Mert, the significant part of the equation isn’t the M it’s the E, E=mc^2 is a way to find the energy output of using that conversion. The E is whats different in a chemical reaction, versus a nuclear reaction. The E is what levels buildings and causes massive damage, not the final Mass of the origional contents of the bomb. Who cares about that other than in a “hey this is kinda cool” kind of way. A pouind of TNT in a conventional explosive and a pound of uranium or plutonium or whatever in a nuclear explosion, would not be the same energy output. Not even remotely close. Therefore they cannot both follow E=mc^2 because the E is vastly different in both cases. If you teach this shit I am scared for our youth. Go check my thread on healthcare, just because you are a teacher doesn’t mean you know your ass from a hole in the wall.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
You start by saying that everything I said was wrong.[/quote]
It was and still is. The part I quoted was wrong (hell, the part I didn’t quote was also wrong, in another way). Saying that there’s no difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons is idiotic.
If it’s not, the following sentences are perfectly ok. Let’s call these…
TRUTHS ACCORGING TO MERTDAWG -
“There is no real difference between a tomato and a tank; both are composed of molecules.”
“There is no real difference between a 800lbs squat and wiggling your ears; both involve muscular contractions.”
“There is no real difference between touching a woman’s hand and raping a woman; both involve physical contact.”
All true. Also all wrong. It’s probably the “no real difference” part that does you in. (Maybe your problem is not so much stupidity as not being able to express your thoughts too well. I’m still siding with stupid.)
That’s why the E=mc^2 point you’ve been working to death since that post changes nothing about the fact that nuclear and non-nuclear weapons are quite different. It’s simply not true that there’s “no real difference” between them.
For the rest, I didn’t quote the “you’d seen estimates that said…” part, because anyone can see any estimates he wants about anything. Those prove… nothing.
Also, it’s not really the fact that nuking Japan might have saved lives that I dispute (or find “wrong”); but your claim (backed up by “estimates”) on the number of those saved lives.
[quote]
Then that you didn’t quote one of the three, so it was just the other 2 facts that were wrong.[/quote]
No, I hadn’t yet understood that if we don’t repeat everything in every post, you forget them. If you find something missing in this one, please go back to the first page and reread everything.
Clear and simple: Nuclear weapons emit radiations; conventional weapons do not. Radiations irradiate (image that!) the surrounding area making some material radioactive. It can also cause birth defects in pregnant woman and favor and/or cause cancers. Conventional weapons, even big ones, don’t do that. Seems a rather “real” difference to me. See? We keep getting back to how your first post was nonsensical.
No, you’re still wrong. Let’s say I adopt your “let’s pursue a trivial point to death” stance; I could argue that the chemical bonds that release energy during a chemical reactions are already in the form of energy before the reaction; hence, there is no mass conversion taking place. E=E.
Nuclear reactions involve fission or fusion of atoms. That’s what produces the energy. That’s also the real difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. “Nuclear” refers to the nucleus of the atom; which somehow, IS NOT MODIFIED in chemical reactions. Another “Real Difference™”.
And yes, the energy released by fission and fusion is far, far from the 100% of what E=mc^2 predicts. But I find it quite amusing that you’re pointing out to me a factor of 1/10,000 or 1/100,000 when the whole of your stupid argument stands on 6 or 7 orders of magnitude LESS. You can’t have it both ways, Mertle-boy. Er, -dog.
Admit it, the art was pretty.
Speaking of answering questions; I notice you’ve skipped just about everyone of mine, prefering to work your E=mc^2 point to death; as apparently it’s the only tenuous hope you’ve found to try and have at least a shred of your first post remain true.
The problem is that even if it can be argued that in a billionth-of-a-trivial-effect way, it is true; it is still wrong in the general sense and in pretty much every other way too.
So, care to answer some of those other questions you’ve skipped over? Finding them is easy, look for sentences ending with a “?”. You’ll notice that nearly every question I’ve asked went unanswered.
I understand you, though. There’s no way you could answer those questions without sinking your paper ship of an argument or sounding stupid (most likely both), so I won’t be waiting.
Next time you post something idiotic and someone calls you out on it, you could save a lot of time by simply saying “Oops. My bad.”
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I am not reading the articles so that I can understand them. I teach chemistry and physics and work with 2 mentors who are theoretical physicists on a weekly basis. [/quote]
Poor kids.
What do your mentors think of the statement “There is no real difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, they both derive their energy from E=mc^2”? Feel free to insist on your second clause; but I really would like to know what they think about the first one.
I said, much less implied, no such thing. I was simply pointing out that the energy release from chemical reactions is minute compared to what E=mc^2 predicts; and that invoking E=mc^2 in that context was nonsense. I never said that complete efficiency was attainable, much less even in reach.
Need proof? I said “(in fact, 1kg of anything)”… You don’t really think that I think that you can make a nuclear bomb from 2 pounds of cheese, do you?
Now, 2 pounds of anti-matter cheese, that’s another story.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Mert, the significant part of the equation isn’t the M it’s the E, E=mc^2 [/quote]
The equation describes the relationship between mass and energy.
Basically, it predicts how much energy you could theoritically get from converting some mass, or how much energy you’d need to create a given mass.
The fact the the energy output from chemical reactions differs from nuclear fission and nuclear fusion (and eventually matter-antimatter annihilation) doesn’t change anything about the equation itself.
(I think using it to describe chemical reactions is daft, but that’s just me… and probably 99.9% of physicists and chemists.)
The output of different “explosives” differs not really because of their composition (TNT, Uranium, Plutonium, Hydrogen, etc), but because of the method used to liberate energy.
Conventional explosives derive their energy from a chemical reaction. You get a nice little bang.
The atomic bomb derives it’s energy from splitting atoms. Fission. Quite a bit more efficient than a chemical reaction, as the Japanese can attest too.
A fusion bomb, commonly known as the hydrogen bomb or H-Bomb derives it’s energy from “merging” the atoms of a light element (like hydrogen) into heavier elements (like helium). That’s fusion and it’s even more energetic than fission. It’s also much cleaner.
I think one critical thing that hasn’t been said is that the energy released/used in chemical reactions has to do with the formation/destruction of bonds between atoms in molecules, not mass change. It takes energy to break chemical bonds; conversely, energy is released when bonds are created. Mass is lost in chemical reactions, but its such a trivial amount.
Maybe this is why Mertdawg is having such a hard time grasping the idea that mass change is irrelevant in chemical reactions
No, if you read the sources you’ll see that actually relativity REDEFINES chemical potential energy and in fact ALL potential energy as a form of mass.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree. But it also REDEFINES the resulting kinetic energy following the bomb’s explosion as mass. The same energetic mass is present in both the pre-explosion and post-explosion cases. Except for the small difference of the light that was emitted.
I did read your sources. Did you notice that one of them claims that neither type of bomb actually converts mass to energy?
[quote]Vegita wrote:
A pouind of TNT in a conventional explosive and a pound of uranium or plutonium or whatever in a nuclear explosion, would not be the same energy output. Not even remotely close. Therefore they cannot both follow E=mc^2 because the E is vastly different in both cases. [/quote]
They still both follow E=mc^2, and yes E is vastly different but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t follow the equation.
This is way beyond highschool chemistry and physics, but I’ve seen in taught in “physics 101” which I was a TA for. So its wrong to teach that different realms of science can actually be explained by the same set of laws? And you are right about some teachers-many, but I teach in the highest performing district in the state. We work directly with the University of Colorado, and have articulation meetings with them. I have worked hand in hand with theoretical physicist from the physics department.
[quote]pookie wrote:
That’s why the E=mc^2 point you’ve been working to death since that post changes nothing about the fact that nuclear and non-nuclear weapons are quite different. It’s simply not true that there’s “no real difference” between them.
[/quote]
The point was that Einstein’s work did not particularly make nuclear weapons possible any more than it made conventional weapons possible
I never said they were true. I was looking for opinions. That’s what discussion threads are all about. I don’t know if it was true or not.
I already admitted that there is short term radioactive waste produced from fusion reactions. Again, my point was that most people’s commonly held idea that they leave a radioactive hot-spot on the earth for years is erroneous.
You could just as easily argue that the nuclear bonds in the nucleus are already in the form of energy.
The type of isotope according to the chemical definition does not change in a chemical reaction, but the atoms do change. They exist in a different state which in particle physics means that they have absorbed or emitted particles. The nucleus itself even changes its conformation in a chemical reaction. The number of protons and neutrons do not change, but there are other smaller subatomic force carrying particles that do change.
No, there are nuclear reactions which are within 2 or 3 orders of magnitude of various chemical reactions. It is a broad continuum. Nuclear reactions are about 1/1000 to 1/1,000,000 efficient. Most chemical explosives are 1/100,000,000 to about 1/1,000,000,000 efficient.
I printed a copy and hung it on my wall.
I can’t find any questions (?s) in any of your previous posts except the one asking me if a grenade is a nuclear weapon. Its not.
[quote]Navers wrote:
I think one critical thing that hasn’t been said is that the energy released/used in chemical reactions has to do with the formation/destruction of bonds between atoms in molecules, not mass change. It takes energy to break chemical bonds; conversely, energy is released when bonds are created. Mass is lost in chemical reactions, but its such a trivial amount.
Maybe this is why Mertdawg is having such a hard time grasping the idea that mass change is irrelevant in chemical reactions
[/quote]
No, chemical bond energy IS redefined as mass.
Mass change is responsible for ALL of the energy in chemical reactions.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
So its wrong to teach that different realms of science can actually be explained by the same set of laws?
[/quote]
No, but this lesson has to be followed up quickly: when more than one framework applies it is important to emphasize that one selects the framework that better furthers the analysis in that particular case.
With the bombs we have classical mechanics which separately conserves mass and energy, and also relativity which conserves mass/energy. Both frameworks apply. But the classical mechanics is a more useful framework for analyzing what happens when a conventional bomb explodes, since the bulk of the phenomenology there is about energy being conserved while it is converted from one form to another, and also because we cannot measure the relativistic effects directly.
But if you want to astound an internet forum, of course you pick whichever framework is least apposite!
Pookie, have you seen anything on this blacklight process? Is it fission? It doesn’t appear to be to me, some sort of different way to gain energy out of hydrogen. Anyways, anyone interested should check the link out. To me if it all pans out, this will be the future of energy for mankind. I’m not sure WTF it’s taking so long for them to get this commercialized, I have been following it since 99/00.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
The point was that Einstein’s work did not particularly make nuclear weapons possible any more than it made conventional weapons possible[/quote]
Where the hell did that come from? Put that back in your ass right this minute. We never discussed whether Einstein’s work had made nuclear weapons possible. Sheesh, man, I’ve seen dunderheads in my life, but you’re a special breed.
FYI: We had conventional weapons before Einstein, Einstein.
Well, then just say “In my opinion, those bombs saved lives.” Why quantify the number of lives saved, unless it happens that you believe that to be true.
Initially it was that a nuclear bomb works like a dirty bomb; you apparently weren’t even aware of radiation at all. Physics teacher, huh?
I said I could argue that, but I’m not going to.
Here we go again. Ever seen those little chemical diagrams? Those with letters and numbers on both sides? I sure you did. Next time, notice how the letters and numbers all even out. That’s why their’s a little “=” between them.
Somehow, physicists and chemists don’t find it necessary to track your little subatomic particles during run of the mill chemical reactions. I suggest you follow their lead and stop looking like an idiot.
Hey, genius, how many zeroes of difference between 1/1000 and 1/1,000,000,000? Six? There ya go.
For reference, an “order of magnitude” is a factor of 10. Six zeroes of difference = 6 orders of magnitude. Not “2 or 3”.
They let you teach?
Liar.
No? I thought there was no difference, wait, no REAL difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. If there is no difference, why isn’t a grenade a nuclear weapon?
Wait!
Are you saying, that GASP there IS a difference? Alleluia! He sees the light!
Pookie, have you seen anything on this blacklight process?[/quote]
What I want to know is: Where are you at with winning the JREF Foundation’s million dollar by controlling your aluminum foil thru a glass trick? You promised me half, remember?
As for the Blacklight power, it doesn’t look good. I’ve only skimmed it, but it sounds fishy. My guess is that they’re much like the “free energy” and perpetual motion machines crowd. In other words, scam artists talking crap.
Pookie, have you seen anything on this blacklight process?
What I want to know is: Where are you at with winning the JREF Foundation’s million dollar by controlling your aluminum foil thru a glass trick? You promised me half, remember?
As for the Blacklight power, it doesn’t look good. I’ve only skimmed it, but it sounds fishy. My guess is that they’re much like the “free energy” and perpetual motion machines crowd. In other words, scam artists talking crap.
[/quote]
lol, yea the tin foil trick is put away for the summer, I can’t really get into it after a long day of golf, and since I golf every day, I’ll just have to do it in the fall. I still have the website bookmarked though so I’ll follow through. here’s to 500,000
[quote]Vegita wrote:
lol, yea the tin foil trick is put away for the summer, I can’t really get into it after a long day of golf, and since I golf every day, I’ll just have to do it in the fall. I still have the website bookmarked though so I’ll follow through. here’s to 500,000[/quote]
May I suggest you win the million first and golf after?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Vegita wrote:
lol, yea the tin foil trick is put away for the summer, I can’t really get into it after a long day of golf, and since I golf every day, I’ll just have to do it in the fall. I still have the website bookmarked though so I’ll follow through. here’s to 500,000
May I suggest you win the million first and golf after?
Priorities, man, priorities!!
[/quote]
Ahh but I plan on winning many millions playing golf, so you see I am actually chasing after the bigger fish.
Interesting thread. Now about the E=mc^2. I believe the difference between a non-nuclear and a nuclear bomb is the former manipulate the energy used to bind atoms (in molecules) together, while, while the latter manipulate the very core (protons and atom).
Say, dynamite explodes because it gets heated by fire or by pressure (which creates heat) and then change from a solid to gas form, taking up 18 times more space then in a solid form, and since the binding needs much less energy, it releases its excess energy to create a blast. However the mass before = mass after.
While a fission of uranium will release a proton, which disappears and converts to energy. Mass before =!= mass after. In a fusion, I don’t know.
"Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."
In other words, you are misaplying the appeal to authority fallacy in this case. Should be expected. It does make you sound desparate though.
