Quantum Foam

[Minsc & Boo]

an objective, agreed upon definition of a word, which is usually found in a dictionary, counts as a "prior belief in what a word means"

A definition cannot be objective, by definition a definition is something that is agreed upon. Me (and wikiepedia and Einstein, among others) do not agree with your definition, thus it is not an objective, agreed upon definition.

"A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another. " - from that wiki page

Anyway, have a great day, enjoy SS.

Peace out!

[Fem.]

"A physical system has a property called energy and a correstponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another."

Yeah, and that exact statement is equivalent to the equation E=m. That equation is arrived at by Planck normalization and for intents and purposes doesn't, on it's own, represent a physical truth. The equation is E=mc^2. They are not equivalent without the inclusion of c^2, therefore saying the two things are equivalent on their own isn't correct.

I really don't appreciate you quoting me out of context because the piece of the statement you quoted, on it's own, means something entirely different from my original post.

I wish you trolls would stop because it really isn't funny. This subject isn't a joke and it isn't a joke to share information with others, or even post with rhetorical intent, about something as serious as Physics. Tired of you fucking people trying to ruin every topic with your bullshite because you ruin the integrity of this community...I realized you're being that way on purpose. I miss the days of the internet when people could just sit down on a forum or in a chat room and have a decent conversation with one another about some various subject or another if not for anything than for the sake of it.

A definition cannot be objective, by definition a definition is something that is agreed upon. Me (and wikiepedia and Einstein, among others) do not agree with your definition, thus it is not an objective, agreed upon definition.

"A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another. " - from that wiki page

Anyway, have a great day, enjoy SS.

Peace out!

[Minsc & Boo]

I really don't appreciate you quoting me out of context because the piece of the statement you quoted, on it's own, means something entirely different from my original post.

My apologizes, I wasn't aware that I took your statement out of context. For future reference you can just look at the original post to see the full context.

I wish you trolls would stop because it really isn't funny. This subject isn't a joke and it isn't a joke to share information with others, or even post with rhetorical intent, about something as serious as Physics. Tired of you fucking people trying to ruin every topic with your bullshite because you ruin the integrity of this community...I realized you're being that way on purpose. I miss the days of the internet when people could just sit down on a forum or in a chat room and have a decent conversation with one another about some various subject or another if not for anything than for the sake of it.

Again my apologizes, I don't know what I said that makes me a troll, or a joke. That wasn't my intention.

Oh and btw again, calling ppl "trolls" or "jokes" doesn't, in any way, strengthen your argument. As I said, I wasn't trolling, I was talking in all seriousness. Your (now numerous) ad hominem attacks, lead me to believe that you are not interested in a serious logical debate/discussion. Peace bro :argue:

[Minsc & Boo]

"A physical system has a property called energy and a correstponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another."

Yeah, and that exact statement is equivalent to the equation E=m. That equation is arrived at by Planck normalization and for intents and purposes doesn't, on it's own, represent a physical truth. The equation is E=mc^2. They are not equivalent without the inclusion of c^2, therefore saying the two things are equivalent on their own isn't correct.

Oh and to address your point. That statement is not equivalent to the equation E = m. That statement just says that there exists a ratio R such that E/M = R (ie. there is a constant proportion). You are assuming that the ratio R = 1, thus E = M --> E/M = 1. Einstein, and that article, and most physicist would say that the ration R = c^2, thus E = Mc^2 --> E/M = c^2. The statement does not in any way mention that the porportion (ratio R) is 1, that is your assumption. Instead, it quite clearly states (a few lines down) that proportion (ratio R) is c^2.

"Thus, this mass–energy relation states that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. This also serves to convertunits of massto units of energy, no matter what system of measurement units used." - from that wiki article again.