Yes many times but it is dismissive of any evidence and not a very good argument. The person using that type of argument typically does not know much about the evidence and does not want to know about it either. We know about historical events, archeology, who did the crime, paleontology, and other past events based on evidence left behind. You don’t have to have been there. I am pretty sure Mexico exist even though I’ve never been there.

LikeLike

LikeLiked by 1 person

OK E=γmc2 is also correct, assuming m is not the total mass but the rest mass, often denoted m0, so E=γm0c2. Basically, m = γm0. If a cannon ball weighs one kilogram and you speed it up to a very high speed so that it weighs 2 kilogram (γ = 2) m = γm0 = 2m0 = 2 kilogram, then you added 1 kilogram of mass and energy by speeding up thee cannon ball.

LikeLike

Do you have any idea what I’m trying to come across? Turns out the equation I’m looking for is E=γmc2, where γ (gamma) equals \[ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 – \frac{v2}{c2}}} \]. For a long time I thought that E=mc2 was about relativistic energy of a moving object, not the mass-energy equivalence. I thought E=mc2 was just a misleading shorthand for E=γmc2.

LikeLiked by 1 person

c = 299,792,458 meters per second for all observers regardless of their motion. That’s why c is a universal constant. So essentially E = m^c2 is just a unit conversion. In other words energy and mass are equivalent. This is coming from special relativity.

LikeLike

I once thought that in E=mc2, the c2 was just a shorthand for v/(c-v) or v2/(c-v) or v2(c2-v2), or whatever is the best equation. If v = c, then c-v equals zero, and v divided by zero equals infinity, so it would take an infinite amount of energy for a non-zero-mass object to reach the speed of light.
Would the equation thereby be E=m(v/(c-v)),E=m(v2/(c-m)), E=m(v2/(c2-v2)), or would it be E=mv/(c-v), E=mv2/(c-v), or E=mv2/(c2-v2)? That’s what I thought E=mc2 meant. Something like one of those equations.

LikeLiked by 1 person

OK thank you

LikeLike

LikeLiked by 1 person

In response to : “Mass is simply resistance to change in velocity or direction, right?”

Yes and special relativity also showed that it is energy (in the form of mass)

LikeLike

Mass is simply resistance to change in velocity or direction, right?

LikeLiked by 1 person