Mass= energy,how we know this.

[Asimov]

Jarussell. thought Id leave you with some thoughts and a link.Members and I have made our case. Stanford is not chopped liver. Lots of physics and a prestigious bibliography.I believe you may be thinking on a more fundamental level similar to what Ehler and Einstein meant by mass energy sameness.Einstein's word. Believe it or not.Google it if you like or wade through all those references. Philosophy and thought experiments are invaluable tools not to be discredited .Anyone not like what I say? I am 70 go around me. Honk if you feel better.

 

" There are two main philosophical interpretations of E = mc². The first is that mass-energy equivalence teaches us that "mass" and "energy" designate the same property of physical systems. This is the weaker of the two interpretations because no further ontological claims are made. The second interpretation is that E = mc² entails that there is only one sort of fundamental stuff in the world." http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/spr2004/entries/equivME/#2 My view and definitely not unworthy of opinion as implied elsewhere.

[ The 2nd interpretation is fundamentally correct IMO. Notice I say fundamentally.} (This is discussed further in Section 2.) Recently, the history of E = mc² has also attracted the attention of some philosophers. This is primarily, though not exclusively, because this history shows that E = mc² is a direct consequence of changes to the structure of spacetime brought about by Special Relativity. (This is discussed further in Section 3.)

[Strange]

Stanford is not chopped liver. Lots of physics and a prestigious bibliography.

 

The fallacy of appeal to authority.

 

What makes your position even less tenable is that you and your philosopher buddies are relying on the shorter version of the full equation. It would help if you all went off and learned some basic physics.

[Asimov]

"It would help if you all went off and learned some basic physics." Why be so darned insulting? Whether you believe it true or not is irrelevant.

 

Me and my philosopher buddies? Strange! What is wrong with you? I will always be learning "basics' Cant speak for whom ever you refer to.. Something you and your closed minded buddies are overlooking.Things like conservation of energy and mass- energy at it's most fundamental level.. My philosopher buddies? You mean like philosophers like Einstein and Ehler? Calder and Ferris and Sagan were pretty good philosophers, physicists too. They would all be pretty good company.Far as I know

 

Enough said, outta this tread! For real. Disapointed. Thanks for the rather terse input, sorta. Your friends are nicer.Your problem.

[Strange]

Enough said, outta this tread! For real. Disapointed. Thanks for the rather terse input, sorta. Your friends are nicer.Your problem.

 

It is frustration at your stubborn refusal to learn from all the people here (all brighter and better educated then me) who have tried to explain your errors.

[swansont]

Jarussell. thought Id leave you with some thoughts and a link.Members and I have made our case. Stanford is not chopped liver. Lots of physics and a prestigious bibliography.I believe you may be thinking on a more fundamental level similar to what Ehler and Einstein meant by mass energy sameness.Einstein's word. Believe it or not.Google it if you like or wade through all those references. Philosophy and thought experiments are invaluable tools not to be discredited .Anyone not like what I say? I am 70 go around me. Honk if you feel better.

 

" There are two main philosophical interpretations of [/size]E = [/size]mc². The first is that mass-energy equivalence teaches us that "mass" and "energy" designate the same [/size]property of physical systems. This is the weaker of the two interpretations because no further ontological claims are made. The second interpretation is that [/size]E = [/size]mc² entails that there is only one sort of fundamental [/size]stuff in the world." [/size]http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/spr2004/entries/equivME/#2 My view and definitely not unworthy of opinion as implied elsewhere. [/size]

[ The 2nd interpretation is fundamentally correct IMO. Notice I say fundamentally.} (This is discussed further in Section 2.) Recently, the history of [/size]E = [/size]mc² has also attracted the attention of some philosophers. This is primarily, though not exclusively, because this history shows that [/size]E = [/size]mc² is a direct consequence of changes to the structure of spacetime brought about by Special Relativity. (This is discussed further in Section 3.)[/size]

We're not in the philosophy section.