Re: What would the end velocity be if...?

On Feb 25, 12:35=A0pm, thro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : finite guy <adamle...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> : My question was directed to you because you made a 'distinction'
> : between Newton and Einstein but no one seems to be able to quantify it
> : OR qualify it.
>
> Several people have provided expressions for it.
> The quantity is a matter of plugging in a velocity and doing some
> arithmetic. =A0The fact that you aren't satisfied does not constitute a
> "fallacy" nor any "double-think" in either newtonian or einsteinian
physic=
s.
>
> : Message-ID:
<526f5a92-d2f8-4c60-8225-2011df5b2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> : Yes, the discussions are informative but certainly not definitive.
>
> What, specifically, has not been defined? =A0The meaning of
"significant"?=

> Use any dictionary. =A0The earliest post I see mentioning "significant"
> said fair and square that the standard of significance is arbitrary, and
> this arbitrary standard, used for purposes of discussion, was
quantified.
>
> Again, none of this constitutes a "fallacy" or any "double-think".
>
> Wayne Throop =A0 thro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 =A0http://sheol.org/throopw


Thanks for the polite and prety lucid response.

Why is the 'most accurate' method just not used all of the time?

Certainly, Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas are regarded somewhat
'differently'.
In what way are they really different.

You seem to have a reasonable and questioning attitude by your
website.
Would you, if possible, explain why E=3Dmc^2 is a planar equation and
why the 'plane of time' in it is not conceptualised at all?