What becomes of old 'friends'..

[frenat]

You don't have to register to post at GLP.  That is why the place is infested with "anonymous cowards".  Of course if you prefer to register just start up a new email with yahoo or gmail.

[Humots]

Ok, thanks!

[frenat]

I'm registered and haven't had any problems.  The "karma" system is a joke so most times I post I don't bother to log in. 

[smartcooky]

"E = M C^2 Proved bunk:

Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it's form suggests, then the algebraic solution for C produces C = SQRT(E/M) This translates basically into "if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality".In an algebraic form, C cannot be a constant unless both E and M are constant and never vary"

He's got the algebra transposition wrong. Its not  C=√(E/M) its C=E/M²

As far as I can remember, constants are rarely if ever placed on the left side of the equation, even though the result would still be valid.

in a circle  c = πD, transposes to D=c/π.  It is also every bit as valid to say π=c/D, its just pointless because you already know the value of π

E=MC² transposes to M=E/C². C=E/M², while valid, it pointless as we already know the value of C

[qt]

He's got the algebra transposition wrong. Its not  C=√(E/M) its C=E/M²

Can you show us how you're getting that?

His maths (as I have seen them quoted here, I didn't go to the original - my IP address is blocked) look OK to me, it's the interpretation which is all moonshine.

in a circle  c = πD, transposes to D=c/π.  It is also every bit as valid to say π=c/D, its just pointless because you already know the value of π

I think there are different styles out there.  I write <stuff>=<constant> all the time, particularly when it is awkward to solve <stuff> explicitly for one of the variables.  If <stuff> is differentiable in all the variables, you can get a nice linear equation for infinitesimal changes, which can be solved for any variable desired, even if <stuff> is quite complicated.

[Jason Thompson]

He's got the algebra transposition wrong. Its not  C=√(E/M) its C=E/M²

...

E=MC² transposes to M=E/C². C=E/M², while valid, it pointless as we already know the value of C

I'm pretty sure his rearrangement is correct.

E = mc²

Divide both sides my m: E/m = c²

Therefore c = √(E/m)

[smartcooky]

I was going to launch into an explanation about checking by substitution and while doing so, realised I had it wrong. Oops!

However, it still doesn't make what he said afterwards right. This....

"if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality"

.... is utter rubbish.

You have to start with "C" as a constant because that is what it is. Putting a constant as the result means that the variables on the right hand side must change in relation to each other; that is the whole issue with the constant being... well... constant!

e.g. we know that the value of π is 3.14159. Its the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. That is a FIXED relationship, defined by π, just as the relationship between matter and energy is defined by C. You can't have a matter/energy relationship that equates to a value of C greater than the speed of light any more than you can have a circle whose circumference is five times its diameter!! 






 

[Jason Thompson]

This....

"if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality"

.... is utter rubbish.

Indeed. As you say, if E increases m does along with it. That's pretty much the whole point of the equation showing the relationship.

[twik]

I think he's assuming that if you (somehow) increase E, mass "magically" increases to match it. Instead, the only variable that can be manipulated here is mass. If you increase the mass, you'll increase the energy.

It would be like if C is miles per gallon on your car (assuming that is a constant*). The variable you can manipulate is the gallons of gasoline you add. More gas, more miles; less gas, fewer miles. You can't say, "Oh, mpg can't be a constant, because if you drove twice the miles, how would you automatically get twice the gasoline in your tank? Magic?"

*Of course, it isn't, but let's say all other variables are being controlled.

The way you get more E is to provide more m. You can't increase E otherwise.

[Humots]

IDW had already "admitted" to a mistake on the thread about how MRI worked:

To be perfectly honest I never took the time to actually read how magnetic resonance imaging worked.

I have a fairly accurate idea now.

No one has the time to learn everything.

If I were ever going to be subjected to one, I would have studied it more intensively.

I simply made the most obvious assumption, that it utilized the iron present in all human cells to image them by inducing a resonant vibration with an oscillating magnetic field and detecting it with coils. At any rate it doesn't sound any safer and wiser to me now, knowing how it actually works than it did before.

I can't help but think utilizing the iron present would be the more simpler approach using magnetism to image the human body.

and I hoped that he might see the light.  No such luck.

I'm probably not going to post at Godlike any more.  I have better things to do with my time. 

[Jason Thompson]

There's only so much you can do with someone who insists that the worldwide application of a particular method of imaging the human body in great detail is for some reason not as good as his layman's 'simpler' version of how it should be done. He can't understand that there's a good reason why his 'simper' way of doing it has not been adopted: it doesn't work!

Of course explaining to him that he has fallen into the same fallacy of assuming iron is inherently magnetic because, well, we all know iron is, right? would be a waste of time, since he can't grasp the idea that metallic iron is magnetic but the iron in haemoglobin is not in a metallic state and is therefore not magnetic. This is also why the idea of 'magnetic healing bracelets' is bunk....

[twik]

I was reading another conspiracy theorist ("Aliens did it!"), and something struck me, that most of them are very reluctant to fully explain what exactly they mean. They tend to answer questions with obfuscations like "Think about it," or "I'm not going to do your research," or "A + B = C, therefore D = apricot. I'm not going to spell it out for you."  I'm not sure if this indicates that they're aware that their arguments are weak, or whether this is simply their normal way of thinking, and they expect that rampant jumps to conclusions are actually convincing.

[PetersCreek]

Not that I'm a psychologist (or play one on TV) but I think the emotional payoff for many CTists is in "knowing the truth" behind the supposed conspiracy that completely dupes mere mortals and that knowledge feels like power. Giving up up too much of that "knowledge" or doing so in a time/manner not of their own choosing is to give up a measure of that power.

[Echnaton]

I was reading another conspiracy theorist ("Aliens did it!"), and something struck me, that most of them are very reluctant to fully explain what exactly they mean. They tend to answer questions with obfuscations like "Think about it," or "I'm not going to do your research," or "A + B = C, therefore D = apricot. I'm not going to spell it out for you."  I'm not sure if this indicates that they're aware that their arguments are weak, or whether this is simply their normal way of thinking, and they expect that rampant jumps to conclusions are actually convincing.

I tend to think they just want to believe themselves to be smart but know, in some way, that they are not.  This makes them angry and self loathing, so they cover it with bluster.  Smart as in raw intelligence and clear thinking.  Sometimes they are the former, but never the latter.  But we have had enough HBs that don't fit this model over the years, so it has a rather limited scope of application. Another theory of mine it excessive testosterone. 

[smartcooky]

I was reading another conspiracy theorist ("Aliens did it!"), and something struck me, that most of them are very reluctant to fully explain what exactly they mean. They tend to answer questions with obfuscations like "Think about it," or "I'm not going to do your research," or "A + B = C, therefore D = apricot. I'm not going to spell it out for you."  I'm not sure if this indicates that they're aware that their arguments are weak, or whether this is simply their normal way of thinking, and they expect that rampant jumps to conclusions are actually convincing.

That sounds like this guy.....