XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: x@x.net   
      
   On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:   
    > "Paul.B.Andersen"  wrote or quoted:   
    > :that mass could be converted to energy as   
    > :predicted by Einstein's E = mc².   
    >   
    >    I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.   
    >   
    >         First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on   
    >    a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no   
    >    "conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a   
    >    liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.   
      
   The basic problem is that you think that 'science' is   
   'automatically true' and all you have to do is say   
   words that sound like 'science' and they are automatically   
   'true' because they 'sound like science'.   
      
   For your words to have value, you must care what is true.   
      
   I am skeptical that you care what is true.  I think that   
   your words can be dismissed as relatively valueless on   
   that basis.   
      
   I do not care if you play with the words 'water' and   
   'liquid'.  It is reasonable to consider your words   
   to be relatively meaningless because you do not care   
   what is true to begin with.   
      
    > ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)