Energy equals Mass.

Does that specifically excludes Mass without Energy.

(like dark matter)

Please and Thank You

You might have meant that [math]E \propto M[/math], or "energy is proportional to mass". Energy doesn't equal mass. Not here, not in any fantasy world. [math]E=mc^2[/math].

Energy equals Mass.

Not really

Does that specifically excludes Mass without Energy.

Since mass is a form of energy, you cannot have mass without energy.

(like dark matter)

??? Dark matter is considered having mass.

You might have meant that [math]E \propto M[/math], or "energy is proportional to mass". Energy doesn't equal mass. Not here, not in any fantasy world. [math]E=mc^2[/math].

Personally, I often consider things that are directly proportional (with the proportionality constant being a natural constant, not something like F and a in F=ma) as being the same thing measured in different units. In fact, particle physics even uses units where your E=mc² would read E=m.

You might have meant that [math]E \propto M[/math], or "energy is proportional to mass". Energy doesn't equal mass. Not here, not in any fantasy world. [math]E=mc^2[/math].

 

Does the electron not imply that Energy may be treated as a flexible quantity in at least some particles?

Not really

 

Since mass is a form of energy, you cannot have mass without energy.

So sorry, I did not mention that I meant to exclude the energy that is produced by the distraction of a particle, as well as the energy given to a particle by a push.

 

??? Dark matter is considered having mass.

Forgot where, but there was an article where an area deemed to be full of dark mater was used for gravitational lensing.

 

Personally, I often consider things that are directly proportional (with the proportionality constant being a natural constant, not something like F and a in F=ma) as being the same thing measured in different units. In fact, particle physics even uses units where your E=mc² would read E=m.

 

I much appreciate your kind anwers. I did not mind shadows. Thank you.

Personally, I often consider things that are directly proportional (with the proportionality constant being a natural constant, not something like F and a in F=ma) as being the same thing measured in different units. In fact, particle physics even uses units where your E=mc² would read E=m.

 

That's interesting, never knew that.

 

 

Does the electron not imply that Energy may be treated as a flexible quantity in at least some particles?

 

It very well might, I'm no expert in this matter. But how does it concern what I wrote? Even if energy is flexible, it still doesn't equal mass.

Does the electron not imply that Energy may be treated as a flexible quantity in at least some particles?

 

How so? The electron's rest mass is a constant.

How so? The electron's rest mass is a constant.

 

Please excuse my poor wording in what I am locking for and what I am trying to understand.

The energy of an electron changes as it lights a bulb. Does that not show flexibility of energy content?

I have no problem with the rest mass of a particle staying the same, even if some particles don't hold still and some do.

I appriciate all the help I can get. Thank You.

Please excuse my poor wording in what I am locking for and what I am trying to understand.

The energy of an electron changes as it lights a bulb. Does that not show flexibility of energy content?

I have no problem with the rest mass of a particle staying the same, even if some particles don't hold still and some do.

I appriciate all the help I can get. Thank You.

 

Any particle can have kinetic energy.