At 11:19 am 27-10-04 -0700, you wrote:
>OK, I've been kinda following along (and just went back and re-read some of this
>stuff)
>
>A few things that may have been overlooked.
It seems to me that many things have been overlooked <g>
=========================================================
What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical
science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly
believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into
a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed
to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and
reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe
it and define it and, having taken it into account, to
draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed
violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.
And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not
paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his
career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing
still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any
brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or
a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare
exceptions there are none to be found among the members
of other professions. So the scientists forged ahead
without revising anything, because any revision would
have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.
---------------------------------------------------------
"La Science et nous"
Simone Weil
=========================================================
>According to Relativity (which I have problems with, but that's another story) Mass
>increases with velocity. Thus for a given object, MV cannot equal a constant. It
>only equals a constant as a system.
Confusing, isn't it. :-) But that is only to be expected at this stage. Hang in there
Merlyn.
>If Speed is equal to the magnitude of the summed Velocity vectors, then V in momentum
>and KE equations actually refers to Speed.
>
>If it is possible by dimensional analyses to come up with various different
>dimensional notations for Mass that are not identical (T/L, T^2/L^2, T^3/L^3) then
>perhaps each is actually referring to a different property of matter,
Mmm....And one can be increasing while the others are decreasing say.
said properties (M, M', M") being normally associated with each other, the way
temperature and star color are associated.
Very good. You are getting the general hang of things :-)
>OTOH if MV does equal a constant, perhaps that explains why photons appear to be
>massless.
And materons - and no doubt a host of other massless particles too
>
>
>Merlyn
>Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist
oComplete</a> - You start. We finish.
Well, I've started - and you seem to be picking things up fast so you
will probably "finish" at the winning post well before me, Merlyn.
You've certainly got the right trade description for this stuff. ;-)
Cheers
Grimer
