Recent content by jacket

I think I got that "Once and for all" reply I was looking for. Thanks DaleSpam and Nugatory!

Really great example. Thanks!

No, no ZapperZ. I wasn't 'replying' to your answer, I was just 'quoting' to mark the contradictions (or ask if there are any), which were very confusing to me. I tried to say that by But I agree, perhaps that wasn't the right way to do it. It led to an unwanted misunderstanding, and unintended...

I recently came across an article from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy titling "The Equivalence of Mass and Energy" (link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#2.2 ) which has really confused me about the nature of mass an energy. The article contains many interpretations of...

Well, okey ZapperZ, you are the Mentor here. I expect help from you. Anyone reading this post with a rational mind will see, whenever I try to say something from my own or try to clarify what I am trying to say, you reply like I am not "Making statements", I am trying to know if those...

Perhaps I should post a link . http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/ Everything 'written' next (except the end note) is quoted from this article: In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the...

And perhaps Matter has nothing technical to do in the "mass-energy equivalence".

I hope now I am correct: Relativistic mass is a measure of systems Energy. Energy is a measure of system's Relativistic mass. Matter or it's mass, doesn't 'turn into' energy. Relativistic mass and Energy are two ways to represent a same thing.

Thanks everyone.

I know ∞ is not really a number. It represents 'greater than every real number'. And for any real number x, we can say -∞ < x < +∞ Now, my questions are - (A) how come arithmetic operators interact with ∞ if it is not a number? (B) what are the results for the expressions below? (C) and also...

Conclusions: (are they all correct?) 1. Mass and energy are two ways of measuring the same thing. 1. Every system has mass or energy or both (as mass and energy are equivalent) 2. Thus, Matter has mass or energy or both. 3. Mass of a matter can not be 'converted' into energy in the sense that...

Thanks. So, Energy / Mass and Gravity originated together.

Sorry, I took your 'Nor' as 'Not'. Anyway, so mass and energy came into existence together. What about gravity? That was nice. So any system can 'have' energy. But then what is meant by 'Energy has mass' ?

Ok let me restate my original question: If we can say X amount of mass is equal to Y amount of energy, Can we say J amount of matter is equal to K amount of energy?

You mean energy came first, then mass? What about gravity?