Mass is an interaction

So you define "motion" as "kinetic energy", do you? That's idiosyncratic, to say the least. When you say something like "the car's motion" you really mean "the car's kinetic energy"?

This tells me that you also use a non-standard definition of "heat". In physics, heat is not a property of a system. See the definition I provided above. A gas does not "have heat energy".

Where did you get your education in physics? Are you self-taught?

Consider a tennis ball. The tennis ball is yellow, it has a mass of 400 grams (say), it is made of rubber (let's say), it has air inside it, it is moving at a speed of 10 metres per second, it has a kinetic energy of 20 Joules and a temperature of 23 degrees Celcius.

Now, some questions for you:

1. Do you agree that one of the properties of the tennis ball is its colour?
2. Do you agree that it's colour property has the value "yellow"?
3. Do you agree that the tennis ball's energy is a property of the tennis ball?
4. Do you agree that the energy property of the tennis ball has the value 20 Joules?
5. Is colour a property of Energy?
6. Can energy be yellow?
7. If the tennis ball is yellow, and it has energy, is it possible that the tennis ball is energy?
8. If colour is not a property of energy, is it possible that the tennis ball is energy?

Try to answer honestly and completely this time.

There are two things in play here - the light and the energy of the light. You're conflating the two. It's almost like you're deliberately trying to confuse the distinction between the thing and its properties.

When a tennis ball comes to rest, what happens? Is its kinetic energy transformed into a different "form of energy"? If so, does that mean the tennis ball itself is energy? If the energy disappears, why is the tennis ball still there?

No. This has been explained to you many times. Merely repeating your claim, rather than responding to the objections to it, is the act of a troll - or perhaps somebody who is unable to process information efficiently. I'm not sure which, yet.

What did I tell you explicitly in my last series of posts, about that precise question?

What's wrong with you?

 

Produce the quote from Einstein that says a ball is a form of energy - or that any massive object is a form of energy, for that matter. Otherwise, drop this silly claim.

I would prefer to say that the ball's kinetic energy and spin are both zero in those cases. We can still meaningfully talk about "the kinetic energy of the ball" even when it's zero.

In the sense that the ball is the combination of its various properties, and not just a single one of them.

Yellow is not a ball.
400 grams is not a ball.
20 Joules is not a ball.
1/2 a litre is not a ball.

Next consider photons. Is 20 Joules a photon? That's what you've been telling us all, for hundreds of posts, now.

Wrong.

Irrelevant.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Correct, and never once disputed by anybody in this thread, despite the fact that you insist on bringing it up, over and over again.

Tacking on big names to your errors doesn't help make your case. We need the quotes, if you're going to rely on those people.

Wrong.

Actually this supports my argument, not yours. See how you wrote "particles have mass-energy". So, you're admitting that mass-energy is a property of particles, not something that particles are.

You inability to even be self-consistent in your own argument is testament to your hopeless confusion in these matters.

Those aren't equivalent statements. Your equivalency is an error.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You need to read my comment there in the context in which it appeared - i.e. as an argument I imagined you might try to make. And, sure enough, here you trying to make it, even though I anticipated it and addressed it already.

Wrong. Fields do not propagate.

I explicitly addressed this material in my last series of posts to you. You ignored everything I wrote about this, there. And here you are, repeating yourself. Go back and address what I wrote to you. Stop trolling.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

---
* Note: all statements marked simply as "wrong" above have already been addressed in detail by me in previous posts, so no need to repeat previous explanations. It's a waste of my time.

 

I agree with you that "mass energy" is a form of energy. Look, it's right in the phrase itself. Mass energy.
I disagree with you - stridently - that mass is a form of energy. It isn't a form of energy. It doesn't even have the units of energy.

There is no contradiction in this. Things that are energy usually - though not always - come with the label "energy" attached. Here is a partial list of things that are not energy: tennis balls, particles, photons, fields, Higgs bosons, the colour red, arfa brane, the Taj Mahal, Thursday's lunch, A day in the life, that feeling you sometimes get that somebody is watching you behind your back, spin, Rubik's cube, the Sun, the Big Bang, a quantum field, electromagnetism, black holes.

 

Challenge for you:

Quote anything from any of my posts in this thread which contradicts something from the same or another post of mine in this thread. Be careful. Make sure you quote me accurately. Explain the relevant contradiction.

If you cannot do this, I will accept your apology.

 

A previously-addressed ill-defined claim.

Yes, if you like. That's called "internal energy".

I already defined heat for you.

It's not ok.

It's the same kind of muddy, careless, confused thinking that has no doubt led you into many of the false conceptions you have put on display for us in this thread.

Sure do. Previously addressed this, many times.

 

Typical troll behaviour.

Bow out when you're losing the argument. Refuse to concede. Then lay low until you think it's safe to restart the same argument in a new thread, as if the first discussion never happened. But I will be keeping an eye out for any other attempts to repeat this topic, from you. I gave you a second chance after your first trolling effort, and this is what you've come up with - a half-assed, lazy, weak repeat of the arguments that were addressed last time around.

I note also the personal insult you have directed at me, for which I could rightly issue you with an official warning. However, as a general policy, I do not moderate people with whom I am personally engaged in a debate, even when they lack common civility and act like spoilt babies throwing tantrums.

This thread is done.

You have tarnished your reputation on this forum with your antics in this thread. But at least the mask has dropped and you're showing us all the real arfa brane. It's a pity it's such an unappealing side of yourself that you choose to put on display.