[MD] still going?

[Dan Glover]

Hi Adrie,

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi , Dan.
> The concluding form in your summary made me think about the difference
> between mass and energy from physiks.Apparently both are representatives
> of the same entity..-energy.
> When a few leadatoms are accelerated in a particle accelerator they gain
> mass at every passage in the ring.As long as energy is supplied in the
> magnets propulsing the ring, the particles will accelerate and become
> heavier and heavier, they will never reach lightspeed alltogether but will
> become
> superheavy=mass, where only energy was injected.The mass of the leadatoms
> is disregraded in the example.

Dan:
Interesting. From what I understand and that's not saying much
particles do not gain mass in an accelerator but rather momentum. Upon
approaching the speed of light particles must be treated
relativistically rather than classically when measured. The
misconception of particles gaining mass comes from neglecting
relativity. And to tie that into the argument (the original argument)
I believe relativity is based upon an observer independent from the
observed, something to which Neils Bohr seemed to object (no pun
intended) in his work.

>
>Adrie:
>
> This also fits Phaedrus's modelling nicely and shows the same parallel, and
> pattern.
> Comparable patterns are known from quantum physiks, as were in that field
> it is taken very seriously where the knower becomes part of the
> known,becomes object or subject or is creating (parts  of) reality.

Dan:
Could you expand on this a bit when you have time?

>Adrie:
> I think Dr Mc Watt frames subject /object in this way from the above ex
> to keep them well defined, as we do not have an appropriate intermediate
> between subject/object,and lack any accurate defenition of this form.
>
> But concluding, i do not think the argument is nullified, as it does not
> loose
> its importancy or becomes void......or gets in a sort of Mù category?
>
> It would further philosophy more to an exact science if riddles as this are
> solved.

Dan:
Agreed. Thanks, Adrie!

Dan

http://www.danglover.com