Already did that. How about you?
You are making too many mistakes.
I haven't made any so far in this thread, as far as I'm aware.
First you pop in and justify M/r as linear mass density for a sphere which is meaningless.
M/r is clearly a mass divided by a distance, which is a linear mass density. You can see that by considering the units alone.
You do not correct yourself despite clear maths and on top of that arrogantly lock the thread.
Are you talking about the thread in which you started insulting another member, that then descended into a nasty flame war? That closed thread?
And now this. Atoms are made up of protons and neutrons and they are 99% energy!
You remain as wrong as ever. Energy is not a substance. Atoms aren't in any sense made of energy. For them to be made of energy, energy would need to be a substance that things can be made of.
Simpler example if you cannot understand the above. As farsight is telling you, increase in mass with velocity. Second, atom bomb.
I have already addressed Farsight's post. As for the atom bomb, that shows that you can convert mass into motion of particles (or into new particles in some cases). Want to know how much motion you can get out from a given mass? That's where you need an accounting system. We call that "energy".
The original element is higher in mass as compared to its fissioned parts, means binding energy was reflecting as mass in original.
Yes. There is binding energy associated with the forces that bind matter together. The binding energy is an accounting system that helps us to quantify the strength of attactive forces that bind nucleii, for example.
Pl do not misteach that energy is nothing but accounting system. Withdraw.
Do you think energy is substance?
Instead of sitting there criticising my concept of energy, how about you tell us all what the correct concept is? You're the expert, after all. Aren't you?
Have you heard of Dark Energy? What all it is doing?
Yes, I have heard of dark energy. It is energy associated with the so-called "cosmological constant" of general relativity. It is supposed to be descriptive of the accelerating expansion of the universe. I'm not across all the details. Why do you think it helps your case?
Another example of your lack of insight is your attempt to trade the moderation action with qreeus.
You seem to be failing both in technical intervention and on the general moderation matters.[/QUOTE]
Thankyou for your feedback, for what it's worth.