|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Gil - I think we speak two different languages and I am not refering to english and portugeese.
|
|
|
GM Jesus Christ ...
|
|
|
A proton has 1836 times the mass of an electron. Scientists presume that this has always been true and always will be true, but what if it should suddenly change! The the rest mass of a proton would not be constant but time dependent.
I use the the term discontinuous as it is used in calculus. For continuous function, f(t), the limit of (f(t+delta t) - f(t))/f(t) is zero as delta t approaches zero for all t. If you plot the function on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis the graph has no breaks in it. You dont need an open circle and a closed circle to show an instantaneous jump.
That is an example of the language I speak. It is hard to translate to you laguage which is more philosophical and less mathematical.
I also have difficulty translating your writings into my way of thinking.
|
|
|
| but what if it should suddenly change |
Maybe we wouldn't exist anymore?
|
|
|
Gil - Energy is conserved the total does not change. Mass is a form of energy. A reduction in mass results in an increase of another form of energy. For example the Helium (and neutrons) produced in the sun is lighter than the 4 hydrogen atoms that are transformed in the creation of one Helium. The the energy of the newly created gamma rays = the decrease in mass energy.
please revise your sentence
An electron transforms in energy only when submitted to the speed of light twice
One electron cannot vanish into energy. That would violate conservation of chagre. An electron is a lepton, low mass particle, the are not any negatively charged particles with lower mass for it to become.
A collision between an electron and positron is posssible. They can anihilate. That means all their mass becomes energy and is carried away by a pair photons with anti-parrallel velocities. Photon is the word used when refering to the particle nature of light. Here mass refers to rest mass.
It is not possible to prove the most fundamental postulates of science. For example physicist assume that laws proven to be true today have always been true. While this is the simplest assumption it is possible imagine that the fundamental laws of physics have changed in such a way as to mask our efforts to detect discrepencies. Who is better qualified than God to change the laws of physics. Was the parting of the red sea impossible? suppose that for that moment God lowered the density of water. Or maybe Good created a Fifth force of nature that moses controlled for just that occasion and the destroyed that fifth force. An omnipotent god is not constrained bythe phrase, That violates the laws of physics, becuase being all powerful he can change the laws to suiit his needs. It is therefore impossible to disprove a maricle. If in a room of many people, I claim that God just caused a book to fly accross the room. It cant be disproven. No one else saw the book becuase good created pockets of extreme mass to warp the light reflected of the background objects around the book. However, when starts to make claims that are immune from observations one has left the arena of science
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next |
|
|
|
