[simplified]

What? ...Are you saying this a law for people from the African sub-continent??? []
[/quote]Can you disprove the formulae?

[peppercorn]

Can you disprove the formulae?

I wasn't aware that the responsibility was on me to disprove it!

[imatfaal]

Sorry - but is this forum now using  "for dark people" as a metaphor for bad science and ignorance.  FFS I thought there were rules about racism.  I have reported it to the moderators and I hope they do something about it. 

Matthew

[BenV]

Simplified - I have sent you a private message.  Please respond to me as soon as you receive it.

In the meantime, this thread will be locked.

This thread is now unlocked to give Simplified the opportunity to clarify his meaning.

[simplified]

Sorry - but is this forum now using  "for dark people" as a metaphor for bad science and ignorance.  FFS I thought there were rules about racism.  I have reported it to the moderators and I hope they do something about it. 

Matthew

I never thought of a literal origin of this expression.I am so sorry.

[imatfaal]

We all say things in heat of an argument that we might not have fully thought out - the fact that large portions of the world suffer because of prejudice means that I tend to be over-sensitive when I come across the language of bigotry in an arena such as this great forum.  Your last post reads true and with that apology I personally hope that the forum can go back to the cut-and-thrust of academic debate and avoid disharmony .  Regards  Matthew Newell - Imatfaal

ps come to think of it the forum probably has a rule against profanity - and if the derivation of FFS isnt profane then nothing is!

[Geezer]

"What we've got here is failure to communicate"

Perhaps, due to a translation problem, Simplified meant "people in the dark"

[simplified]

"What we've got here is failure to communicate"

Perhaps, due to a translation problem, Simplified meant "people in the dark"

People without light ideas.

[lightarrow]

"What we've got here is failure to communicate"

Perhaps, due to a translation problem, Simplified meant "people in the dark"

People without light ideas.

Then is appropriate for those people who write "smoky", "unclear", non-scientific things, with the aim to make other believe they are scientific.

[BenV]

The off topic/misunderstanding posts are shrunk to allow easier reading of the actual science discussion - hopefully folks can pick it up from here...

[simplified]

If  activated mass does not exist, then communication of object with the past exists. It slows down time of object. [8D]

[simplified]

Energy is communication of object with the past .

[Bill S]

Energy is communication of object with the past

Please explain, or change your name from "simplified", it doesn't suit you. [] 

[simplified]

Then the equation must be wrong? I agree that photons are massless, the equation only shows the energy required to produce that photon.

That equation is wrong for photons. The correct one, valid for all particles and regardless if stationary or moving (in SR) is this:

E² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

p = momentum.

For light, in classical EM, E = cp. If you apply it to photons (certainly you will agree on the fact this is allowed) you find:

(cp)² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

=> 0 = (mc²)²

so m = 0.

Well. But which units I should use in this formula?

[simplified]

Units of measurement

[lightarrow]

Then the equation must be wrong? I agree that photons are massless, the equation only shows the energy required to produce that photon.

That equation is wrong for photons. The correct one, valid for all particles and regardless if stationary or moving (in SR) is this:

E² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

p = momentum.

For light, in classical EM, E = cp. If you apply it to photons (certainly you will agree on the fact this is allowed) you find:

(cp)² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

=> 0 = (mc²)²

so m = 0.

Well. But which units I should use in this formula?

It's a strange question. The measurement's units are:
kg for mass,
Joule for energy,
m*s^-1 for c 
kg*m*s^-1 for p.
Joule = N*m = kg*m²*s^-2

[simplified]

Object travels with speed of 1 m/s.Mass of the object=1kg
I want to calculate energy of this object.
   E ≈ mv²/2 = 0,5 J
Let's use your formula:
                        E² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

E²=(1*299792458²)²+(299792458*1*1)²=8,077608713*10³³

   E=√(8,077608713*10³³)=89875517873681764,5 J  []

I don't understand where is my mistake? []
 

[Geezer]

I'm not sure how to explain this properly, but please try to remember that English may not be first language of some of our posters. Translation can be a tricky business, so please try to make sure there are no misunderstandings because of a translation problem.

Thanks!

[lightarrow]

Object travels with speed of 1 m/s.Mass of the object=1kg
I want to calculate energy of this object.
   E ≈ mv²/2 = 0,5 J

Wrong. What you have written is *not* the energy E. With the term "energy" in relativity and in particle physics, we intend "total energy". What you have written is *just* kinetic energy. E = kinetic energy + mc² (in absence of a potential or other kinds of energy).
(Let's say is a language problem, as Geezer said... [])

[simplified]

Object travels with speed of 1 m/s.Mass of the object=1kg
I want to calculate energy of this object.
   E ≈ mv²/2 = 0,5 J

Wrong. What you have written is *not* the energy E. With the term "energy" in relativity and in particle physics, we intend "total energy". What you have written is *just* kinetic energy. E = kinetic energy + mc² (in absence of a potential or other kinds of energy).
(Let's say is a language problem, as Geezer said... [])

Thank you very much.