>> |
Anonymous
>>396915 The mass-energy equivalence is of fundamental importance in serving as part of the theoretical model of several observable phenomena (i.e., what we observe as "binding energy," which plays a critical role in an entire class of relevant phenomena). We (and by "we" I mean, of course, the majority of the scientific community who would otherwise have the knowledge and credentials to say anything interesting to the contrary in the first place) have good reason to believe that the same physics applicable to these cases is extensible to the reality we inhabit; hence we (cf., above) believe that the mass-energy equivalence is a part of real life and that all matter (which is a subset of "mass") can be "recontextualized" (often only in environments that are decidedly atypical--but always, for any configuration of matter, in an environment that can be achieved in this universe) to energy. Because we cannot always achieve this event by utilizing the tools and techniques available to us is no failure of the theoretical model. Furthermore, its derivation can be observed from relatively simple considerations--the whole structure didn't fall out of Einstein's ass, it has its own rich and satisfying relevance to the entire field. Please to the knowing? A google to our comments for you.
On the flip side, it's much easier to casually ignore scientific milestones from a foundation of ignorance than from one of familiarity and knowledge, so perhaps these details should best be ignored. Unless I've been trolled, then lol @ me 4 tring ^_^;;;
pic related, it's a hi-res image an Iowa-class battleship shooting its guns.
|