Mass and energy are two aspects of the same thing. It would be a mistake go assign primacy to either one. Masses can "have" energy in the sense that they are moving in relationship to other masses in some frame of reference, but that fact does not mean that mass is energy. I've changed the article because it asserted something that is not the case.Patrick0Moran (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Unhelpful reference to spaceships[change source]
"Conservation of mass and relativity" is unclear[change source]
The explination given is unclear as to what functional use the formula has, or what it actually shows (Ie. what is it used for?). Just thought I'd open it up for discussion.
- Isn't it clear enough that by solving the equation for various values of velocity the involved masses will change accordingly? The real question is perhaps what the relationship between mass as something intrinsic to matter and mass as something relative to how masses interact when they are moving into collision at significant fractions of the speed of light.
- Beyond that, recent research has greatly substantiated the idea of the Higgs Boson and related concepts that are used to account for "mass" as an interaction between intrinsic properties of matter and an "underlying" universal field.
- Maybe we need to look at the entire article with the objective of making it more clear how we got the idea of mass in the beginning, and then how our conceepts called "mass" had to be successively revised and revised again as our horizons became expanded. Einstein's teaching story about the man who weighs himself not knowing at one point that he is on an accelerating elevator and another point that he is on a decelerating elevator, and is puzzled about how he can gain and lose mass without having eaten or having gone on a crash diet, is possibly a good entry point to this discussion. Patrick0Moran (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)