|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
conversation with Ex about non relativity
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
me- So any way Ex, i was listening to a conversation that you were involved in the other day, it covered a wide range of subjects relating to Relativity and the Dirac Equation.
One of your statements however was dismissed but i would like to ask you to elaborate upon the notion that Mass doesn't exist, how does one take that seriously?
Ex- Well, this story has far more complexities than one might at first imagine. Perhaps one should first consider how the concept of mass was introduced to 'mainstream science and also in turn what it is attempting to describe.
I would also point out however that Relativity is so poorly conceived conceptually not just the Mass component.
me- OK....how do you think 'Mass' was introduced to science and the world, isn't E=MC2 the corner stone of all modern physics and technological achievement..if it is wrong why does it work?
Ex- Whilst many will disagree or have an alternative story many of the core fundamental ideas and concepts had been circulating through an intellectual elite. For almost a 1000 years a resurgence of ancient knowledge had been growing.
Archimedes it is said was tasked by his King to discover a way to discriminate his gold coins from those that bandits had forged. So moved was the King and also so impressed by Archimedes uncanny ability to find solutions to problems, that he put Archimedes life on the line.
The night before he was due to be put to death for his failure he decided to take a bath. He noticed the displacement of water as his own 'volume' enter the bath.
It is then that he had his now infamous 'EUREKA' moment.
But this is where he really was clever you see all he did was take the concept of density, reverse engineer it and applied it within a framework of describing the world as made of elements...at that time five including aether.
Don't forget that this trend continued right up until 1600's when characters such as Descartes and Newton got hold of it. Even then they continued this fundamental error which of course is a main component of the law of conservation.
As to the question of why it works.
Any logical and coherent methodology based upon the detailing of reality as a function of light will....'work'.
Each page in a book tells a story but there are many books and even more libraries...you get me?
So you see the concept of 'mass' was conceived essentially as a deception.
Oh and since mass is essentially supposed to be a description of matter as a function of space, one then is moved also to see it as a detail of 'density' which is a better discrimination of the 'relationship' between matter and space.
Without getting technical, using Mass in this way delivers a stunning inaccuracy of about 99.99%.
But if you consider just a 0.01% inaccuracy multiplied the perception of 'light speed squared' one is already in the realms of infinite error.
me well, i think you have given me something to ponder, i may come back and ask you to tell me what else is wrong with everything in the universe..thanks.
Ex- I will rip your face off.
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
