E really does equal mc^2
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
arjan de lumens
Veteran
Umm, huh? If you by 'g' mean the Earth's gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s^2) then the units don't add up. If you're thinking about gravitational potential energy, then the formula has been E=mgh ever since Newton's days.ninelven said:
arjan de lumens
Veteran
Ahhh, Planck units. These are used a bit in cosmology, and unlike joules, meters etc, they don't depend on arbitrary measures devised by human beings.LeGreg said:
Oh, God. These stupid things pop up all over the place. Special relativity is indeed self-consistent and has been measured to a fantastic degree of accuracy (through measuring the absoluteness of the speed of light, and measuring the electromagnetic interaction). The statement that the theory of special relativity is incorrect is just plain absurd today.
Special relativity isn't complete, of course, but that's not the same as saying it's not correct.
Special relativity isn't complete, of course, but that's not the same as saying it's not correct.
No, I've known about the experiment in question for some time. And the second link is very questionable. Most particularly, it would be hard to reconcile with quantum mechanics.ninelven said:
Of course, in the end, it doesn't really matter much, because the relative velocities of macroscopic objects in relatively close proximity are always so much lower than the speed of light as to make the propagation speed of gravity pretty much irrelevant: it's only interesting as a way to understand the nature of gravity. So it's good that people are attempting to devise experiments to measure the speed of gravity. But it's going to be a while before we get any good measurements, just because it's such a challenging thing to measure.
That said, astronomical data has been doubling pretty much every year for a while now, so it's conceivable that it won't be that long.
By the way, I'd like to add one more comment. This article that you linked never takes into account the velocity components of the metric.
arjan de lumens said:
Ahem, only if you accept that 1 + 1 always equals 2 everywhere in the universe, which if going by the scientific method is only a theory and never a certainty, as such even Planck units are inherently anthropologic because they are derived from human experience.
1 + 1 has to equal 2. If it does not then having definitions for things would be entirely stupid, mean our lives are pointless, and mean everything we have done is completely pointless. That's utterly bullshit if you think that. In order for 1 + 1 not to equal 2 you'd have to change the definition, which would be completely retarded, and brings up a favorite thing of mine: It always seems like the greatest "thinkers" are amazingly stupid and happen upon things by great chance, and even if they can solve the riddles of our existence couldnt figure out how to open the flaps on a damn cardboard box because they'd be spending to much time anazlying if it means the same to open the box here than over there, just plain RETARDED!
Similar threads
- Deleted member 13524
- Architecture and Products
