Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 387:
Line 387: +
re
:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc<sup>2</sup>, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc<sup>2</sup> by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc<sup>2</sup>, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc<sup>2</sup> by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 10<sup>16</sup> J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)