- #106
Ash Small
- 54
- 0
ZapperZ said:So just using the "simplest" equation as the criteria, you propose to use that equation as the foundation for explaining the speed of light? That's it? And you think this is a legitimate criteria without making any consideration to the actual physics? You are comfortable with doing that?
This is getting to be a bit silly. You are saying that just because F=ma is "simple", then m is "caused" by F and a, regardless of the fact that if F=a=0, m is undefined! So an object not acted upon by any force as an undefined mass! All this nonsense is obtained using your principle of using the simplest equation and then deriving profound meaning out of it as containing the "cause" of it. This makes sense to you? If not, apply the same thing to E=mc^2 to massless particles (photons) and see if you think this causes "c".
You are confusing the ability to make QUANTITATIVE measurement of something with the "cause" of something. Nothing in E=mc^2 indicates that E and m are the "cause" of the constant speed of light. Unless you think Einstein is utterly dumb, then you have to argue why HE, of all people, never made such a connection, and physics continues to consider that the constancy of the speed of light is a POSTULATE of Special Relativity.
Zz.
No, Zapper, you've misunderstood.
I've just re-pr=hrased the question, not provided an answer.
There are other ways to re-phrase the question as well, as you have pointed out.
(by the way, photons are energy, they have no mass, but they do travel at the speed of light.If you want me to put this mathematically, E/c^2=0)