Re: Mass in E=mc^2
From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Maximum speed of light"
- Previous message: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: Mass in E=mc^2"
- In reply to: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: Mass in E=mc^2"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Mass in E=mc^2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:07:40 -0600
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
> xxein: So, then, tell us Dirk. Is c a condition? Do we look beyond c
> to gravity? What is c to gravity? How about universal expansion and
> c?
>
> Where do we get universal relations from and how do they differ from
> subjective measurements? By what code do we decipher subjectivity from
> objectivity (or v.v.)?
>
> But start with something simple so that we may get the hang of it. How
> about a physical explanation of how/why a circular orbit velocity is
> always escape velocity/sqrt(2) (in the idealistic sense of it -
> including a nonrotating central mass)? How do we even know that it is
> rotating or not?
>
> Can you move in more than one direction wrt c? If not: what is c to
> gravity?
>
> It would seem that you rely on formula and math. You have no
> conception of what physics really is. As though our understanding of
> it will never change ---.
>
> You are locked into a belief. A very precipitous belief. And you
> expect everyone to fall into lockstep with it? Sorry. There is
> physics to understand and neither you nor Einstein can stop us.
>
> Otoh, I can fully understand that we are locked into this universe and
> its intrinsic laws. It can, and does, give rise to certain
> mathematical symmetries as we are subject to our observations about
> them. That is the keyphrase. We are subject to the conditions of our
> measurements.
>
> But when we become hubristic about the formulas and math, we forget too
> easily that we are subjectively measuring. We can't know the physic
> with only partial consideration -- it requires the whole.
>
> I know that we will never achieve "the whole", but stopgap "solutions"
> only hinder us in that direction.
>
> Please do not use a 2/10 theory of ~~physics~~ to tell the rest of us
> how to understand the physics of this universe. Try to understand
> something other than your belief. Investigate beyond your current
> belief. That is the difference between belief and science.
> Have a nice day.
There is only a difference between belief and science when one's
belief runs counter to the empirical data.
Richard Perry
- Next message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Maximum speed of light"
- Previous message: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: Mass in E=mc^2"
- In reply to: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: Mass in E=mc^2"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Mass in E=mc^2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
