RE: describing the "collaboration" of parts; thoughts on spacetime
May 26, 2014 at 9:15 am
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2014 at 9:17 am by archangle.)
two problems
1) there is no "time". second. The "equivalence" used in e=mc2 is an approximation. A good one, but still it is not totally true.
Physics know this. They know what they don't know. They are also smart enough to know it is all we have today. And they, rightly so would rather base a believe on "something" tangible rather than "something" not tangible.
Also, they love when they are proven wrong, well the rational ones anyway. Like asshole atheists, asshole physicist do exist. When they are proven wrong, that means they learnt something new. Unlike locking Jesus into a fix , unchanging, counter observational, book. I call bible literalist A-Jesus. Physicists let him "live" as he would live. If he should exist that is.
1) there is no "time". second. The "equivalence" used in e=mc2 is an approximation. A good one, but still it is not totally true.
Physics know this. They know what they don't know. They are also smart enough to know it is all we have today. And they, rightly so would rather base a believe on "something" tangible rather than "something" not tangible.
Also, they love when they are proven wrong, well the rational ones anyway. Like asshole atheists, asshole physicist do exist. When they are proven wrong, that means they learnt something new. Unlike locking Jesus into a fix , unchanging, counter observational, book. I call bible literalist A-Jesus. Physicists let him "live" as he would live. If he should exist that is.
