every mass has a correlating volume and every volume has a mass. The equation doesn't describe how you can somehow exchange volume and mass. You cant say, the volume goes down, so the mass goes up. The wikipedia article does a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

This was just to highlight the difference between the meson and the earth-object system. Imagine the earth and the object you want to lift are two particles, that form a bigger particle (we can call it eart-object system). Like two oxygen atoms form an oxygen molecule. If you lift the object from the ground, you also lift the earth from the object. Instead of saying, 'the objects gaines potential energy' it is really the earth-object system, that gains energy, from increasing the distance between the earth and the object. If one increases the distance of the two oxygen atoms in the molecule, it also gains energy. And if you incease the distance between two protons in the helium nucleus (for simplicity, we ignore the neutrons) you increse the energy of the helium nucleus. All this energy increases are correlating to a mass increase. If you completly seperate the object from the earth or the two oxygen atoms, you won't notice the mass increase, because it is miniscule. But the energy density of the helium nucleus is much higher, so the increased mass of two completly seperated protons is very noticable. So, it isn't, that an increase in energy is a decrease i mass, and vice versa. An increase in energy is an increase in mass. E=mc² doesn't mean you can convert the mass m into the energy E (so you would have less mass and more energy), but that the mass m has the energy E, and the energy E has the mass m (if you decrease the energy of a system, it loses mass). But this is off topic. I just wanted to point out, that conservation of mass and conservation of energy isn't invalid because of Einstein. Equally, conservation of momentum will prevail.

Exactly, but not the object gains the mass, but the earth-object system. This isn't really noticable at those low scales of macroscopic mechanics, but a really nice analog is a meson. A meson consists of two quarks. One would think, that one could split a meson and have a single quark. But if you put energy into the system, to 'lift' one quark from the other, this energy is directly correlated to a mass increse of the whole meson. Before you can split the two, the increased mass is enough to form a new meson, and the result isn't two seperated quarks, but two mesons. In the same way, if you try to 'split' the object and the earth by lifting it from the ground, the invested energy directly correlates two an increase of mass (not of the object, but of the earth-objecty system). The system as a whole doesn't change its mass, because the chemicals in you muscles are now lighter. In the case of the object-earth system, it is possible to completely seperate them, because it doesn't requrie an infinite amount of energy to create an infinite distance between those two. (For quarks, this is impossible, since the attracting force is linear to the distance of them).

E=mc² isn't really a description of the conservation between mass and energy. It is more like: Every amount of energy E has the mass m, and every mass m contains the Energy E. If you only interpret rest mass as real mass, than one could say that conversation of mass is broken. But if you interpret as mass, what you feel if you try to accalerate and object, or what you see as weight if you put the object on a scale, than mass is always conserved. Your muscles contain chemicals with a certain amount of energy in them. If you use this energy to strech a spring, your muscles contain less energy and the spring more. If you put the Energy in the E=mc² equation, you can work out the mass your muscles lost and the strech gained. This effect is mostly ignored on the low engery scales from chemical reactions. But nuclear reactions has so much more energy content, that one associates E=mc² mostly with that. But its the same in principle. If i fuse two hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, the products of the reaction have less rest mass than the inital hydrogen atoms. But the mass difference is carried away by the relativistic mass of some products. If for example a neutron is expelled at high speeds, it has a higher mass than a resting neutron. But overall, all masses are conserved. If i 'fuse' two oxygen atoms into an oxygen molecule, the same happens. the oxygen molecule will be lighter than the inital oxygen atoms. Even if the mass difference is only carried away by vibrations in the air (phonons can be handled as if they have mass), the overall mass is conserved.

It isn't a conversion between energy an mass. It is more like, energy and mass are kinda the same thing. If you have a nuclear explosion, the rest mass of the bomb material may be less than before, but the difference in mass can be found in the relativistc mass of the created photons. If you somehow could weight the whole system before and after the explosion, it wouldn't have less mass. It wouldn't have created energy either. The energy comes from the fissonable material, in the same way that gas unleashes chemical energy. People don't realize, that the relationship between mass and energy is really profound. For example, if i stretch a spring, it actually would change its mass (measured as weight).

Relativity hasn't defied conservation of energy and mass.

Here is an interesting sudoku problem. Trial and error shows, that there is only one legal solution. It isn't the problem to find the solution with brute force, but i would like to learn a methode to solve this problem more elegant. Do you guys know something. For everyone who likes sudoku, there is a very nice twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/battleofthecrowds

But it would be the case. If one wouldn't consider air resitance, they would fall with the same accelaration, because only gravity works on the objects, and so the masses cancel. m*a = m*g a = g The mass doesn't play in. But with air resistance: m*a = m*g - F_AirResistance a = g - F_AirResistance / m Since the air resistance is independent of mass, the mass of the object doesn't cancel from the equation. So Objects with greater mass fall faster in Atmosphere.

If we assume the center of mass of the whole unverse is the earth. If we now enter the sun into the system, it will orbit around the center of mass, hence around the earth. If we now enter neptun into the system, it should also orbit around the center of mass, hence around the earth. Why is it, that neptune instead chooses to revolve around the sun. There is no significant difference between neptun and the sun. Yes, the sun is much heavier, but it would't matter in comparison to the center of mass of the whole universe, would it? To make that argument work, not only the earth should be in the center, but the sun has to be truly special. But let us assume the the issue of movement isn't relevant in this discussion, as you said. Than one can't use this argument to promote geocentrism either, just counter some conter-arguments. So there has to be another reason to assume the earth is the center. Observations of the universe outside our solar system could theoretically point to the conclusion, that the earth is the center. But since the stars are so distant, one would make nearly the same observations about redshift, parallax, etc. from any other planet of the solar system. So that oberservations can not be used to argue for geocentrism either, it could just narrow the center of the universe down to a point in our system. Since that covers ALL oberservations from the sky, there is nothing there to support the claim of geocentrism. But you claim that there are such observations: So you can only refer to 'introspective' observations, like the Michelson-Morley-experiment. Would you agree with me, thats the only kind of observation that could possibly point to a earth centerd universe? If not, please ellaborate why . If yes, than we all know that we don't have to discuss cosmical observations anymore, but can concentrate on such 'introspective' observations.

Iodestar: Imagine the earth would become uninhabitable, but a few people would manage to escape to mars and somehow would make mars habitable. After several thousand generations the descendants would't remember that transition, and would think there natrual home Planet is mars. If they observe the solar system and the rest of the universe, they will basically make the exact same observations than we do now. If they make on mars the exact same observations, as their ancesters (we) on earth, and the observations permits that the earth is the center of the universe, than the observation will also permit the conclusion that mars is the center of the universe. If anyone is intellectualy honest, one has to say there would be no way to tell, if earth or mars is the actual center. The same would be true for all planets in the solar system, from all points the observation will make it possible to interpret that point as the center of the universe. So even if all obersavtion would be consisten with an geocentric universe, there has to be another reason to conclude that it is. If you don't agree that one would observe basically the same from mars as from earth, please explain your reasoning.

If I understand your idea of geocentricity correctly, the sun orbits the earth. The other planets orbit the sun, hence they just indirectly orbit the earth. What keeps them from directly orbiting the earth? Why does the sun orbit the earth directly, but the other planets doesn't? Because it is a matter of faith either way? Some belive that the earth is special, and others belive that the earth is not special? Well, I hope you realize, that there is a difference between 'believing the earth is not special', and 'not believing the earth is special'. If you rest your understanding of the universe at the believe the earth is privileged, you make an assumption. This assumption could be wrong and obstruct the truth. If one doesn't believe the earth is privileged, there is no assumption. The funny thing is: Every argument for geocentrism also works for lunacentrism, neptun-centrism and ISS-centrism.

I am pretty sure you are confusing dark matter with dark energy. Those are different things.

Wolfgang Smith is a geocentrist and believes in intelligent desing. He tries to weave as much religion into his interpretation of quantum mechanics as possible. 'Unrestrained scientism' has lead to less wars, less poverty, less sickness, more knowlege and stronger social liberties. Thats quite an 'corrosion' ...

Imagine that Particles propagate as waves, but interact as particles: The canon shoots a particle that propagates as wave at the wall with the slits. Dependend on the amplitudes of the propagating wave one can determine the probability of the particle to interact with the wall. For the sake of argument: Say the probability is 80%. If that is the case, than it obviously doesn't travel further. In the rest of the cases (20%) the particle won't interact with the wall but propagate throug the slit. Since it hasn't interacted with the wall, it still resembles a wave originating at the canon, and an interference pattern will form. The Amplitudes of the interference pattern at the back wall now determines the propability were the particle will interact with the wall. If you repeat the experiment with many particles, the pattern becomes visible. If you place a detector at the slits, you force the particle to interact with the detector. There is now way of detecting a particle, without interacting with it. So the particle interacts with the detector at the two slits. Now it will propagate as a wave further to the back wall, but the wave doesn't have its origin point at the canon anymore, but at the point were the detector interacted with it, in front of one of the slits. A wave originating from that point doesn't create an interference pattern. So just keep in Mind: Particles ALWAYS propagate as waves, but interact as particles. (obviously that ist just a simplification)

It is easier to use the same engines and fuel system in both stages. If you use different engines and fuels, you have to build essentially two completely different rockets and put them on top of each other. Using the same system in both stages halves the development effort. You use the same parts, just the tanks are streched to another length, and the plumbing has to support a different number of engines. You can use the same machines in production, the same engineers, the same spare parts.

The Delta V uses hydrogen as fuel, the F9 kerosin. Hydrogen is much lighter, so a comparable amount of fuel takes far more volume. Comparing rockets by size is not fair.

Why do you think that chemical rockets just arent going to cut it? The work perfektly fine...

Last time I checked, a law was part of a theory. Newtons first, second and third law are the part of a theory (Classical mechanics) E = mc² is a law, and it is part of a theory (Relativity) The uncertainty principle is a law, and it is part of a theory (Quantum mechanics)

If you have your orbits: Vector-Position of Spacecraft as function of time: X_Spacecraft(t) Vector-Position of Planet as function of time: X_Planet(t) you can calculate: Vector-Distance of Spacecraft to Planet as function of time: VectorDistance(t) = X_Spacecraft(t) - X_Planet(t) Than you have to calculate the Magnitude of the Distance: Distance(t) = mag(VectorDistance(t)) Now you have a function of the distance between spacecraft and planet. Distance(t)=SOI_Radius solve for t If t=0 is the present, the smallest possible solution for 't' ist the time of the next SOI-Encounter.

There is no known physics that indicates the existence of orange juice. It is an emerged product. But in the case of consciousness, you can't even argue for its existens, because there isn't a decent definition of it.

He is crackpotting or trolling.