Here's an objective restatement of the content of each screenshot, including available information about their origin and claims: Screenshot 1: From ein.stanford.edu (Stanford University - Gravity Probe B project) * Source: ein.stanford.edu, specifically a section titled "Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers." * Claim/Content: The page addresses the question: "Do photons carry mass as suggested by the equation m = hf/c2?". * It explains the derivation of m = hf/c^2 by combining Einstein's E=mc^2 and Planck's E=hf. * It explicitly states that a photon "has NO REST MASS." * It clarifies that the "m" in m=hf/c^2 for a photon refers to an "effective mass," which is equivalent to the photon's energy. * This "effective mass" is what allows gravity to act upon the photon (or its equivalent energy). * It suggests that if one prefers the particle description, photons can be approximated as "bullets" carrying this "effective mass" at the speed of light. * Attribution: All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX), part of the NASA Astronomy Cafe, a NASA Education and Public Outreach program. * Date/Time: The screenshot itself shows a timestamp of "17:04" (5:04 PM), but this is when the screenshot was taken, not necessarily the original posting date of the web page. The content is part of a long-running educational project related to the Gravity Probe B mission, implying it's an established resource. Screenshot 2: Personal Post from "Rowan Brad Quni" * Source: A personal social media-like feed, likely from an app based on the UI. The user's name is "Rowan Brad Quni." * Claim/Content: This screenshot contains two distinct posts: * Post 1 (Earlier, 10:04 am): "There are likely some in #physics who would dismiss m = \omega (hf = mc^2) on "faith" in a materialist #universe, to whom I challenge naming any other system of equations–anywhere in #science–whose answer cannot be found by #algebra? Who would dare claim that #mathematics is so flawed?" * This post introduces the core challenge regarding the algebraic solvability of scientific equations and links it to philosophical "faith" in a materialist universe. * It uses the notation m = \omega (hf = mc^2), which was later clarified to represent the derivation of m = hf/c^2. * Post 2 (Later, 6:41 pm): "Mass-energy equivalence: seems a straightforward phrase; and has been staring #physics in the face for 120 years. Yet it also exposes the very #philosophy of what we call "things" in #science, and should force a reckoning with its own most fundamental of equations: E = mc^2 and E = hf" with a link https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15749743. * This post expands on the philosophical implications of mass-energy equivalence, suggesting it challenges the definition of "things" in science. * Attribution: Posted by "Rowan Brad Quni." * Date/Time: Posts are timestamped "10:04 am" and "6:41 pm" on "Thursday 3rd July." The year is not specified in the screenshot. Screenshot 3: From physicsforums.com * Source: physicsforums.com, a user forum. * Claim/Content: A user, identified as "a physics enthusiast," asks a question about the equation hf = mc^2. * The user refers to an essay by Mark Perakh that "discredits this equation" in a criticism of Gerald Schroeder. * The excerpt from Schroeder's book states "hf=mc^2" and defines f as the "frequency of deBroglie's wave for a particle," and m as "the particle's mass." * The forum post then states, "Whereas equation (1) is absurd, it is easy to figure out how Schroeder derived it. He read somewhere about the following correct equations [4]: 1) E=hf......(2) and 2) E=mc2......(3)". * Attribution: Posted by an anonymous "physics enthusiast" on the forum, quoting Mark Perakh and Gerald Schroeder. * Date/Time: Not directly visible in the screenshot. The UI suggests a forum post format. Screenshot 4: From Quora - Mark John Fernee * Source: Quora, a Q&A platform. * Claim/Content: An answer to a question (not fully visible, but implied to be about hf=mc^2 and photon mass). * Mark John Fernee argues against simply equating "E" in different contexts, stating, "They are simply different energies. Just because someone writes a capitol E, doesn't mean that all such E's are the same." * He clarifies that for E=mc^2, E is the energy of a mass at rest, while for E=hf, E is the energy of a single photon. * He then states that these can be meaningfully brought together "if the photon has a very high energy comparable to the rest mass of some particle," leading to the possibility of a photon creating a pair of massive particles (e.g., electron-positron pair production). * Attribution: Answered by Mark John Fernee, who "Worked at University of Queensland (1986-20..." (presumably 2000s) for "6y" (6 years). * Date/Time: "6y" (6 years ago) is indicated, suggesting the post date around 2018-2019 given the current date (June 2025). Screenshot 5: From Quora - Bernard Mc Alinden * Source: Quora, another answer to a question. * Claim/Content: This answer directly addresses the question "Physics: If E = mc^2 and E = hf, then hf = mc^2 which means photon could have a mass. But why is this wrong?" * Bernard Mc Alinden explains that E=mc^2 is not the "full formula" for Einstein's mass/energy equivalence. * He states that the full formula shows the equivalence between total energy and rest mass plus kinetic energy, given as E^2 = (m_0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 (where m is rest mass and p is relativistic momentum). * He implies that the error comes from misapplying the simplified E=mc^2 (which is for rest energy) to a photon. * Attribution: Answered by Bernard Mc Alinden, described as a "Semi-retired Investment Strategist • Author ha..." for "6y" (6 years). * Date/Time: "6y" (6 years ago) is indicated, suggesting the post date around 2018-2019 given the current date. Screenshot 6: Personal Post from "Rowan Brad Quni" * Source: The same personal social media-like feed as Screenshot 2, from "Rowan Brad Quni." * Claim/Content: This post claims: "The #science theory that considers the most #information in the fewest words, every time. That is the very essence of parsimony and should reveal much about the (costly!) verbal diarrhea and linguistic gymnastics needed to justify much of contemporary #physics, whose increasing tone deafness and selective 🐒 masquerade as (pompous) expertise." * This is a general critique of contemporary physics, advocating for parsimony ("most information in fewest words") and accusing some justification efforts of being "verbal diarrhea" and "linguistic gymnastics." * Attribution: Posted by "Rowan Brad Quni." * Date/Time: Timestamped "2m ago" (2 minutes ago) relative to a later post, but no specific date is visible. Screenshot 7: Personal Post from "Rowan Brad Quni" * Source: The same personal social media-like feed as Screenshots 2 and 6, from "Rowan Brad Quni." * Claim/Content: This screenshot contains two distinct posts: * Post 1 (Earlier): "#Science must know #philosophy. It simply cannot be avoided any more than other related disciplines like #mathematics. To have earned a doctorate (PhD, a doctor of philosophy) yet act (willfully) ignorant of one's letters is an academic crisis destructive to #knowledge itself." * This post argues for the essential role of philosophy in science and mathematics, criticizing academics who ignore it. * Post 2 (Later): "m = \omega" * This seems to be a very short, possibly truncated, post. Given the context of earlier posts, it might be an isolated symbol or part of a larger thought on the nature of \omega or mass. * Attribution: Posted by "Rowan Brad Quni." * Date/Time: Posts are timestamped "41m ago" (41 minutes ago) and "9h ago" (9 hours ago) relative to the time the screenshot was taken (or the latest visible post in the feed). No specific date is visible, but they appear to be from the same day as Screenshot 6, showing the same relative timing. Screenshot 8: From vixra.org/pdf/220 * Source: vixra.org, an open-access repository for papers that may not meet the criteria for inclusion in conventional archives (like arXiv.org). The specific URL is vixra.org/pdf/220. * Claim/Content: The screenshot shows the title and abstract of a paper by "Sjaak Uitterdijk" titled "E = hf = mc^2". * Abstract: "This article shows the umpteenth ridiculousness of the expression E=mc², and simultaneously of the theories of relativity, by applying it to the energy of a photon." * Introduction excerpt: It mentions that "E = mc^2 is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2." It states that it's "generally accepted that the energy of a photon can be expressed by h*f," and that E=mc^2 is accepted by supporters of Einstein's theories of relativity, with mass and energy interchangeable. It notes that the speed of light reference is undefined in the paper. The last sentence indicates the "consequences of stating hf = mc^2 will be considered in this paper." * Attribution: Paper by Sjaak Uitterdijk. Vixra.org hosts preprints, often by authors outside mainstream academic publishing or presenting non-mainstream views. * Date/Time: Not directly visible, but the "220" in the URL might be an internal identifier related to an upload date or sequence. Vixra is typically used for new or non-peer-reviewed submissions.