Re: Implicit expressions of speed of gravity within Newtonian mechanics

On Jan 31, 12:32 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:11 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

David Rosen is nearly right, I'm always happy, regardless your
obscenities :-)

Ignorance is bliss.

Sure? Ignorance is bliss? That's a false statement,
based of the ignorance of its author. I'd rather say
that "Wisdom is bliss", although the way to wisdom
may be hard and painful, because it often involves
effort, sacrifice and some renounces, but once achieved
it is a bliss at the end of the day :-)
Are you a winer or a loser? If you are a winner then
you can grasp what I'm talking about. If you are a loser
then your "ignorance is bliss" is your consolation.


Speaking of ignorance, I am yet to see you actually show why quantum
mechanical relations are valid in classical mechanics.

I never said that quantum mechanical relations were valid
in classical mechanics. What I'm proposing in this thread
is that some classical mechanics relations have encoded
some aspects of quantum relations, but only a complete
quantum picture should give us the right answers, not the
approximated answers that classical mechanics gives us.


You are wrong every time you put forth a new idea. Perhaps it is time
to get a better education, or find a different hobby?

Thanks for the flowers, I'm very proud you can acknowledge
I have a lot of new ideas, because I'm a very creative,
bright and inquisitive guy :-)



.

Relevant Pages