fact-check me.

[Kuznetzova]

E = mc^2

E

E is Energy.

Energy is not a glowy substance that shoots through space.
Energy is not the "stuff" that comes out of Buck Roger's laser gun.
Energy is not "tells ya how much of the city you can flatten."
Light, or photons are not "pure energy".
Energy is not a substance, at all.


In 1918, Austrian mathematician Emmy Noether proved the following theorem: If a physical system contains a continuous symmetry, then there must exist a corresponding single quantity which will be `invariant` under the translations of that symmetry. The single quantity will be "conserved", and the definition of that quantity will constitute a "conservation law".

For a physical systems which contain time-symmetry, the corresponding invariant quantity will be denoted by the letter E. We will call this E by the name "Energy".

What is Energy? It is an invariant quantity of physical systems which obey time-symmetry.

Fact-check me, Philosophy Now forum....

.... I dare ya.

[Blaggard]

Well yeah it is. But it's not time invariant because entropy isn't, nor is some matter such as the matter involved in the weak force. It's charge parity and most likely it is now believed by induction time variant, which may have some serious implications on why matter dominates over anti matter but that is by the by. In 1918 he could not of known of Sheldon Glashows Nobel prize along with his fellows, for the unification of the weak force with electromagnetism or the particulars there of which are indeed more important, the weak force it appears is not entirely charge parity time invariant, nor was he referring to the variance of entropy but it had to be stated. That said yeah energy is not Buck Rogers lazer gun cause that patently is bullshit, and don't get me started on sci fi in general, I could wax lyrical all night. Although being a massive nerd I choose not to 'cause I does love me some sci fi and it's not meant to be precise, it's escapism.

Energy and mass are equivalent is a better use of the term although in value based systems where we equate the energy concerns with mass they are equal, mass and energy are not precisely the same thing as such, but they are precisely the same thing if we take all energy concerns within the system, thus matter is only different from energy in that it has a rest mass or a relativistic mass although that term is generally confusing.

[Kuznetzova]

Turn up the energy.

[Cerveny]

Well yeah it is. But it's not time invariant because entropy isn't, nor is some matter such as the matter involved in the weak force. It's charge parity and most likely it is now believed by induction time variant, which may have some serious implications on why matter dominates over anti matter but that is by the by. In 1918 he could not of known of Sheldon Glashows Nobel prize along with his fellows, for the unification of the weak force with electromagnetism or the particulars there of which are indeed more important, the weak force it appears is not entirely charge parity time invariant, nor was he referring to the variance of entropy but it had to be stated. That said yeah energy is not Buck Rogers lazer gun cause that patently is bullshit, and don't get me started on sci fi in general, I could wax lyrical all night. Although being a massive nerd I choose not to 'cause I does love me some sci fi and it's not meant to be precise, it's escapism. :)

Energy and mass are equivalent is a better use of the term although in value based systems where we equate the energy concerns with mass they are equal, mass and energy are not precisely the same thing as such, but they are precisely the same thing if we take all energy concerns within the system, thus matter is only different from energy in that it has a rest mass or a relativistic mass although that term is generally confusing.

Consider the energy as a surface tension of the Universe, that is the tension of moment "now" (of phase border history/future) . Such tension keeps constant running of time :) .... To be precise: stress, tension of space at the time of "now" that keeping space smooth, too ... I see Universe is as a growing 4-D drop of something (let's say, antihydrogen), we live on its 3-D surface and the outside is non-condensed "future" ... surface tension keeps such drop round and smooth....

[Blaggard]

Well yeah it is. But it's not time invariant because entropy isn't, nor is some matter such as the matter involved in the weak force. It's charge parity and most likely it is now believed by induction time variant, which may have some serious implications on why matter dominates over anti matter but that is by the by. In 1918 he could not of known of Sheldon Glashows Nobel prize along with his fellows, for the unification of the weak force with electromagnetism or the particulars there of which are indeed more important, the weak force it appears is not entirely charge parity time invariant, nor was he referring to the variance of entropy but it had to be stated. That said yeah energy is not Buck Rogers lazer gun cause that patently is bullshit, and don't get me started on sci fi in general, I could wax lyrical all night. Although being a massive nerd I choose not to 'cause I does love me some sci fi and it's not meant to be precise, it's escapism.

Energy and mass are equivalent is a better use of the term although in value based systems where we equate the energy concerns with mass they are equal, mass and energy are not precisely the same thing as such, but they are precisely the same thing if we take all energy concerns within the system, thus matter is only different from energy in that it has a rest mass or a relativistic mass although that term is generally confusing.

Consider the energy as a surface tension of the Universe, that is the tension of moment "now" (of phase border history/future) . Such tension keeps constant running of time .... To be precise: stress, tension of space at the time of "now" that keeping space smooth, too ... I see Universe is as a growing 4-D drop of something (let's say, antihydrogen), we live on its 3-D surface and the outside is non-condensed "future" ... surface tension keeps such drop round and smooth....

Aye that's not a bad way of looking at it, thanks for the analogy.

[Arising_uk]

...
Aye that's not a bad way of looking at it, thanks for the analogy.

You might be the first to truly be able to communicate with Cerverny. I hope so as he also has an interesting idea about describing the development of this phase-space with an crystalline analogy that I'd like to hear explained in a way the rest of us could grasp.

If you manage that then take a crack at Socratus and please explain what all the constants refer to.

[Blaggard]

...
Aye that's not a bad way of looking at it, thanks for the analogy.

You might be the first to truly be able to communicate with Cerverny. I hope so as he also has an interesting idea about describing the development of this phase-space with an crystalline analogy that I'd like to hear explained in a way the rest of us could grasp.

If you manage that then take a crack at Socratus and please explain what all the constants refer to.

Hehe is Socratus that Israeli guy who just posts odd random physics, I don't think anyone is brave enough to work out his particular eccentricity.