Jump to content
Science Forums

Moronium

Members
  • Content Count

    2,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Moronium

  1. I hear-tell that a photon has no mass, eh?
  2. Well, things like temperature, altitude, pressure, etc. can cause variations in lots of things, but those nuances are generally ignored in idealized formulas. Either that or a given standard is expressly adopted, e.g., mean sea level, 20 degrees centigrade, etc.
  3. The "white panthers" from Detroit, the MC5, covering a good old Chuck Berry tune, eh? Anything ya want, they got it right here in the USA!
  4. Maybe so, but I think the accepted version these days is simply Eo=Mc2. PV has nothing to do with the "rest energy." The current thinking also seems to be that the concept of mass is invariant even if it's relationship to energy supposedly varies with motion. "Relativistic mass" in a concept that Einstein (and many others) flatly rejected. I'm trying to focus on the concept of mass. Don't do nuthin for me.
  5. Well, I suppose it's satisfying to have a devout belief in your own righteousness, and all, but looky here: Russell, by the way, was present at the Wittgenstein/Popper altercation. Maybe he learned something there, who knows? Mark Twain once said something similar, to wit:
  6. Speaking of Popper he (along with John Stuart Bell) is one of the better known scientific theorists to insist that it would be better to return to what you would call "pre-unification" physics. They both regarded SR as fatally flawed, and advocated a return to a "Lorentzian" theory of relative motion. They are far from alone, but what the hell would anybody else (apart from you, I mean) know about it, eh?
  7. Naw, I aint never heard that, but it doesn't really surprise me. I did hear-tell that Wittegstein once threatened to beat Karl Popper to death with a fire-stoking poker over some lame-azz philosophical argument, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker
  8. Yeah, OK, whatever. My Mama done told me, that there one time, she said: "Looky here, boy, it's OK if you want to hang out with homeys who are seeking the truth. But remember this: Run like hell ffrom anyone who done found it, see?" I said: "OK, Mama."
  9. The "truth," eh? What is the "nature of what GR and SR did in physics," exactly, in your view, Vic?
  10. Just so y'all know....I have a secret identity here, too. But I aint never gunna tell nobody what it is, so don't bother asking. I'll tell you this much, though: I aint Ralf.
  11. Maybe you don't put enough "stake" into what you're calling pre-unification ideas, eh, Vic? Ever consider that possibility?
  12. That damn Trump is such a liar, eh? He's backing off this promise already. Now he aint gunna pay for no tickets. Instead he has employed some experienced caravan organizers to keep the caravans walking all the way to S.F. Some Texas cowboys have volunteered to drive the herd, though, which should help expedite the process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XRfvBKEiY
  13. The outraged reaction is starting to pour in. Virtually every MSN outlet claims that Trump is trying to "dump" illegal aliens in sanctuary cities--almost always in the headline. "Dump?" Like they're garbage or something? I don't get it. Why aren't they celebrating this huge gift? These are the people they want most and entice to take up residency. You'd think they'd be running to pay for the bus tickets themselves, eh?
  14. But, wait....Nancy done said walls are immoral, I thought. What's up with that? Maybe I get it...she probably figures they're only immoral if they're designed to keep people out. In her case, she uses a wall them to keep the wetbacks in, picking grapes 24/7, probably.
  15. Great idea, Popeye! Then all those drunken winos wouldn't be bothered by the cops in S.F. Well, not that they would anyway, but they might have to kill people to get their wine there, so.....
  16. From El Paso to San Francisco, L.A. or other select places of your choosing if you have broken U.S. law and illegally busted into our country. Any place that has declared itself to be a "sanctuary city" and makes it illegal to even ask about your immigration status. El Paso, and the like, is full, aint gunna take no more, and aint keepin what they got now, either: Trump is "finally" considering the needs and desires of these poor law-breakers, eh? He's gunna send them to places where they have free housing, free health care, free lawyers, pocket money, free needles, free contraceptive
  17. As far as that goes, I guess you could say that many physicists have already embraced a "5th force," i.e., so-called "dark energy." It is deemed to be some kind of "anti-gravitation" counter-force to gravity, it seems.
  18. I see your intended pun, Ralf, but, that said, I can see why you might see him as a "kindred spirit." Like you, I think that GAHD tends to view his own opinions as being unquestionably correct. And, like you, such an attitude gives him license to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "stupid." But, personally, I don't see such an attitude as being in the spirit of "scientific inquiry." It just strikes me as being dogmatic, I'm afraid.
  19. Hmmm, Vic. I basically agree with this, I suppose: But, your faith and certitude nothwithstanding, I can't agree with this: Nothing has been "proven" about the postulates of SR (or GR) and the implications thereof, and I don't think anyone other than a scientifically unsophisticated person would claim otherwise. I wish you luck in this venture, however, and it's reassuring to know that you would have "thought it through:" But you should keep in mind that a "unified theory" would not necessarily demand that the concepts of GR be included. Many are working on theories of "q
  20. But of course then you just get into questions about what a "force" is. That too is somewhat ambiguous. I don't view "friction" as an independent fundamental "force" for some reason On the other hand, it is common in physics to refer to "the force of friction." For example: http://problemsphysics.com/forces/force_friction.html So even if inertia (mass) is viewed as a "force," nothing says it would have to be a "fundamental" one. It could just be another run-of-the-mill force like friction. Although Newton's law of inertia is often summarized by saying than an "external" force is
  21. Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to view inertia (mass) as an independent "force" as opposed to just simply being a passive "property" of matter. Conceptually it seems more consistent. Perhaps "counter-force" expresses it better. If the moon, for example, is not motivated by an "inertial force," then how do you explain its orbiting pattern? And, again, it is much easier to understand a "force" as being energy (the ability to do work) than it is some obscure "resistance to acceleration." A train can be kept moving at a uniform speed (in a straight line), but O
  22. Thanks, Popeye, this is what I was referring to earlier when I said that the COM frame should be considered to be (and used as) a preferred frame in order to best understand the connection between rest mass and momentum. "Relativistic mass," with its infinite number of supposedly "equivalent" frames, just creates conceptual confusion. Is leads GAHD to say that the universally accepted equation of E=Mc2 is just a "dumbed down layman's" formula, for example. Well, then again, maybe it is other things which lead him to say that. It affords him another opportunity. to state that he aint dumb
  23. For your part, Ralf, you are very quick to use the word "therefore" when it is totally unwarranted and unjustified. You often draw what you somehow think are "necessary" conclusions based upon the most fallacious and irrelevant sort of "reasoning." I guess that's what you would call "non-literal thinking," eh? As though fallacy is some sort of virtue.
  24. Just for the record, I'm not saying it aint, either.
×
×
  • Create New...