I don't think there's any possible interpretation of "and" which would make "kinetic and potential energy" the thing that e refers to in Einstein's equation. You've told me and doesn't mean plus but you're refusing, perhaps out of embarrassment, to say what "and" does mean

You don't have to be embarrassed. Just say what it means

↪Arcane Sandwich
I don't think there's any possible interpretation of "and" which would make "kinetic and potential energy" the thing that e refers to in Einstein's equation. — flannel jesus

Oh, and you expect me to do something about that?

You've told me and doesn't mean plus but you're refusing, perhaps out of embarrassment, to say what "and" does mean — flannel jesus

I already told you what it means, it means:

Energy (potential & kinetic) = physical mass, defined as a Newtonian force, multiplied by the speed of light, squared.

You don't have to be embarrassed. Just say what it means — flannel jesus

See .

that's not an explanation. You cannot use the symbol you're defining in the definition.

That's like you asking me what an apple is, and I say "it's the thing you're eating when you're eating an apple".

What's &? What's And?

When I calculate the numerical value of e, then you say "that's kinetic and potential energy", what's and?

The only two options I can see are "plus", or saying "this numerical value is equal to kinetic energy; also it's equal to potential".

What other options are there?

↪Arcane Sandwich
that's not an explanation. You cannot use the symbol you're defining in the definition. — flannel jesus

Why not?

That's like you asking me what an apple is, and I say "it's the thing you're eating when you're eating an apple". — flannel jesus

Which is a perfectly OK thing to say.

What's &? What's And? — flannel jesus

It's a logical conjunction. This isn't rocket science, it's propositional logic, dude.

When I calculate the numerical value of e, then you say "that's kinetic and potential energy", what's and? — flannel jesus

It means that they're the same property: E.

The only two options I can see are "plus", or saying "this numerical value is equal to kinetic energy; also it's equal to potential".

What other options are there? — flannel jesus

It's a logical conjunction. This isn't rocket science, it's propositional logic, dude.

When I calculate the numerical value of e, then you say "that's kinetic and potential energy", what's and? — flannel jesus


It means that they're the same property: E. — Arcane Sandwich

the same property. So kinetic and potential are the same as each other.

That's just objectively false

Calling it a "logical conjunction" is a category error. Logical conjunctions don't have numerical values.

↪Arcane Sandwich
the same property. So kinetic and potential are the same as each other.

That's just objectively false — flannel jesus

As opposed to what? Subjectively false?

Calling it a "logical conjunction" is a category error. Logical conjunctions don't have numerical values. — flannel jesus

They do if if they're tautologies.

As opposed to there being any possible way to charitable interpret that as close to the truth.

they don't ever. You're being silly

Well, you have the option of explaining the meaning of Einstein's formula, then.

@flannel jesus When playing a game of chess, are you in the habit of asking why a tower, being the representation of a human building, is able to move across the board horizontally and vertically?

@flannel jesus here's something to consider. Do massless particles have energy? Of course they do.

It seems like you're in the habit of just saying random shit without any desire to connect it to the conversation.

It seems like you're in the habit of just saying random shit without any desire to connect it to the conversation. — flannel jesus

Then you have the wrong impression about me.

Is it possible to apply Einstein's formula to a single electron, yes or no?

You said you wanted to have an interesting conversation. So, answer the question: Is it possible to apply Einstein's formula to a single electron, yes or no?

I have no idea. I don't know why you're asking me random questions my man.

It's not a random question. Einstein's formula is incompatible with quantum physics. Not entirely, just partially.

ok, what does that have to do with anything?

Well, think of it like this: to understand the Big Bang, you need to make General and Special Relativity compatible with Quantum Physics. How do you do that?

I genuinely don't understand why you're asking me any of these questions. I wouldn't know.

Well, neither would I. That's my point. No one does. No one knows how to make Relativity (General & Special) compatible with Quantum Physics.

I mean, there's some good research programs, but that's about it. The most legit one is probably Quantum Field Theory. But that Theory can't explain the initial moment of the Big Bang itself, when Time (as in, "t") is equal to Zero.

Your point is to tell me that no one knows the answers to the questions you randomly decided to ask me?

No, that's not my point. My point is that you wanted to have an interesting conversation, and now you don't.

Why do you think it's interesting to ask me questions I wouldn't know the answer to, and then tell me nobody knows?

Well, because I want to know if you have any ideas about it.