E=MC^2 is wrong

Light does not have mass, but still follows special relatively because of the equation is incomplete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

Light is a cheating bastard

Try backing it up with another source, I don't trust Wikipedia.

Do it yourself?

I'm not an expert

@goodgame: have you never seen those superscript numbers with blue hyperlinks?

The equation never said that light does has a mass. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence.

The equation you posted E=MC^2 is in the wrong case. It should be E=mc^2.
E is Energy
m is mass
c is the speed of light

Edited 10/3/2019 07:48:16

Actually reading the page will give you:

The energy–momentum relation is consistent with the familiar mass–energy relation in both its interpretations: 
E = mc2 relates total energy E to the (total) relativistic mass m (alternatively denoted mrel or mtot ), 
while E0 = m0c2 relates rest energy E0 to (invariant) rest mass m0.

Unlike either of those equations, the energy–momentum equation (1) 
relates the total energy to the rest mass m0. 
All three equations hold true simultaneously.

Since yesterday, I researched causality (Note, I already considered those concepts, but I didn't know they had a name) and now I'm confused as to why STEM majors nowadays hate the humanities. .Time, space, and particles are all very abstract concepts, It's the definition of metaphysical. I've lurked here and there, and honestly it seems like more people are simply throwing the whole idea of philosophy among the pile of "no-good lunatic science." But then again, quantum physics is a shit show and I would pussy out too if I didn't know any better.

@caocao the chocolate bar man

It's getting harder and harder to tell when you're shitposting, and it's stopped being funny at this point