Re: e NOT EQUAL TO mc2
From: Creighton Hogg (wchogg_at_hep.wisc.edu)
Date: 02/16/05
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: "anti-gravity""
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: e NOT EQUAL TO mc2"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: e NOT EQUAL TO mc2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:03:10 -0600
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Bilge wrote:
> Creighton Hogg:
> >
> >
> >On 16 Feb 2005, vignesh wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, but if you were one of my students you wouldn't be passing the
> >class.
> >You can argue that classical kinetic energy isn't 1/2 mv^2, but even the
> >freshman physics labs I teach *show* that it is through practical
> >demonstration.
>
> Hey -- it's not fair to use real examples taken from any
> actual experiment to shoot down the navel contemplations of
> a crackpot. That's like telling a little kid that santa claus
> doesn't exist or that there is no starship enterprise. And
> stop calling me ``surely.''
There's no starship enterprise?!?!
Putting that aside though, I honestly think it takes a certain amount of
maturity to realize how important experimental results are and that
whatever *you* think doesn't matter when nature says otherwise.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: "anti-gravity""
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: e NOT EQUAL TO mc2"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: e NOT EQUAL TO mc2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]