>mass and energy are literally the same thing broexplain how this is true without sounding schizophrenic
>>16968995Ok. The explanation is that it isn't true, no one thinks its true and no one said it's true.
>>16968996E = mc^2?
>>16968996>no one said it's trueEinstein is fake and gay confirmed
>>16968998>>16968999>you get this much energy from that much mass>therefore mass and energy are heckin' literally the same thingHoly Mother of All Retards.
>>16969003>t. dunning kruger midwitThere is no fundamental difference between the two, they're both excitations of the same fields. Mass is just a property that certain energy configurations have. The difference between mass and energy is the same difference between ice and water vapor. Yes they are not literally the exact same thing in a macroscopic sense, but fundamentally it's all h20.
>>16968995https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_productionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
>>16969008Alsohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energyspecifically:>The mass of an atomic nucleus is less than the sum of the individual masses of the free constituent protons and neutrons. The difference in mass can be calculated by the Einstein equation, E = mc2, where E is the nuclear binding energy, c is the speed of light, and m is the difference in mass. This "missing mass" is known as the mass defect, and represents the energy that was released when the nucleus was formed.
>>16969006>ice and water vapor are fundamentally the same thing>ice is just a property that certain vapor configurations haveThe psychotic patient strikes again.
Mass is a gay concept. That's why I prefer inertia
>>16968998That doesn't mean mass and energy are literally the same thing.>>16969006Kill yourself, retard.
>>16969167>That doesn't mean mass and energy are literally the same thingIt literally does though. A reduction in one is a reduction in the other. An increase in one is an increase in the other. It is a direct linear relationship where you multiply one by a scaling factor and you get the other. This is perfectly interchangeable and there is no case where you have one and do not have a perfectly proportional amount of the other.**technically I am referring to relativistic mass which is an antiquated concept but it works for the purposes of this discussion. Just know that by this definition photons do have mass which is something any modern physicist would rightfully correct you on.
>>16969183No, it doesn't. I didn't read the rest of your post.
E=mc^2 tells you that mass is associated with an amount of energy. You could say that mass is a type of energy, but you could say that about anything so it's not very interesting. HOWEVER, not all energy is mass. A photon does not have mass. So they are not the same thing, are they?
>>16968995the materia prima, or quintessence if you will, of all matter is energy. The more mass something has the more dense with energy it is. It isnt a difficult concept
>>16969189The "mass" that a photon has is frame dependent. In modern parlance, "mass" and "rest mass" are the same thing but the mass that Einstein was referring to is more akin to "momentum." Think the difference between resting your arm on the scale vs pushing down on it. Photons can "push" things so they have "mass" in that regard.
>>16969200Yeah, so mass and energy are generally not the same thing, like I said.
>over 90% of "normal" mass is virtual particlesReality be schizo.
Gravity is fakeIt's magnetism
>>16968995Sure.Deuterium is a type of hydrogen, when you combine two deuterium, they fuse to become Helium-3. Now, one Helium-3 is actually lighter than the weight of two deuteriums. So what happens is that the excess weight is released as energy. How much energy? E=mc^2. And the inverse, when you try to separate two quarks, they are bound by the nuclear strong force, and so when you try to separate the quarks and isolate them by separating them, the amount of energy you need to apply is so great that it actually creates new quarks, the energy gets converted into quarks that are attached to the two quarks you tried to separate, which means you can never separate two quarks lol.
The photon substrate universe model proposes that 2D photon structures form a foundational, timeless, or near-timeless medium (or vacuum) that constitutes all physical reality, acting as a "Photon Instruction Layer" (PIL) where quantum events are resolved. Within this view, matter is conceptualized as folded or aggregated photons, and the universe behaves as a massive, connected information network.
>>16969189Doesn't check out, I have a lot of mass and no energy.
>>16969365Maybe, but you have potential.
>>16968995everything that exists is merely impulses of energy condensed into a tangible form that you can perceive at a large enough scale, there really isn't anything "solid" once you go down deep enough, it's all just vibrations of energy, buzzing like tv static through the endless void
>>16968995It's not true. Mass and energy are not the same thing. They are treated on equal footing under an umbrella concept called mass-energy. Saying mass and energy are literally the same thing is like saying men and women are literally identical because they're both humans. It's a category error.
>>16969183Bro doesn't know about off shell masses lmao!
Energy is momentum in the time direction
>>16969445whoa man that's deep
>>16969456For you maybe
This thread confirms that there are no actual scientists on this shit board. Only larping teenagers.
>>16969466You don't need to be a scientist to know that energy is significantly more abstract a concept than mass. It's the kind of thing you understand in junior high when you first hear about potential energy.>inb4 80 IQs who can't distinguish between levels of abstraction screech that mass is also abstract
>>16969167>That doesn't mean mass and energy are literally the same thing.Except when c = 1 and the equation literally becomes E = m.
when c = 1, we have[math]E=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}[/math]so i guess energy and momentum and mass are all literally the same thing !!!
[math]W = mg[/math]damn, looks like weight and mass are exactly the same thing, only scaled by some constant g. [math]F = qE[/math]waow, looks like force and electric field are literally the same thing! wait. if force and mass are the same thing, and if force and electric field are the same thing, then mass and electric field are literally the same thinghow deep can we go here bros
>>16969547Look up relativistic mass. your equation uses rest mass. E = m uses relativistic mass.>>16969548g varies from planet to planet, q varies from charge to charge. c is constant.
>>16969551>E = m uses relativistic mass.you don't know what you're talking about. >c is constant.wrong! c depends on the medium in which light travels.
>>16969552Put on your dunce cap and go stand in the corner.
>>16969552>you don't know what you're talking about.it's true though? Einstein used relativistic mass
>>16969554>>16969555see pic rel, written by john archibald wheeler (advisor to two nobel laureates, one from cosmology and one from quantum electrodynamics -- both of which utilize special relativity).
>>16969557>the concept is subject to misunderstandingthat doesn't make it wrong.
>>16969558it literally says they're different, you schizophrenic idiot. yes, it does say you are wrong.
>>16969559E = m holds for the relativistic mass, not rest mass. end of story. it doesn't matter if mr. Wheeler finds it confusing.
>>16969562ah, my mistake. i forgot you have the attention span and memory of a goldfish. let me remind you of your op>>16968995>mass and energy are literally the same thing broif you read that passage and concluded they're the same, while it says any discussion that emphasizes the contrast between them is an aid to understanding, while anything that slurs the terminology is a potential source of error, then you're illiterate at best and retarded at worst. in reality, you're likely both.
>>16969557I (>>16969554) wasn't replying to the debate of relativistic vs rest mass (E=mc2 is true whether at rest or in a moving frame of reference.) It's you not even knowing the definition or implication of c that brands you as a total idiot.How would you retardation even work? The mass-energy equivalence for an atom or particle pair depends on how fast a photon would travel through its medium? what medium are you even talking about?
>>16969564>How would you retardation even work?
>>16969565Yeah, I need to change my keyboard. You need to change your brain.
>>16969563?? not my thread bro.>potential source of erroranything can be a potential source of error, even his definition of mass.
>>16969567note that this is for the lurkers, since you're a lost cause. qed can be modified to include pair production in media. not that i'd expect you to either know about this nor understand ithttps://gymarkiv.sdu.dk/MFM/kdvs/mfm%2030-39/mfm-38-1.pdf
>>16969571I honestly refuse to believe someone can be so fundamentally confused while still managing to parse this, so I can only conclude you're trolling and trying to waste my time. The medium has no impact on the mass-energy equivalence equation or threshold for pair production, only on the dynamics. c is the invariant speed of light in a vacuum regardless of what context you plug it in.
>>16969574so you're saying the work done by these danish physicists is bullshit?
>>16968995Conservation of energy is observed to be universally true in all cases except those that describe the creation or destruction of mass. These cases of the creation or destruction of mass work out the same mathematically as when energy is converted between other forms.Anything beyond this is just an argument of arbitrary semantics.
If you have more mass you have more energy, but the converse is not necessarily true. Imagine having heated discussions over an affirmation of the consequent fallacy in its most basic form.
>>16968995The honest answer is that jewish physics is for the globalist cattle
>>16969599>jewish physics is for the globalist cattleNazi physics is just retarded jewish physics just like nationalism is just retarded globalism. "Retarded" as in a few step behind, but treading down the same inevitable path. :^)
>>16969590Unlike you, they do not claim that c is anything but a constant.
>>16968995define "energy" first.energy is an abstraction, not something tangible. mass can be converted into energy. doesn't mean they are the same thing, RETARD.
>>16968998That specifically means that energy is always different from mass by a very large factor (c^2).
>>16969006>potato and tomato can grow in the exact same field, so they are both the exact same fruit
mass is a form of energy. its like saying orange and fruit are the same thing. kinda yes but not exactly.
>>16969430there is no void, everything is some-thing
