From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 21:07 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> > x wrote:
> >> On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >> > "Paul.B.Andersen" wrote or quoted:
> >> > :that mass could be converted to energy as
> >> > :predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
> >> >
> >> > I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
> >> >
> >> > First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is
> >> > based on a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of
> >> > energy - there's no "conversion" happening. It's like saying,
> >> > "water can be turned into a liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
> >
> > Correct.
> NO!!!
>
> Water is not a liquid per se.
>
> Instead water occurs in three different states, from which only one is
> liquid.
>
>
> Energy is also something else than mass, because the term 'energy'
> denotes a quantity in physics and this has a different meaning than 'mass'.
>
> Mass is actually a measure for resistance against acceleration and
> measured in kg.
>
> Energy is derived from the quantity work, which is defined as
> W=force*distance.
>
> The units are Newtonmeter or Joule.
>
> The quantity you erroneously call 'mass' is not measured in kg but in mol.
>
> What you actually wanted to say, that is: matter is actually immaterial
> and a form of energy.
>
> BUT: 'the amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
You are way behind the times.
As of the CGPM 2018 both the kilogram and the joule are defined
as numerical multiples of the Hz. (with defined constants in between)
So the relation between them is a numerical constant too,
Jan
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
