MC2 = E

Quantum chromodynamics prove the theory of relativity in four dimensions.

So what’s all this about energy, mass, light, and Jim Doyle?


  1. acilius

     /  November 21, 2008

    The headline on this BBC article is “Polish tests ‘confirm Copernicus.'” I thought that meant that they had confirmed Einstein’s theories and Copernicus’ in the same week. Unfortunately, it turns out that what’s been confirmed is that some bones belonged to the late Mr C.

  2. cymast

     /  November 21, 2008

    You thought they had confirmed that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

  3. acilius

     /  November 21, 2008

    Yes. The article doesn’t make it clear whether that has been confirmed or not. I thought it had, but then I thought that about Einstein’s theories too.

  4. cymast

     /  November 21, 2008

    Well I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought E = MC2 had been confirmed already. So maybe they’re still working on the Earth around the Sun confirmation . .

  5. acilius

     /  November 21, 2008

    It reminds me of when the Apollo 15 astronauts proved that Galileo was right that objects dropped in a vacuum fall at the same rate of acceleration regardless of their weight. Maybe that one had been proven before, but I always remember Colonel Scott saying “That proves Galileo was right.”

  6. cymast

     /  November 23, 2008

    I always wonder how much stuff they left up there, and if they are still planning to set up a mining operation.

  7. acilius

     /  November 24, 2008

    It doesn’t seem like a mining operation on the Moon could possibly be profitable.

  8. acilius

     /  November 24, 2008

    That’s an interesting article, thanks for the link.

    It made me wonder, if at some future date we’ve come up with a transport system so advanced that mining operations on the Moon can turn a profit, how likely is it that we will not also have technology that will make it possible to replicate on the earth any materials that we might find there? For example, assume that a He3–He3 reactor is someday built that produces more energy than it consumes. Is it easier to develop such a reactor than it is to convert other isotopes of Helium into He3? Or would it be easier to develop a truly reasonable method of recovering He3 from the Moon than it would be to convert some of the Helium we have on the earth into He3?

  9. cymast

     /  November 25, 2008

    I think we’ll have a replicator first, a la STAR TREK.

  10. acilius

     /  November 25, 2008

    A STAR TREK style replicator would not just raise the question “why go to the Moon?” but the question “why leave the house?”

  11. cymast

     /  November 26, 2008

    I saw a TV show a couple months ago about future technology. One of the segments described replicating “real world” experiences from the comfort of one’s home. The virtual reality would allow someone to see, hear, feel, taste, and smell “just like” in an actual real world experience. So someone could, let’s say, pick up their next-door neighbor or Marilyn Monroe or Charles Manson or Phranc and Pickles, or all 5, and drive to a 5-star restaurant for a $10,000 meal and then dancing and gymnastics at the most exclusive nightclub, then drive back home for a night of wild sex or Pictionary. Like the holodeck in STAR TREK TNG. The possibilities are endless. It sounds, to me, rather creepy, somehow.

%d bloggers like this: