Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   NeonPurpleStar :heart_bi: (neonpurplestar@outerheaven.club)'s status on Friday, 09-Feb-2024 21:29:28 JST NeonPurpleStar :heart_bi:
   btw conservatives is the usa have their own version of wikipedia, where they deny the validity of general relativity
   • Embed this notice
     NeonPurpleStar :heart_bi: (neonpurplestar@outerheaven.club)'s status on Friday, 09-Feb-2024 21:49:58 JST NeonPurpleStar :heart_bi:

     in reply to

     • JC Palmer
     @jccpalmer
     https://www. conservapedia. com/Logical_Flaws_in_E%3Dmc%C2%B2
     
     or pics if you like
   • Embed this notice
     JC Palmer (jccpalmer@mstdn.io)'s status on Friday, 09-Feb-2024 21:50:03 JST JC Palmer

     in reply to

     @NeonPurpleStar Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link? I have to see this. Or maybe an archived link so that I don't give them a click.

   • Embed this notice
     Saffron🏳️‍⚧️ (spinach@girlcock.club)'s status on Sunday, 10-Mar-2024 11:24:16 JST Saffron🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     @NeonPurpleStar conservapedia is a portal to an alternate reality where everything works on circular logic lmao

     NeonPurpleStar :heart_bi: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Nina [NaK-System] (nina@lsbt.me)'s status on Sunday, 10-Mar-2024 12:25:57 JST Nina [NaK-System]

     in reply to

     • JC Palmer

     @NeonPurpleStar @jccpalmer
     Also, they, and almost everyone else, use the formula that only works for a mass at rest. The full one:

     E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2

     Th popular one should be more correctly written as:

     E = m_{rel} c^2

     to emphasise that it is the relativistic mass that is meant here.

     NeonPurpleStar :heart_bi: likes this.