That's a theologian's sort of argument, and it's a good reason for sending it to "alternative theories".It's a legitimate physics discussion replete with references to Minkowski and Maxwell and others and hard scientific evidence.
That's just too bad.You had no right to move it to "alternative theories". It is stigmatised there and you know it.
More like moving something to a more appropriate place. Where would flat-earthism deserve to go?I put it to you that you are trying to stifle physics discussions on this forum, even though your physics knowledge is not sufficient to make the call on whether a physics thread deserves to be moved. I also put it to you that you are doing this whilst giving free rein to abusive posters.
Farsight, you ought to consider moderating a forum on theology.I shall reiterate my offer to moderate the physics and maths section of this forum.
That's what I mean by arguing like a theologian. Treating Maxwell and Einstein and Minkowski as inspired prophets.I don't think it's a "new ideas" issue myself, wellwisher. I think it's more of "naysayer" issue, wherein ignorant people reject education. I tell people what Minkowski said or Einstein said or Maxwell said. But lpetrich accuses me of being a theologian,
That's the sort of math that Minkowski himself had used, so what are you complaining about?przyk blinkers himself, and repenner gives a mathsdump and tries to say Minkowski said something else.
Farsight, if you are unable to understand why that is considered a VERY weak argument, you won't ever be good at science.I dispute that. It's me who gives the Einstein / Minkowski / Maxwell / etc quotes. It's me saying the guy said what he said.
As if that was something that I did not already know.You are obviously unaware that a photon has a zero rest mass but a non-zero inertial mass which is the same as its non-zero active gravitational mass.