Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 01/04/05
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Previous message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:56:20 GMT
David Thomson:
>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
>news:cre0i8$flm$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>>>>>If you're going to make c = 1, you have to do it on both sides of the
>>>>>equation.
>>
>> Obviously. Your point? There is no "c" on the left hand side
>> of the equation E = m c^2.
>
>My point is that if E=mc^2 is an equality, then there IS an implied c^2 on
>the left hand side of the equation.
Only if you consider tradition a reason for something because you
don't understand the reason for the tradition. If you can't deal
with an equation missing a superfluous constant, then just say so
and perhaps you will be accomodated. If you want to dispute the
superfluousness of the constant, don't expect to be accomodated if
you can't understand why physicists consider it superfluous.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Previous message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|