>>16962330
This never made any sense to me.
Energy is a variable, but there's human made units for measuring it.
Mass is a variable, and there's human made units for measuring it.
C-Squared is a constant, and there's human made units for measuring it.
So why is there an equation that somehow equates all of these things that are measured using human made units? Like, wouldn't the human made units cause the sides to not equal each other?
What's m measured in? Kilograms?
What's C measured in? Meters per second?
What's E measured in? Joules?
How do all these different measurements align perfectly? Lol.

>>16962339
As long as the system of measurement is consistent, the units don't matter.
We already measured energy in terms of how much mass could be moved at what speed so C^2 pretty much just becomes a universal multiplier.

>>16962339
The point of the equation, at least in terms of the pop-science appreciation of it, is that it shows how the concepts of energy, speed of light, and mass are fundamentally linked and interconnected. Specifics about the units of measurement are completely irrelevant if you're just looking at it conceptually.

If you have a lump of mass, that lump of mass just exists. It doesn't matter if you say that lump of mass is 1 kilogram or say its 2.2 pounds or say its 145 sprongo-dongos or whatever, the mass doesn't care, the mass is still mass, and that mass is still equivalent to the same "amount" of energy no matter which labels you choose to use for the units.

Changing your units of measurement don't actually change reality.
E= mc^2 is a fact about reality, not a fact about units of measurements.

Maybe energy is a type of magnetism because of what space is made of. It's curved.

>>16962330
photons have no mass, so their energy is 0

>>16962387
If that were true solar sails wouldn't work.

>>16962330
> What's E measured in? Joules?
Yes but the units for a Joule is [math]kg m^2 s^{−2}[/math]. So all sides balance.

>>16962387
>>16962390
The original formulation of the equation is m=e/(c^2). Essentially, mass emerges from energy.
A photon technically does have mass in a very pedantic sense. But that mass is wholly dependent on the energy state (frequency in this context) which is variable. Hence why it has no "rest mass."

>>16962407
> A photon technically does have mass in a very pedantic sense
Not really. It has momentum, not mass.

>>16962422
You are absolutely right to correct me. But the term I was looking for was "relativistic mass" which is an archaic concept that physicists avoid precisely because it causes this sort of confusion.

File: Nods at you pondering.gif (1.27 MB, 240x180)

1.27 MB GIF

Squared?
Why are we squaring the universe?

>>16962339
It is specifically designed that way since energy is an expression of work and is specifically derived from mass generating force through space over time.

Starting with Newton's second law and work:
Force is defined as: F=m*a
where mass m has units of kilogram (kg) and acceleration a has units of meter per second squared (m/s^2).

So force has units: kg*m/s^2 (also called the Newton, N)

Work (or energy) is force applied over a distance: W=F*d
where d is distance in meters (m).

Energy units become: E=F*d=kg*m/s^2*m=kg*m^2/s^2
This is the Joule (J), the unit of work and energy.

>>16962407
>Essentially, mass emerges from energy.
No, mass is a fundamental unit while energy is a compounded unit involving mass, space and time, so energy emerges from mass in space over time while mass is simply mass.

>>16962428
To stop the flat-worlders' thinking they won.

>>16962442
Are you that same word-brain that thinks man-made unit conventions have any say on how reality operates?
Protip: they don't. According to general relativity, mass emerges from energy. If there's some other model you're evoking then that's all well and good. But this is GR we're discussing.

>>16962476
>According to general relativity, mass emerges from energy.
No, according to general relatively energy is measured in electron volts which still depends on mass in space over time while mass is still a more fundamental unit instead of compounding the units of mass, space, and time.

>>16962428
The universe has been doubled

>>16962489
>according to general relatively energy is measured in electron volts
Not only are you still committing the same logical error (conflating man made units with fundamental reality), the electronvolt is a product of QM, not GR. The original equation, m=e/(c^2) was represented in ergs (which was also how the first estimate of the eV was represented).

>>16962494
(conflating man made units with fundamental reality)
Energy is a man made unit, retard, GM and QR are man made systems built on man made units, so you are also committing the same logical errors if you put any stock in energy. The way it is logically organized to maintain rational coherence though is that mass is the fundamental unit and energy units are derived from mass in space over time.

>>16962498
Energy is not a unit. Neither is mass.
The problem is you're conflating human representations of a thing with the thing itself.
Honestly, just google "is mass emergent from energy?" and you'll find ample material explaining that it is. You'd be hard pressed to find anything claiming the other way around.

>>16962499
>The problem is you're conflating human representations of a thing with the thing itself.
So humans can't actually represent anything with words and units, so its just a moot point to try to use words or units to describe things which is why your description is totally rights?

I don't need to google it, I can derive it, so I know that energy depends on mass over space and time while mass only depends on mass. >>16962440

I think you will be hard pressed to google anything and not get a bunch of contradictions.

>>16962504
>So humans can't actually represent anything with words and units
We can do so just fine. But we, not being retards, understand that those representations are for our convenience and often not reflective of fundamental reality.

>>16962507
No, you don't seem to understand that since you are still using to words to argue that your representations are a better reflection of fundamental reality than other people's words, despite the fact that you still depend on energy to be compounded mass-space-time while mass is just itself and your only real explanation is to defer to google.

>>16962509
The problem isn't the words themselves. It's you not understanding the scope and limitations of how that language is being used.

Take this example: prior to SI standardization, the calorie was defined as "the amount of energy required to heat 1 cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree Celsius." If we had not settled on the SI system we use today, your exact same argument could be applied to make the claim that energy is downstream of volume and temperature.
The fact that we use the SI system is entirely arbitrary.

>>16962510
>It's you not understanding the scope and limitations of how that language is being used.
No, you are running into the same limitations by claiming energy is fundamental, though, you are still using the way you factor quantities and units as the basis of your claim while simultaneously saying that is the wrong approach, you are saying that the systems are all arbitrary then trying to use that as the basis of your preferred system being fundamental while trying to devalue the efficacy of words while trying use some massive index of words (google) as your justification.

>>16962511
>you are still using the way you factor quantities and units as the basis of your claim
No I am very explicitly not.
Reread this very carefully:
>Energy is not a unit. Neither is mass.
Energy and mass are qualities that we assign units to. I never once provided a preferred system of units because my whole point is the units aren't relevant in this context.

>>16962512
>>Energy is not a unit. Neither is mass.
Right which is why I mentioned quantities which is what you are using to derive things which you still can't do without making energy depend on mass moving in space over time.

Notice >>16962440 is primarily derived via quantities, then the units are added afterward.

>I never once provided a preferred system of units because my whole point is the units aren't relevant in this context.
Then show how to use the quality of energy without it depending on mass, space or time, then derive mass space and time from energy as was done the opposite way >>16962440 (which derived the units from the qualities rather than whatever you are implying).

>>16962514
1kg=(1J*(s^2))/(m^2)
All of same equations follow in exactly the same way.
>inb4 you use this as a gotcha saying I'm now pushing my preferred unitary system
No I am not. You pushed me to provide a unitary system where energy doesn't depend on mass space and time and I just demonstrated how trivial it is to rearrange the existing definitions of SI units to accommodate.
The point remains that units are arbitrary. How we define them does not alter reality.

>>16962518
No, they don't because when you have E=mc^s it shows that E is a direct compound of mass and c^2, but when you have m=E/c^2, you have a complex inverse relationship where you have to remove the units of c^2 from E.

You don't even understand what you are calculating since the specification per your demand was to use qualities instead of units since units are the thing you are complaining about in the first place, its not because of a "gotcha", its that you intuitively know that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

You also don't seem to understand what arbitrary means since it still wouldn't back up your claim that energy is more fundamental than mass if it is just one more arbitrary quality despite the fact that you can't seem to understand that energy is when you compound mass with the upper limit of movement through space while mass is more fundamental since you have to remove the upperlimit of speed from energy to get down to mass from energy. You are saying it does not alter reality and does not actually represent reality, but you still are holding onto your belief that energy is more real and thinking of energy that way is a better reflection of reality.

>>16962519
>when you compound mass with the upper limit of movement
We call that "multiplication".
>since you have to remove the upperlimit of speed from energy
We call that "division"
Elementary school dropout?

>>16962521
Yes that is what elementary children call it, never made it past elementary school, that is why you keep contradicting yourself and don't seem to understand what arbitrary means or how the physical quantities interact with each other in practice?

>>16962519
>when you have m=E/c^2, you have a complex inverse relationship where you have to remove the units of c^2 from E.
Again, you're fixated on the units.
The only difference between E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2 is whether you want to measure energy as mass times a really big scaling factor (c^2) or mass as energy times a really small scaling factor (1/c^2). It is still a direct, positive relationship as c is a constant and not a variable.

>the specification per your demand was to use qualities instead of units since units are the thing you are complaining about in the first place
I made no such demand and I am only complaining about your inability to understand the difference between the fundamental nature of reality and the words we use to describe it.
Units are good. I love units. They allow us to communicate things in a quantitative manner. What they don't do is alter the reality they attempt to describe.

>You also don't seem to understand what arbitrary means since it still wouldn't back up your claim that energy is more fundamental than mass
You're right. That fact doesn't back up my claim. It refutes your argument. Know the difference.

>you can't seem to understand that energy is when you compound mass with the upper limit of movement through space
I understand what you're attempting to communicate very well. But you are simply incorrect.

>You are saying it does not alter reality and does not actually represent reality, but you still are holding onto your belief that energy is more real and thinking of energy that way is a better reflection of reality.
It's not just my belief. It is the conclusion held by every noteworthy contemporary physicist.

>>16962524
>Again, you're fixated on the units.
No, I didn't even apply any units, I was speaking only of the qualities and of energy, mass, and speed and how they relate to each other.

>The only difference between E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2 is
No, I said what the difference was, E is compounding m and c^2 while m is removing c^2 from E.

>It is still a direct, positive relationship
No, E has a direct relationship to m and c^2, but m has an inverse relationship as c^2 gets factored out.

>c is a constant and not a variable.
I didn't say it was a variable, I said it was taken as the upper limit to the speed a mass can move.

> What they don't do is alter the reality they attempt to describe.
Yea and the reality is that no matter what units you use, E is definitely compounded with m and other units, so it can't be fundamental, but m can because if you remove c^2 from E you have a more fundamental quality.

>It refutes your argument.
It refutes all arguments because the qualities no longer have specific logical relationships to each other and are just arbitrary, so nothing can be fundamental.

> But you are simply incorrect.
No, It is 100% correct that Energy is mass compounded with speed squared regardless of specific units.

>It is the conclusion held by every noteworthy contemporary physicist.
No, they wouldn't dedicate their life to it if they just thought it was all arbitrary.

>>16962526
>E is compounding m and c^2
That would be E = m + c^2
>while m is removing c^2 from E
That would me m = E - c^2

>>16962529
>>16962521
I thought you said you were far enough in your elementary education to understand about how to compound through multiplication and factor out via division?

>>16962526
>I said what the difference was
You were wrong and I corrected you.
1/c^2 is about 1.1*10^-17. It's a very small number that you are multiplying energy by to get mass. You're not "taking away" anything.

>I didn't say it was a variable
Then you don't understand what an "inverse relationship" means. The relationship is positive because as the variable goes up so does the output.

>It refutes all arguments because the qualities no longer have specific logical relationships to each other and are just arbitrary, so nothing can be fundamental.
This does not follow from anything discussed so far.

>they wouldn't dedicate their life to it if they just thought it was all arbitrary.
Physics isn't arbitrary. The units are.
Maybe read up on the conxept of "natural units." C is often taken to be equal to 1 without any units so e=mc^2 just simplifies to e=m. Hell, there's even natural unit systems used by physicists which just set c to be equal to the reciprocal of the fine structure constant.

>>16962538
>1/c^2 is about 1.1*10^-17
Yes and multiplying by a really small number is how you divide out a large number because multiplication and division are inverse operations.

>Then you don't understand what an "inverse relationship" means.
You clearly don't understand if you think 1/c^2 is not an inverse of c^2.

>This does not follow from anything discussed so far.
It does, if the relationships are arbitrary then there is nothing fundamental, it is all arbitrary so you haven't made energy more fundamental you have just made mass more arbitrary along with energy.

>Physics isn't arbitrary. The units are.
I haven't been using units for a while, E=mc^2 is not about units, but the qualities of e, m, c and how they logically relate to each other.

>>16962540
Oh my sad little word-brained friend. Just because there is a divisor does not make the relationship an inverse. It's a positive relationship with a positive coefficient less than 1. Stop typing your response to me right now and look up what an "inverse relationship" means.
A reciprocal is not an inverse in the same way an inverse relationship is.

>if the relationships are arbitrary
They are not. I never said the relationships were. I said the system of measurement is. You keep insisting that you're not talking about units but you still commit the same fundamental flaw in conflating the representation with the thing itself.

>>16962547
>Just because there is a divisor does not make the relationship an inverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)#Inverse_proportionality
It is literally how inverse proportionality is defined, though. c^2 is not less than 1, its inverse is less than 1.

>You keep insisting that you're not talking about units
Because I am not, I am talking about E, m, and c which you yourself established are not units themselves, but qualities to which units can be applies.

File: Inverse_proportionality_f(...).gif (3 KB, 610x460)

3 KB GIF

>>16962550
Look at this graph, ask yourself if this graph matches what you'd see if you plotted m=e/c^2 as a function of e.
No, you wouldn't. You would get a positive linear function, albeit with a very shallow slope.
We've left the nuances of the category error regarding representation and reality. Now you're demonstrating incompetence with basic fucking math.

>>16962551
c^2 is the inverse quality that gets removed from mass but compounded with energy, though. you completely miss the point, you are the one who is incompetent and doesn't even understand what is going on and purposely leaving stuff out to make a point you clearly know is wrong at this stage of the argument.

The point is that energy is less fundamental because you have to compound mass with speed. Mass is more fundamental because it is what is left over when you remove the quality of speed from energy.

>>16962556
You know what, let me make this real simple for you:
Lets say you have a job that pays $10 per hour. Well define this as a function:
y=10x where x is hours worked and y is dollars received. That much I'm sure you understand.
Now let's say you're being payed $0.10 an hour. This function could be written as any of the following:
Y=0.1x
Y=(1/10)x
Or even: y=x/10
If you have these functions shown to you, would you conclude money is being taken away from you for every hour you worked?

>>16962560
So based on that, you are saying that the daily pay is more "fundamental" than the hourly pay?

>>16962562
No. That is not what I'm saying.

>>16962564
Then why, in hour opinion, is energy more fundamental than mass if energy is just mass by speed similar to how daily pay is just wage times working hours?

>>16962568
The point of the analogy is that, just as x/10 does not imply "taking away" from x, e/c^2 does not imply "taking away" anything from e.
I am explaining the glaring flaw in your logic here.

>>16962570
Wrong, Wage is what happens when you take the number of hours out of the daily pay and daily pay is what happens when you multiply wage by time which is why wage and mass are more fundamental than daily pay and energy.

>>16962572
A wage is dollars per hour. x is simply hours here. The dollars per hour is the coefficient.
In this analogy, dollars per hour would be 1/c^2.

>>16962574
So which is more fundamental in the analogy, the daily pay or the hourly wage?

>>16962579
Let me be extra explicit:
The point of the analogy is the configuration of the equation says nothing about what is "more fundamental" than what.
If you make $10/hr:
>Solve for total pay based on hours worked:
Y=10x
>Solve for hours worked based on total pay
X=y/10

If you make $0.10/hr:
>Solve for total pay based on hours worked:
Y=x/10
>Solve for hours worked based on total pay:
X=10y

C^2, or 1/c^2, is the exchange rate. 1kg=1/c^2J and 1J=c^2kg.
Neither representation implies one is more fundamental than the other. They are simply equivalent representations of the same natural phenomenon.

If you want to know which is actually more fundamental then stop fixating on how it's written out and ask a physicist. They'll tell you the answer is energy.

Low IQ thread

File: Henri_Poincaré.jpg (19 KB, 371x500)

19 KB JPG

>>16962330
E = mc^2

>>16962580
> They'll tell you the answer is energy.
Correct. It is the consequence of time-translation symmetry which is about as fundamental as you can get.

The smartass thread is over there
>>16961724

File: file.png (725 KB, 1334x745)

725 KB PNG

>>16962330
Nah

>>16962586
As much credit as Poincare is due for laying the groundwork for relativity, E = mc^2 is ostensibly not one of his contributions.

>>16962580
>The point of the analogy is the configuration of the equation says nothing about what is "more fundamental" than what.
>Neither representation implies one is more fundamental than the other.
No, the equation says that y compounds 10 with x while x is when you factor out 10 from y and your description definitely proves that the hourly wage is more fundamental than the daily pay because the hour is more basic than day and a pay per second would be more fundamental since the second is more basic than the hour.

>They'll tell you the answer is energy.
Until you point out that energy is dependent on mass, space, and time, then they will backslide and start talking about how neither is more fundamental, its about balance.

>>16963000
Look, dude, I really don't mind banging my head against this wall until the thread hits bump limit. But it's worth noting that I doubt a single person believes you're actually this dense.

Anyway:
The hourly wage in my set of equations is neither x nor y. It's the coefficient. X is measured in hours and y is measured in dollars. The hourly wage is either 10 or 0.10 depending on which version you're talking about.

In one version, x is being "compounded with" 10. But you ignored the other version where x was "compounded with" 1/10. That's the part that refutes your logic.

>Until you point out that energy is dependent on mass
At that point, the physicist would inform you that you are simply mistaken. And if you continued to double down you'd probably just wear out his patience eventually and he'd call you a fucking retard.

>>16963030
>But you ignored the other version where x was "compounded with" 1/10
No, inverting 10 is factoring out the wage, not compounding the wage into the daily pay, but factoring out 10 from it, you are the one too dense to understand direct vs inverse proportionality which is why you can't understand why dividing mass out of energy (not compounding the reciprocal, but using the reciprocal to factor out the mass from the energy) is what makes energy more dependent on mass.

>At that point, the physicist would inform you that you are simply mistaken.
No at that point the physicist would will backslide and start talking about how neither is more fundamental, its about balance.

>And if you continued to double down you'd probably just wear out his patience eventually and he'd call you a fucking retard.
Correct he wouldn't be able to logically justify his position and would have to start engaging in fallacy to distance himself from his original position.

>>16963034
The other equation I provided was explicitly described as a wage of $0.10/hr. So the equation "y=x/10" describes you gaining money. You're not "factoring out" 10 dollars. You're multiplying by 1/10 of a dollar. But you are going to continue to selectively ignore that point because it reveals the argument you're attempting to make for the category error that it is.

>>16963038
>So the equation "y=x/10
No because you aren't earning dollars per hour, you are earning pennies per hour (pennies being more fundamental measurements than dollars) and factoring out pennies from dollars in one step while hiding that fact in order to sew confusion.

>>16963040
Moving a decimal point doesn't actually change a unit. Milligrams and kilograms are the same unit just as dollars and cents are.
And by the logic you're imposing, 1/c^2 is "more fundamental" than c. So if your argument here wasn't retarded, it would actually support the notion that energy is more fundamental.

>>16963043
>Moving a decimal point doesn't actually change a unit.
That is exactly how to change from units of dollars to units of pennies and is exactly what you are fallaciously exploiting by using 10 dollars versus 10 pennies while hiding that step.

>Milligrams and kilograms are the same unit just as dollars and cents are.
No milligrams are the units that you have converted to when you move the decimal place from kilograms 6 places. Since you seem confused, here is a unit conversion site that will let you convert between the units of milligrams and kilograms.
https://www.unitconverters.net/weight-and-mass/milligram-to-kilogram.htm

>And by the logic you're imposing, 1/c^2 is "more fundamental" than c.
No not at all. by my logic, 1 is more fundamental than c and c is more fundamental than c^2 which is compounding c with c while 1/c^2 is factoring out c^2 from 1.

>So if your argument here wasn't retarded, it would actually support the notion that energy is more fundamental.
I accept your concession, if I was trying to formulate a retarded argument I would start by trying to prove that energy is more fundamental despite it being a second derivative of mass through space over time.

>>16963048
The kilogram is what you get when you take the gram and move the decimal place 3 places. It's just often easier to say 1kg than 1*10^3g. It's all just different scalings of the gram. Not different units.
They measure the same thing in the same terms, just at different scales. Maybe crack open a metrology textbook?

>by my logic, 1 is more fundamental than c and c is more fundamental than c^2 which is compounding c with c while 1/c^2 is factoring out c^2 from 1.
I could make this same exact argument in terms of 1/c. If that was the constant we gave a special letter to, let's say D, then c would be what you get when you "factor D out of 1."

>>16963052
Wrong, that is converting between units which is why the unit conversion site can do the conversion. If what you were saying was true all units for the same quality are the same units since it is always just a matter of scaling since 1lb = 453.59291g.

>I could make this same exact argument in terms of 1/c. If that was the constant we gave a special letter to, let's say D, then c would be what you get when you "factor D out of 1."
Its not the same argument, though since D is an arbitrary assignment rather than a second derivative of c, you didn't figure out D by first measuring c's and tracking its position over time and if you did, then it is obviously a derivative compound of the more fundamental c.

>>16963057
>that is converting between units which is why the unit conversion site can do the conversion
There you go being word-brained again. I'll let you ruminate yourself why that argument's retarded.

>If what you were saying was true all units for the same quality are the same units since it is always just a matter of scaling since 1lb = 453.59291g.
Wrong. You are converting across systems in that example.
(Well technically, in the modern day, US customary units are standardized based on SI units so if we wanna be pedantic then you are technically right and that is exactly what is done).

>you didn't figure out D by first measuring c's and tracking its position over time and if you did, then it is obviously a derivative compound of the more fundamental c.
Reality doesn't care which way we figure things out. D is just what the constant would be if we represented the quantity as the amount of time it takes light to travel a given distance rather than the amount of distance traveled in a given time.
Now that you mention it, though, the way we obtain c in practice *is* by measuring D first. We set the distance and try to measure time then take the reciprocal to calculate c.

Funny how that works, innit?

>>16963061
>Units are arbitrary... no a simple decimal change doesn't count as arbitrary, no unit conversion formulas aren't actually converting between units, you need to learn to express yourself without using words or symbols since words and symbols don't mean anything unless I am the one dictating them.

>You are converting across systems in that example.
I am using a unit conversion formula to convert between the units of pounds and the units of grams, but you obviously know that hence the copey concession.

>Reality doesn't care which way we figure things out.
But it totally cares which is more fundamental, right? Fundamental has nothing to do with the way we actually measure things, no, its some other interpretation of the word based on your feelings because words only matter when they validate your personal feelings.

>if we represented the quantity as the amount of time it takes light to travel a given distance rather than the amount of distance traveled in a given time.
Yes and notice how you left out energy because you know it is not as fundamental as mass, time, and space in making calculations and measurements given that you have to first measure mass, time, and space in order to calculate energy based on the way it balances out those three fundamental qualities.

>We set the distance
Yes the distance a mass moves over time is needed to calculate c and energy which is why those three units are said to be more fundamental. Funny how you seem to understand those facts in practice, but just refuse to admit it because Professor Black Man and Asian Space Man said some rhetoric about energy.

File: y9dk1prvwf2b1.jpg (186 KB, 1169x1622)

186 KB JPG

>>16962330

>>16963064
came here to post this

File: 515435796_116660669551036(...).jpg (216 KB, 1080x1350)

216 KB JPG

>>16963064
>transportation

>>16963063
>you left out energy because you know it is not as fundamental as mass, time, and space
C is a speed. Mass and energy are simply not part of the definition of speed.
Remember: this conversation is about mas's relationship with emergy.
Energy is more fundamental. But neither have anything to do with how we define speed.

>>16963063
>the distance a mass moves
The distance a massless particle moves. But opening that thread of discussion is just gonna have you evoking relativistic mass which is a dead end for you as physicists no longer use the concept for the specific reason that it confuses people like you.
Photons are massless.

Either way you miss the point.
Time over distance is the thind we actually measure. We, as in human beings, as in not arbiters of reality, decided distance over time would be the quantity that gets the special letter for no reason other than we prefer it that way.
If we kept it as time over distance, we could write Einstein's equations as m=eD^2 or e=m/D^2. And nothing about reality would change.

E=mc^2+AI

>>16962330
Source:
>just trust me, bro

>>16963279
>Mass and energy are simply not part of the definition of speed.
Speed is when a mass moves through space over time, though, you can't have speed without a massive body inducing the speed.

>Remember: this conversation is about mas's relationship with emergy.
Yes and mass is part of the definition of energy since energy is defined by work which is defined by force which is define by the ability to alter a massive object's speed , but energy is not necessary to define mass since mass is just defined by mutual attraction to other bodies of mass.

>But neither have anything to do with how we define speed.
Speed is the change in a body of mass's position over time, so it definitely is based on mass.

>The distance a massless particle moves.
Every body in motion has mass, though.
>Photons are massless.
Not when in motion.
>Time over distance is the thind we actually measure.
As far as I can tell, the only time we use slowness (time per distance s/m) is when measuring things like how long it takes to drill through rock, what is the importance of slowness in this discussion and what does it have to do with being an arbiter of reality?

>We, as in human beings, as in not arbiters of reality,
Then what makes you, as a human, the arbiter of energy being more fundamental than mass?

>If we kept it as time over distance, we could write Einstein's equations as m=eD^2 or e=m/D^2
They don't do that because speed is actually meaningful since time is always ticking while slowness doesn't really help describe what is happening since massive objects don't have to be in spatial motion the same way they have to be subject time.

>>16962330
E = mc^2 + AI

>>16963625
this equation will change the world

>>16963601
>Speed is when a mass
No.
Massless things can have speed as well.

>slowness (time per distance s/m)
Not only is that not "slowness," you are still conflating how *we* use things with how things actually *are.*
Double category error.
>Then what makes you, as a human, the arbiter of energy being more fundamental than mass?
I'm not the arbeter of anything. The fundamental nature of energy has been experimentally verified.
>They don't do that because speed is actually meaningful
To us. Time over distance is no less fundamental than distance over time.

Cope.

>>16963658
>Massless things can have speed as well.
Such as?

>Not only is that not "slowness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowness_(seismology)
It is, though.

>The fundamental nature of energy has been experimentally verified.
So those experiments were not designed and performed by humans for humans to let humans relate to reality better?

>To us
To everything subject to time.

>Time over distance is no less fundamental than distance over time.
Give some examples of when it is used and how it is used more often than velocity? The reason it is more fundamental is because time is always changing, but distance is not.

>>16963658
>you are still conflating how *we* use things with how things actually *are.*
But are you too, unless you are conceding that the things you are saying aren't actually how they "are"?

>>16963661
Photons are massless. I already went over this and your inevitable response to that. I even explained how the definition of mass that you will inevitably use to say photons have mass is no longer used by physicists specifically because it confuses people like you.

The rest of your post is just you doing word-brain shit. The experimental verification of energy's fundamental nature is the nuclear bomb. Same particles in vs same particles out. The only difference is their arrangement.
And how time over distance is used by humans is irrelevant to the discussion of how reality operates.

>>16963667
See >>16963668
Your argument is more word-braining.

>>16963668
>Photons are massless.
Not when in motion, I already addressed that.

>The rest of your post is just you doing word-brain shit.
When your whole argument is that you don't understand words so you don't know what slowness means in the context of s/m. Also, your entire post is made of words, so you are engaging in the same thing while using words incorrectly.

>you will inevitably use to say photons have mass
Because the only time they are said to not have mass is in their rest state, when in motion they have mass.

>The experimental verification of energy's fundamental nature is the nuclear bomb.
So nuclear bombs don't have mass and that weren't designed and tested by humans since your whole argument seems to be humans are flawed and their words are dumb?

>And how time over distance is used by humans is irrelevant to the discussion of how reality operates.
You mean the thing that can't be determined by words which is why you keep using words to describe it?

>>16963670
Because your argument was formulated in words and you are also trying to be the arbiter or reality after using words to say people can't do that.

>>16962330
>E = mc^2
+AI

>>16963676
Photons are massless even when un motio. See: physicists no longer recognize relativistic mass as a concept because it confuses people like you.

Your attempt at a transcendental argument from here on falls flat. I'm not saying words are bad or meaningless. I'm saying your inability to tell the difference between the words used and the ideas they convey is telling.

>>16963683
>Photons are massless even when un motio.
If they were massless, they couldn't have energy since 0*c^2=0, but they do because in motion they have mass which imbues them with energy.

>t. the misinformed person who doesn't like words, prefers useless conventions, and didn't even know the reciprocal of velocity he was describing is called slowness.

>>16963686
You ate begging the question. You assume mass is more fundamental so photons must have mass to have energy.
But no. Any physicist will tell you that photons are massless and carry energy.
Any mass observed is frame dependent which implies their mass is derivative of something else (ie. Not fundamental)

>>16963689
>You assume mass is more fundamental so photons must have mass to have energy.
No, I applied the formula for determining energy to something with 0 mass and showed that it doesn't match the measured energy of photons in motion.

>Any mass observed is frame dependent which implies their mass is derivative of something else
Observation is frame dependent that is not a function of mass, but a function of observation, but if mass is derivative, then what is the time integral of mass?

So if energy is more fundamental than mass for being the derivative of a mass in space over time, does that mean power is more fundamental than energy for being energy's derivative over time?

>>16963694
The time integral of energy is called action, by the way, and yet another reason that we can say energy is less fundamental than mass is because energy has an integral with usable named physical properties while mass does not because it is a more base unit.

>>16963694
>No, I applied the formula for determining energy to something with 0 mass and showed that it doesn't match the measured energy of photons in motion.
Don't tell me you applied [math]E=mc^2[/math] instead of the complete formula [math] E^2 = p^2c^2 + m_0^2c^4[/math]. What a beginner mistake

>>16963715
Don't tell me you are just now trying to rewrite the formula you have been discussing this entire time without ever once mentioning OP is wrong. What a retarded thing to do.

>>16963719
I'm a different anon. I'm just pointing out that you're doing it wrong.
You get E=mc^2 out of the energy-momentum relation by assuming that the particle has a rest mass. You can't apply the formula to massless particles because to get the formula you already assumed that your particle has a rest mass

>>16963721
Photons in motion aren't massless and the formula doesn't specify that E=mc^2 for m>0, so you are just coping and you still can't point out what a time integral of mass would be.

>>16963722
>the formula doesn't specify that E=mc^2 for m>0
Yes it does. Also the formula is only valid in the particle's rest frame and as you know photons don't have a rest frame

>>16963723
>Yes it does
Let me be more clear. It does specify that if you actually learn the theory by working through a textbook instead of watching popsci tik toks

>>16963723
>>16963724
You still waited a long time to correct OP and you still can't specify a time integral of mass while energy can be integrated because its not a fundamental base unit?
So you are a different anon who just coincidentally agrees completely?

>>16963731
I didn't read the entire discussion but it looks like you're arguing about what's more fundamental, mass or energy.
Mass is the capacity of an object to resist changes to its momentum.
Photons can impart momentum on objects (see solar sails).
Trap randomly moving photons in a massless box with perfectly reflective mirrors on the inside. The total momentum of the box is zero. Now try to move the box and you'll find that it somehow resists your attempt. You have to fight the momentum of the photons that bounce against the back wall of the box to set the box in motion.
Congratulations, your box now has a rest mass that corresponds to the total energy of the photons even though we only put massless stuff together.
So in a sense none of these things are really fundamental. It's all interdependent. That's why the universe is a complicated clusterfuck

>>16962339
They’re measured in whatever would equal them out retardo.

>>16963738
I am clearly not buying that the original anon, just so happened to stop posting the exact post you showed up pretending to be a different anon.

>a massless box with perfectly
No such thing, you are just invoking imaginary nonsense to make the point you gave up on when you were the original anon.

>Congratulations
No, congratulations to you for completely ignoring the question and proving some nonsensical answer to a question you made up and forgot share with the thread.

>That's why the universe is a complicated clusterfuck
And that is why you refuse to answer the questions, take power into consideration, or look at it from the perspective of basic geometry and calculus where mass is necessarily base and energy comes as second order derivatives of a massive body moving through space over time because you would rather talk about clusterfucks than math or the physics built on top of it?

>>16964142
Maybe the other anon gave up because arguing with schizophrenic retards is a waste of time?

>>16964147
Sure, just a total coincidence you decided that it actually was worth the trouble at the exact same time the other anon realized they were incapable of answering the power problem.

>>16962330
(E = mc^2)\g

>>16963105
Oh poop

>Middle of a legal dispute
>Btw guys I'm a total fraud (its cool though not my fault daddy made me do it)
>Total kike death
>Total nigger death
>Btw I fuck kids
FUCKING GENIUS

>>16964154
I am the first guy you were arguing with.
I decided to stop because:
1. You come online when it's like 2AM where I live.
2. The other guy started arguing with you so I decided to cede the floor to him.

>>16962339
I'll give you a hint - the equation still works if you measure m in slugs, E in BTUs, and c in eyelash lengths per fortnight.

>>16962330
:^)

>>16965779
Sure, it just so happens that you both have the exact same arguments, you are both trying to distract the base argument with peripheral distractions and neither of you can use your logic to explain why energy is more fundamental than mass due to being its times derivative, but somehow less fundamental than power even though power is the time derivative of energy.

>>16967136
The reason he felt the need to point out that he's a different anon is specifically because he made a different argument and you called him out on it. So the notion that we're making "the same exact arguments" is false based on your own earlier assessment.

The uniting thesis, that your entire argument hinges upon a conflation of man-made equations and the underlying reality they're modeling, is an established logical fallacy so it's no surprise if more than one person called you out on it.

Until you can come up with an argument which isn't entirely dependent on how humans chose to formalize these equations, you don't actually have an argument. You're just rejecting the reality in front of you.
There's no sense beating you over the head with a red apple if your insistence that it's blue hasn't held firm even after the first time the clearly red apple was shown to you.

>>16967430
>specifically because he made a different argument
No, he is still arguing that energy is fundamental.

>The uniting thesis, that your entire argument hinges upon a conflation of man-made equations and the underlying reality they're modeling, is an established logical fallacy so it's no surprise if more than one person called you out on it.
What you don't seem to acknowledge with that argument is that it also makes your word based, equation based explanation a logical fallacy as well, so its not doing you any favors to just dismiss the precision of language because it is just a description of reality rather than reality itself.

>Until you can come up with an argument which isn't entirely dependent on how humans chose to formalize these equations, you don't actually have an argument.
Based on your premise, until you can come up with an argument that isn't based in words and symbols, you don't have a counterargument, so my argument stands.

>blue hasn't held firm even after the first time the clearly red apple was shown to you.
Except I am the one with the red equations and you are coming along and saying no they are blue because colors don't actually exist and you can name any color any name you want, its a nonsense argument for a desperate retard who doesn't understand the how the equations were physically derived and how the physical units interact with each other.

>>16967702
>No, he is still arguing that energy is fundamental.
No, I only said that they're both equally fundamental. Energy is a number we can slap on a physical system just like mass.
What is the system made out of? Quantum fields. What ARE quantum fields? I don't know but they're not inherently mass or energy

>>16967702
>he is still arguing that energy is fundamental.
Two people sharing the same opinion that the actual experts have is not a sign you're talking to the same person.

>that argument is that it also makes your word based, equation based explanation a logical fallacy as well
Using language and equations to communicate an idea is not the same thing as using the way they happen to be put together as the basis of the argument.
What you're doing is basically the same thing as saying "the adjective comes before the noun in English therefore adjectives are more fundamental than nouns."
Then when I explain how retarded it is to use the way the English language is structured as a basis of your understanding of reality, you quip that I communicated that fact in English as if that's remotely relevant to the point.

>>16967806
>Energy is a number we can slap on a physical system just like mass.
No, OP is showing that to slap an energy value onto something, you have to first know its mass, which can be directly measured instead of calculated based on the measurement of mass.
>What is the system made out of? Quantum fields.
So now potatoes are composed of potato fields instead of potato fields just being a way to describe a collection of potato crops?

>>16967886
>Using language and equations to communicate an idea is not the same thing as using the way they happen to be put together as the basis of the argument.
"the way they happen to be put together as the basis of the argument." is still linguistic and just some language you decided to use, try again without language if you want your argument that language doesn't actually prove anything to be a valid proof.

>"the adjective comes before the noun in English therefore adjectives are more fundamental than nouns."
No, I am saying adjectives describe nouns (ie energy is a way to describe mass in space over time), so nouns (mass, space, and time) are more fundamental than adjectives (physical derivatives like motion, force, work, energy, power, etc).

>>16968221
>No, OP is showing that to slap an energy value onto something, you have to first know its mass, which can be directly measured instead of calculated based on the measurement of mass.
See >>16963715

>>16968306
Why would you present an equation that depends on mass being known to try to prove that mass doesn't need to be known to calculate the results of the equation?

>>16968221
>"the way they happen to be put together as the basis of the argument." is still linguistic and just some language you decided to use
Work on your reading comprehension.
That language is being used is not remotely a problem. The problem is you apparently think the way the language is structured indicates anything about reality.
These are very distinct arguments.

>>16963105
>but saars this bridge is not meant for cars.

>>16968642
No, you clearly just don't seem to understand that "reality" is just a word too, so you can't possibly understand why you are contradicting yourself since all your "arguments" trying to justify your "reality" are still based on words too.

>>16962330
+AI

E = MC^2 + AI - GOOD MARNING / SAAR

>>16962330
this blew proto boomer minds

>>16962330
Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard exposed him as a fraud. Einstein is a nobody.

Oh yes he stole it from the works Friedrich Hasenöhrl. I just remembered. Unfortunately jews love to pretend like his this pioneer in science. He stole a lot of patents from what I remember.

Do not care at all, do enjoy the huge sum of $10k you earned from all your hard work.

>>16962440
[math] \displaystyle

\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
P~power \\
U~voltage \\
I~current \\
W~work,energy \\
t~time \\
F~force \\
s~distance \\
m~mass \\
a~acceleration \\
v~speed \\
\\
P=UI\\
P= \dfrac{W}{t}= \dfrac{F \cdot s}{t}= \dfrac{ma \cdot s}{t}
= \dfrac{m \dfrac{v}{t} \cdot s}{t}= \dfrac{m \dfrac{s/t}{t} \cdot s}{t}
= \dfrac{m \cdot s^2}{t^3}
\end{array}
\right.
\\\\
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
W~watt \\
V~volt \\
A~ampere \\
J~joule \\
s~second \\
N~newton \\
m~meter \\
kg~kilogram \\
\\
W=V \cdot A \\
W= \dfrac{J}{s}= \dfrac{N\cdot m}{s}= \dfrac{kg \cdot \frac{m}{s^2} \cdot m}{s}
= \dfrac{kg \cdot m^2}{s^3}
\end{array}
\right.

[/math]

mc^2=E

>>16962339
shadilay brother, ignore all the triggered trannies

>>16963722
You need to use the other formula for objects without rest mass:
E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
Light has no rest mass... but it does move, so its energy can be described by the second formula.

>>16962339
notice how no one actually addresses the argument and just dismisses it because einstein is a super jew and we should all worship him.

File: 1759150910350085.png (49 KB, 500x500)

49 KB PNG

>>16962339
damn nigga

>>16962787
Only the ratio is attributed to Einstein. He did not come with the entire thing.

>>16975352
The concept of mass-energy equivalence is very much Einstein. Others before him had discussed the inertia of electromagnetic energy. But it's absurd to equate the notion that "this specific kind of energy has mass like properties" (well understood at the time) with the concept that "all mass and energy are literally interchangeable" (revolutionary and unique to Einstein).