Re: Einstein and the unerring brilliance of inanimate objects. You mentioned yesterday Einstein’s theory that objects gain mass as they accelerate and you should know, by now, I can’t let that pass. If we’ve learned anything from modern physics (a separate question entirely) it’s that the Universe is wise far beyond our comprehension, given that even its most basic materials and processes remain stubbornly inaccessible to our frame of reference, which I suppose could be viewed as a character fault of the Universe. She could be nicer to us, that’s all. We’re not THAT bad. Consider the brilliance of light, conjuring additional mass from the temporal displacement of its movement across the spatial planes, just in time to balance Einstein’s equation for him and, since Einstein endorsed the concept of non-linear time, might have waited until just that moment to make the change! How mind-bendingly original of light, almost “magical” to savages like us. But I get that because just this morning I was looking into this mirror and I couldn’t believe how brilliant it looked (and dead-sexy, too). I could only envy it and wish, someday, by the grace of God, I could fully appreciate it. The Universe is such a tease sometimes, bating us into pursuing her and, just when we start to move on to more spiritual matters, she flashes us. Maybe that’s why people can be so mean (because of the frustration). Some people say she’s malevolent but I believe she just thinks she’s too good for us (and, let’s be real, we do place the issue in doubt), or maybe just insecure. If that’s the case, Universe, I pledge to be impressed if you ever reveal yourself to me! I’m going, today, out to question a mountainside, at length, and given its gravitas, I’m sure it has a lot to teach me! (Words are fun…) Wish me luck!!! All the Best, TVA Ps. Now that you’ve expressed your interest in modern physics, I hope you’ll let me know when they figure out why neutrinos proceed faster than the speed of light and let me know when they find that elusive “free” quark. I’ll sit by my phone. Pss. The answer to the proceeding Ps is that neither of those sub-particles exist on the temporal plane and are therefore not subject to the rules of that plane of existence. The logical assumption to make is, since sub-particles are not naturally occurring, particles are as small as the temporal plane allows for expression but, hey, this isn’t logic, it’s SCIENCE.
"So, Erin, at last we meet..."
