I watched some PBS Space Time about how mass is a property or

>>8564317
Under these definitions energy is defined as force per distance [math](J=kg(m^2/s^2))[/math]. This means that sum energy directly correlates with the product of a mass (m) and its relativistic velocity (c^2)

>>8564337
That hurt to read

>>8564344
mass increases as the sum of energy increases

a squared positive function creates a line on a graph moving from bottom left to top right.

>>8564369
Just stop

>>8564377
If you want to understand these things rationally then take your time and look up the definition of all the terms that you don't understand. This is very basic physics so I assure you, you don't need to be a genius to get it.

>>8564344
Yeah, I know. Nothing he said was even remotely correct and we're all dumber for having read it.

>>Energy=torque

...yeah, okay pal

>>8564317
E=m is not high school stuff. It's a special case of a result from special relativity. To /really/ get it, you need to learn about four-vectors, Minkowski space, and Lorentz transformations.

If you're somehow cool with energy being proportional to the rest mass and somehow know that no other variables are relevant, then you can use dimensional analysis to conclude that E=mc^2

>>8564737
Is easier.

E = mv^2

Light is pure energy and travels at c.

It has energy E = mc^2

Because of wave particle duality, all matter can be treated as light.

Putting the two together gives us the result

>>8565004
OP-This dude is hardcore trolling. It's probably obvious to you, but just in case I wanted to point that out.

The kinetic energy of a massive particle has a precise definition: it is the work required to accelerate a particle from rest to a speed v (it's current speed). From this definition Einstein derived the kinetic energy of a relativistic particle to be: T=m0c^2(\gamma -1). Literally for convenience, he let the total energy be E=m0c^2\gamma and defined the rest energy to be E0=m0c^2. All of this works really nicely (it makes the momentum equations oh so elegant), it is consistent, and it leads to a pretty tidy interpretation. But when all is said and done, it is a convention and nothing more.

>>8565044
You're wrong.

He originally published a paper with rest and kinetic energy but he didn't like the confusion that came from differentiating between the two so the kinetic term was left out.

>>8565103
How am I wrong? I'm not getting it from what you just said.

>>8565108
He didn't define rest energy, he justified the rest energy with 0 momentum.
Your post completely omitted the second term.

>>8565004
-1/12

>>8565116
Continue. The second term of what and what is the second term?

>>8565155
The original formulation was kinetic energy = rest energy + energy due to momentum. You only included the rest mass term.

>>8565172
That's wrong. The formula I posted for kinetic energy was the obtained using the definition of kinetic energy. Obviously kinetic energy does not include a rest mass term. That would be fucking stupid. I'm not sure if you're trolling or just really confused.

>>8565176
It does. That's why you're wrong. I suggest you re read the original paper. And refrain from calling people stupid trolls when you're one either ironically or not.

>>8565231
Write out the formula

>>8565242
E(kinetic) = mc^2 - m (rest)c^2

>>8565603
That's literally exactly what I have. What the fuck, man?

>that episode of PBS spacetime where they explain how the speed of c is actually the speed of causality and that the universe doesn't give a shit about light speed.

Really opened my eyes. I used to think that the universe would do anything to keep the speed of light constant.