[alancalverd]

E=mc² makes no relative sense.

Pity about that! My colleagues in the nuclear medicine department use it every day, and 20% of your electricity comes from that equation, so you will just have to accept that it is magic, or study physics with more humility and less preconception. Expect to have your common sense violated frequently.

[mathew_orman]

 

E=mc² makes no relative sense.

Only if you miss use it with photons...
It was meant to be used with particles which have properties of mass...

 
 

[guest39538]

Only if you miss use it with photons...
It was meant to be used with particles which have properties of mass...

I still can not understand why a speed has anything to do with energy, lightning forms with no speed and lightning is energy is it not?

[mathew_orman]

Because kinetic energy is only defined if there is relative motion...

[guest39538]

Because kinetic energy is only defined if there is relative motion...

surely energy exists with no motion required?

[alancalverd]

Yes, potential energy. But it has the same dimensions as kinetic energy or any other energy, includng relativistic mass-energy. If you lift a mass m through height h in a gravitational field characterised by acceleration g, the work you do is mgh. If you then drop it, it will hit the ground with velocity v where mgh = ½mv².

Likewise chemical energy. You can measure the energy of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen, then mix them in a rocket engine and convert it to kiinetic energy.

Or you can convert the kinetic energy of your car into chemical energy (using regenerative braking in an electric car) or heat (using brakes).

And there's no "misuse" with photons. The annihilation of an electron and a positron produces two photons of 511 keV - exactly the mass-energy  equivalent of an electron or positron. 

[mathew_orman]

Energy is an abstract  concept and not an entity of matter...

[PmbPhy]

Energy is an abstract  concept and not an entity of matter...

So what? Who said otherwise that you need to correct someone?

[guest39538]

Energy is an abstract  concept and not an entity of matter...

Well, you said that better than I was trying to explain.    I think the calculation fails of the first value E=m, energy does not have to be of matter. So why does energy = matter ?

[guest39538]

E=∑m/2

m=[-=+]

[PmbPhy]

Energy is an abstract  concept and not an entity of matter...

Well, you said that better than I was trying to explain.    I think the calculation fails of the first value E=m, energy does not have to be of matter. So why does energy = matter ?

First read my webpage on what energy is: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm

I'll look for an article I have in mind that will help you understand it better or I can just explain it to you myself. Which do you prefer?

[guest39538]

I'll look for an article I have in mind that will help you understand it better or I can just explain it to you myself. Which do you prefer?

Thank you for the link Pete, it was an interesting read. I would prefer you to explain energy to me in your own words. I understand energy is the generalised term of set for several subsets.
My definition would be energy is a product of process?

[alancalverd]

Energy is a scalar that is conserved. Nothing to "understand", but you can expect in all physical processes that the sum of terms such as mv^2/2, mgh, msdT, etc., is constant.

[guest39538]

Energy is a scalar that is conserved. Nothing to "understand", but you can expect in all physical processes that the sum of terms such as mv^2/2, mgh, msdT, etc., is constant.

Energy is a scalar but does energy not create action which then creates motion ?

[alancalverd]

The idea of  "creating" motion is not helpful. Motion is created by the action of a force on a mass. Two parameters are always conserved: energy (a scalar) and momentum (a vector). Using these conservation laws we can predict the outcome of any such interaction (at least in principle - it becomes very complicated wen several bodies interact).

[guest39538]

Motion is created by the action of a force on a mass.

What if motion is being denoted by the masses polarity output v another masses polarity output if both masses where of the same polarity?

[alancalverd]

Your question is meaningless. Mass does not have polarity, and polarity is not output. Motion is denoted by change of position.

[guest39538]

Your question is meaningless. Mass does not have polarity, and polarity is not output. Motion is denoted by change of position.

You say mass does not have polarity, if this is not the case then how come mass is attracted to mass?  do opposite polarities not attract equally and proportionately.

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/can-it-be-this-simple/


If we take two atoms and placed them side by side touching in space, and add energy to one of the atoms, does this atom not become polaritiesed by the energy and charge output being greater than the other atom?

would the other atom not gain motion by the simplicity of the same polarity pushing it away from each other?

m+E=<m?


air + energy = less mass of air

m=∑+&-


m1=-&+

m2=-&+


m1 is equally and proportional to m2

what is mass?  mas is energy and all that of a substance that is negative and positive. Experimental results show us that positives are attracting to negatives.


m1+E=m1 not being  proportional to m2 .

what is mass?  mass is energy and all that of a substance that is negative and positive. Experimental results show us that positives are attracted to negatives.

[alancalverd]

You say mass does not have polarity, if this is not the case then how come mass is attracted to mass?  do opposite polarities not attract equally and proportionately.

Think about this. Suppose you have three masses, say the sun and two planets. If you assign + to  the sun and - to earth, what is the polarity of mars? Or the moons of either planet? All masses attract each other.

If we take two atoms and placed them side by side touching in space, and add energy to one of the atoms, does this atom not become polaritiesed by the energy and charge output being greater than the other atom?

no. energy does not induce or confer polarity.

air + energy = less mass of air

not in this universe.

[guest39538]

You say mass does not have polarity, if this is not the case then how come mass is attracted to mass?  do opposite polarities not attract equally and proportionately.

Think about this. Suppose you have three masses, say the sun and two planets. If you assign + to  the sun and - to earth, what is the polarity of mars? Or the moons of either planet? All masses attract each other.

If we take two atoms and placed them side by side touching in space, and add energy to one of the atoms, does this atom not become polaritiesed by the energy and charge output being greater than the other atom?

no. energy does not induce or confer polarity.

air + energy = less mass of air

not in this universe.

The earth has two masses, the core a more positive mass that is repelled by the suns more positive mass, then the ground which is more of a negative mass than a positive.

the ground is attracted to the core and the sun, the moon is attracted to the core but the moons core keeps the moon in orbit.

Think about it.
negative mass and positive mass.

air positive mass and negative mass,

water the same.


Consider expansion a more negative mass entropy galaxy will be attracted to a more positive mass entropy galaxy. the laws of attraction.