gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 14 lines --]

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   Yeah. Even an illiterate person ought to understand that if the mass
> > in "E = mc^2" is close to zero, then E would equal zero, not c^2... :)
> >


> First I thought she was going to confuse nuclear and chemical processes.

> Then I was willing to go with her in seeing what witty philosophical observation
> she'd make out of her reasonable observation that most of matter (volumetrically
> speaking) is nothing.  Then  with E=c^2 I felt so betrayed, not even catching
> the math mistake.

  The math failure is the most obvious mistake. At a more generic level,
you can't just redefine the meaning of "mass" and then use the exact same
formula as if it was still valid. Because that's exactly what she did: She
changed the meaning of "mass" in "E=mc^2" to her own definition (seemingly
something along the lines of "everything that is not empty space") while
still considering the equation valid. However, the 'm' in "E=mc^2" is not
"everything that is not empty space".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message