Switch Kicker wrote:That statement, is not true.cammel wrote:I especially like how you pulled it out when you thought it helped your argument but now say its crap.
apoplectic wrote:ok,is this newtonian?
E=mc^2
E= energy,m=mass,c=speed of light which equals 299792458 meters per second
if we assume that light equals zero,
E=0 x 299,792,458^2
E=0 x 89,875,517,873,681,764
E=0
we all know that light does have energy,thats how we get sunburns
apoplectic wrote:
then the equation is crap!nothing is ever at rest.relative rest sure,absolute rest no.
Sorry switch kicker but my statement was 100% true. He used E=mc^2 when he thought it proved his point and now he claimed it was crap when i showed how it did not prove his point but actually went against it.
I would also like to know how you think my post is oblivious. It proves that light can have momentum without mass. That is what this discussion is currently about.
And i have read every post in this thread. Looks as if you haven't.
apoplectic, you do not understand this. At all. You are using equations that are newtonian or just not applicable like in the case of E=mc^2.
How can you guys be so stubborn as to argue against such a basic principle. You are not scientists, so dont pretend you know more than experts at NASA.
I'm glad you are not easy enough to get gonorrhea, as you so delicately put it, but this is a ridiculous fight and you are making an ass of yourself.

