Does mass-energy equivalence seem really weird to anyone else or is it just me?

Extasy means MC on a square, it means revolution

light is massless so your momentum equation is garbage

Mass is confined energy. Meaning, for say, a proton, the potential/kinetic energy of the gluons holding the quarks together and the potential/kinetic energy of the quarks themselves(their kinetic energy and potential energy associated with the color fields they themselves produce. That leave the mass of the quarks which comes from the potential energy associated with their interaction with the higgs field.

Now we have "labeled" the energy in a proton, C^2 is then simply the conversion factor that takes the confined energy and relates it to what we measure as "mass". Meaning F=(E/c^2)/a, so that is the force when an amount of energy E is accelerated by an amount a.

Also, you are stupid. Mass literally IS energy, you can have momentum just fine as a massless particle BECAUSE it has energy. No fuck off and stop confusing people. Do not speak with authority unless you know something.

Yea it is a hard to grasp concept. I just started a book on it. Is it wrong to think of mass like a balloon that has potential to explode? Another question I have is a bit different but I don't want to make a thread for it. Can anyone help me understand how the energy level of the universe is 0? It's because it all cancels out I've read but I'm still not understanding it as well as if like to.

So it takes no energy to bend the light, thou light is carrior of energy even at non visible spectras, since when you have zero point energy unsquared and you dont share the humanity?

blow it out of your ass, asshole

>rest mass = relativistic mass
Reeee.

>resting light

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Take your Newtoni/a/n physics back to

The gaps in your knowledge is really fucking you in the ass.

>I know this one thing and therefore....

No, if you don't look at these phenomena holistically, you will fuck up.

We can relate the energy IE wavelength of a photon to it's momentum. If that photon is adsorbed in for example an atom in a crystal lattice, the "mass" IE energy content of the atom is increased by the energy in that photon related by C^2.

It all depends on perpective, being a cunt is not necessary.

>light has no momentum

plz be bait..

take your forced meme faggotry to /b/ or wherever the fuck you came from

>relativistic mass
Implying anyone uses relativistic mass

Momentum of light is [math]p = E/c [/math]

There is no frame in which light is at rest, light has no mass, at all, not even relativistic mass (also if you're using that concept please stop immediately). Look at its 4-momentum [math] p = \left ( E, \vec { P } \right ) [/math] unless you want to argue that a photon has 3-momentum then clearly the photon can have no mass.

Learn to read.
Light is massless, thus the idiotic equation
p=mc is crap.

>Honestly curious, why does it seem wierd to you?
Because the idea that a thrown ball or warm piece of toast or a tightly wound rubber band is heavier than its less energetic counterpart is just strange.

The energy they contain has nothing to do with their mass.

The one is variable while the other is stable.

I really hope you are at least pretty

galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/mass_and_energy.html

>The energy they contain has nothing to do with their mass.
But that's not true:
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/152873/will-heating-up-an-object-increase-its-mass
>So, yes, a hot object has greater rest mass and would weigh more when measured, if a scale were sensitive enough.

>Relativistic mass

Is a depreciated concept, fuck it's been depreciated since at least the 40's when the man himself argued against it's use. Stop using it. It's pretty clear that if mass were not an invariant then we would have some pretty strange experiments, where physical quantities would vary between reference frames.

>compressed spring is relativistic

Mass-energy equivalence is a relativistic concept.

and yet a compressed spring has more mass

So much I miss the groupie again and sombody deleted my posts from this computer; I may somehow being unconfortable for somebody

And yet it doesn't. Mass is mass, the magnitude of a 4-vector, even Einstein said so. The idea of relativistic mass is unsound and should be avoided. It was introduced to ensure that momentum was a linear function of velocity, so that it corresponded to Newtonian mechanics. However doing this means that we can no long define mass in any meaningful way.

The modern view is to abandon the idea all together.