• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

The story of Ganesha and kArthikeya

Status
Not open for further replies.
The story of Ganesha and Karthikeya fighting for 'jnAna' fruit is a familiar one. The basic story is like this.

Shiva and Shakti want to give a 'fruit' of jnAna/wisdom to their sons. But the challenge is it cannot be apportioned or divided between them. It has to be given completely and hence to only one of them. So they hold a challenge. Whoever comes around the Universe first, they would get the jnAna fruit completely.

Karthikeya mounts his peacock and goes around the Universe. Ganesha simply goes around his parents and claims that parents are his Universe. Ganesha gets the jnAna fruit.

This story is interpreted in various ways with different philosophical masks and meanings. I see this story differently. I think it is interpreted as a 'story' from scientific explanation of a physical event that happens everyday.

Shiva is energy. Shakti is Momentum.


The 'fruit' that they are giving is 'Entropy' (information, knowledge, jnAna). Who will get jnAna the entropy, when energy is added..?
Ganesha is potential energy which manifests as 'phase-change energy'. Karthikeya is motional energy (Kinetic) which manifests as heat measured by temperature.

When energy is added to a system, it can manifest as potential (phase change energy) or manifest as heat (raise in temperature).

When it manifests as phase change energy, it breaks the bonds between molecules, changes the phase of matter and increases overall entropy (information content) of the system. This is what happens say when ice turns into water. Here energy is spent in increasing entropy as it manifests as potential (phase change) energy.

When it manifests as higher motional energy of molecules increasing the temperature of the system, energy is spent in increasing the temperature of the system and not the information content or entropy.

Hence Ganesha gets the jnAna and not kArthikeya.

Simplistically, if one gets additional energy
, then they can use it to break their existing bonds, get into a new phase and thus increase their knowledge. That is like Ganesha.

They can also use it to simply get excited, jump up and down, raise their heat with little increase in their knowledge. That is like Karthikeya.

Who will get jnAna..? Obviously who are like Ganesha

-TBT

 
The story of Ganesha and Karthikeya fighting for 'jnAna' fruit is a familiar one. The basic story is like this.

Shiva and Shakti want to give a 'fruit' of jnAna/wisdom to their sons. But the challenge is it cannot be apportioned or divided between them. It has to be given completely and hence to only one of them. So they hold a challenge. Whoever comes around the Universe first, they would get the jnAna fruit completely.

Karthikeya mounts his peacock and goes around the Universe. Ganesha simply goes around his parents and claims that parents are his Universe. Ganesha gets the jnAna fruit.

This story is interpreted in various ways with different philosophical masks and meanings. I see this story differently. I think it is interpreted as a 'story' from scientific explanation of a physical event that happens everyday.

Shiva is energy. Shakti is Momentum.


The 'fruit' that they are giving is 'Entropy' (information, knowledge, jnAna). Who will get jnAna the entropy, when energy is added..?
Ganesha is potential energy which manifests as 'phase-change energy'. Karthikeya is motional energy (Kinetic) which manifests as heat measured by temperature.

When energy is added to a system, it can manifest as potential (phase change energy) or manifest as heat (raise in temperature).

When it manifests as phase change energy, it breaks the bonds between molecules, changes the phase of matter and increases overall entropy (information content) of the system. This is what happens say when ice turns into water. Here energy is spent in increasing entropy as it manifests as potential (phase change) energy.

When it manifests as higher motional energy of molecules increasing the temperature of the system, energy is spent in increasing the temperature of the system and not the information content or entropy.

Hence Ganesha gets the jnAna and not kArthikeya.

Simplistically, if one gets additional energy
, then they can use it to break their existing bonds, get into a new phase and thus increase their knowledge. That is like Ganesha.

They can also use it to simply get excited, jump up and down, raise their heat with little increase in their knowledge. That is like Karthikeya.

Who will get jnAna..? Obviously who are like Ganesha

-TBT


Ok...lets see how this theory goes..

Ganesha is potential energy as per your theory and Karthikeya is motional(kinetic) energy.

Then Shiva is Energy and Shakti is Momentum according to what is commonly known.

Now Ganesha was " created" by Shakti and Kartikeya "created" by Shiva..

So how is it here that there is a "contralateral" function and not an "ipsilateral" function?

Why does Shakti( Momentum) " create" Ganesha (potential energy)? Shouldnt Momentum manifest as Kinetic energy?

Now..Shiva is Energy as you have stated..Shiva created Kartikeya(kinetic energy)....why does Energy
manifest as Motion/ kinesis here?

Shouldnt it be Energy as in latent form manifest potential energy and not kinetic energy.

Your theory would only hold good if the Shakti principle created Kartikeya and the Shiva principle created Ganesha...but thats not how the story goes.

So which fruit are you talking about here?
I do hope we are talking about the same fruit here and not land up like the Senthil Goundamani Banana joke!

So is it வாழைப்பழம் or a jnanaphalam?
[video=youtube_share;pv40dglennA]https://youtu.be/pv40dglennA[/video]
 
Last edited:
Ok...lets see how this theory goes..

Ganesha is potential energy as per your theory and Karthikeya is motional(kinetic) energy.

Then Shiva is Energy and Shakti is Momentum according to what is commonly known.

Now Ganesha was " created" by Shakti and Kartikeya "created" by Shiva..

So how is it here that there is a "contralateral" function and not an "ipsilateral" function?

Why does Shakti( Momentum) " create" Ganesha (potential energy)? Shouldnt Momentum create Kinetic energy?

Now..Shiva is Energy as you have stated..Shiva created Kartikeya(kinetic energy)....why does Energy
manifest as Motion/ kinesis here?

Shouldnt it be Energy as in latent form manifest potential energy and not kinetic energy.

You theory would only hold good if the Shakti principle created Kartikeya and the Shiva principle created Ganesha...but thats not how the story goes.

So which fruit are you talking about here?
I do hope we are talking about the same fruit here and not land up like the Senthil Goundamani Banana joke![video=youtube_share;pv40dglennA]https://youtu.be/pv40dglennA[/video]

Your 'idea' of momentum is bit off.

Whatever 'energy' is, it is 'charactertized' by momentum. Energy is Gross/sthula. Momentum is subtle/Suskhma. There is no energy without momentum. There is no momentum without energy. That is Ardha-nareeswara.

When we add energy either of two things happen.

1. It increases entropy/information/jnAna.
2. It increases heat/temperature.

Energy that increases entropy is Ganapati. In case of phase-change energy (when ice becomes water) it is potential energy.
Energy that increases temperature is kArthikeya. Temperature is nothing but average kinetic energy.

Shakti created a boy. Shiva gave the gajamukha to that boy making him gana-pati.

Shiva created a fire. But the six women integrated these fires and created kArthikeya.

So there lies stories of how entropy increasing energy and heat increasing energy are created.

-TBT
 
Last edited:
Your 'idea' of momentum is bit off.

Whatever 'energy' is, it is 'charactertized' by momentum. Energy is Gross/sthula. Momentum is subtle/Suskhma. There is no energy without momentum. There is no momentum without energy. That is Ardha-nareeswara.

When we add energy either of two things happen.

1. It increases entropy/information/jnAna.
2. It increases heat/temperature.

Energy that increases entropy is Ganapati. In case of phase-change energy (when ice becomes water) it is potential energy.
Energy that increases temperature is kArthikeya. Temperature is nothing but average kinetic energy.

-TBT

As usual...I expected such an answer.
You try to cover up some loopholes by some new explanation that fails to support anything.
Momentum is not subtle ..cos..its in action.
Subtle is Potential Energy..yet to be manifested.


So no jnana phalam here..only வாழைப்பழம்!LOL
 
Last edited:
As usual...I expected such an answer.
You try to cover up some loopholes by some new explanation that fails to support anything.
Momentum is not subtle ..cos..its in action.
Subtle is Potential Energy..yet to be manifested.


So no jnana phalam here..only வாழைப்பழம்!LOL


I am talking about 'momentum' of energy. it is a subtle property of energy. If something has 'momentum', then it has energy. If something has energy, then it has momentum.

Energy is gross because we can perceive it. Momentum is subtle because we can only perceive energy and not the momentum.

I think you are confusing it with whatever you understand as 'momentum'.

Also as I said Ganapati needs Shiva and Karthikeya needs six krttikas and they convey the story of entropy causing energy and heat causing energy.

-TBT
 
I am talking about 'momentum' of energy. it is a subtle property of energy. If something has 'momentum', then it has energy. If something has energy, then it has momentum.

Energy is gross because we can perceive it. Momentum is subtle because we can only perceive energy and not the momentum.

I think you are confusing it with whatever you understand as 'momentum'.

Also as I said Ganapati needs Shiva and Karthikeya needs six krttikas and they convey the story of entropy causing energy and heat causing energy.

-TBT

Krittikas is constellation of Pleiades...its just a cluster of stars..so how is it that Kartikeya needs them?
 
Dear Mr TBT :

I do not know Science (except some basic exposure) and do not know much of Puranas or any of our sacred texts (though I have some basic exposure). But I am good at sensing human behavior and seeing absurdity even when presented well.

What I read in your threads borders on absurdity.

How do you 'see' energy vs momentum? Just because something is moving does not mean you can 'see' energy and not see 'momentum' (and you call it subtle). Also taking some mythological stories and connecting that with wrong ideas of science terms is absurd. What is it that you are trying to prove? Is it that our mythological stories actually describe science or is it that science proves the stories? Neither makes sense, there is no connection.

You can use leptons, strangons and what have you and I can assure no one here has any clue to support or speak against you. Those that really know are not here and will not participate in absurd discussions.

So what prompts you to write about such absurd comparisons and force-fit some story to some science terms?

I am very sorry if I have offended you but my 'attack' is not on you but what you have written here fpr a while. I know you are well educated and write well, I also sense a sincerity in your presentation. But absurd is absurd. I know no one wants to call that out

I know you will disagree with my analysis. Dont feel compelled to reply. You are welcome to attack my post.

Wanted to be brutally honest in terms what I think of such posts..

Regards
 
Also entropy I thought refers to Chaos! How did that become Jnana or whatever you call it,
Why should chaos be a fruit to be desired .. No need to reply . Just reacting to absurdity
 
Dear Mr TBT :

I do not know Science (except some basic exposure) and do not know much of Puranas or any of our sacred texts (though I have some basic exposure). But I am good at sensing human behavior and seeing absurdity even when presented well.

What I read in your threads borders on absurdity.

How do you 'see' energy vs momentum? Just because something is moving does not mean you can 'see' energy and not see 'momentum' (and you call it subtle). Also taking some mythological stories and connecting that with wrong ideas of science terms is absurd. What is it that you are trying to prove? Is it that our mythological stories actually describe science or is it that science proves the stories? Neither makes sense, there is no connection.

You can use leptons, strangons and what have you and I can assure no one here has any clue to support or speak against you. Those that really know are not here and will not participate in absurd discussions.

So what prompts you to write about such absurd comparisons and force-fit some story to some science terms?

I am very sorry if I have offended you but my 'attack' is not on you but what you have written here fpr a while. I know you are well educated and write well, I also sense a sincerity in your presentation. But absurd is absurd. I know no one wants to call that out

I know you will disagree with my analysis. Dont feel compelled to reply. You are welcome to attack my post.

Wanted to be brutally honest in terms what I think of such posts..

Regards

Sir

Since you yourself said you lack knowledge of science, I can understand your 'ideas' on Energy vs Momentum. I have nothing to get offended in it.

Assume a world before mass manifested, before Higgs field acquired expectation value, an Universe which has energy and force-fields, but no 'mass'. What would momentum look like..? In classical physics momentum is mass * velocity. In that Universe mass is zero. Will the energy in that Universe have 'zero' momentum...?

No.

Energy even in that 'massless' Universe has momentum. Because Energy (Shiva) and Momentum (Shakti) cannot be separated. They are ardha-nareeswara. Whatever was energy in that Universe, it was characterized by movement at 'speed of light'. It had momentum. It is called E= pc.

Without momentum (shakti) there is no energy (shiva) and without shiva (energy) there is no momentum (shakti).

Energy, in that Universe was in different 'force-fields'. It was a probabilistic Universe and not a deterministic Universe. There are three fundamental properties of what was in 'motion', which we call energy. They are 'Energy', and Momentum (which is split into Linear and Angular).

So why do we call Energy the gross (sthula) and Momentum the subtle (sukshma).

It is because whatever we call as energy takes different 'forms' and manifests as the external world we see. You call it heat, light, sound etc etc and this becomes 'observable'. Momentum always remains subtle.

-TBT
 
Now the phalam?
Why was it not a banana?
It was a mango isnt it?

Any scientific reason as why a mango was the fruit?
 
Dear Renu,

In a lighter vein, if it is a Banana, 'pazham thinnu kottai pOda mudiyAdhu'!! :nono:

Possible ONLY if it is a Mango! :D
 
Actually it is not mango. It is the fruit of 'Knowledge'. Jnana pazham.

Knowledge is processing information/ entropy.

-TBT

Knowledge is processing information ...its neuronal activity...becos this is my field of knowledge..(medic)

According to your field its entropy...so its like both of us are like the blind men and the elephant...we assume we " know"

But are we right?

No idea..thats why its always better to put a disclaimer for each and every hypothesis cos it might be highly inaccurate too.

I am actually polite hence I dont want to be blunt.
 
Last edited:
Knowledge is processing information ...its neuronal activity...becos this is my field of knowledge..(medic)

According to your field its entropy...so its like both of us are like the blind men and the elephant...we assume we " know"

But are we right?

No idea..thats why its always better to put a disclaimer for each and every hypothesis cos it might be highly inaccurate too.

I am actually polite hence I dont want to be blunt.

Whether you are polite or blunt, that's your thought. It does not bother me. So enjoy with it.

You can view everything in this Universe from mathematics, physics or at times chemistry, biological or philosophical angles. No dearth of angles to view a substance from. So enjoy with it too..


-TBT
 
Whether you are polite or blunt, that's your thought. It does not bother me. So enjoy with it.

You can view everything in this Universe from mathematics, physics or at times chemistry, biological or philosophical angles. No dearth of angles to view a substance from. So enjoy with it too..


-TBT

Yeh kya reply yaar?

How do you know you are 100% right?

Is it so hard to put a disclaimer to your thoughts?

Its becos we Hindus dont launch "Fatwas" you are escaping.

Try this stunts of self interpretation in another religion and I am sure you would be writing what causes entropy to decapitate the one who wrote some unsubstantiated stuff.

Yes..I understand nothing bothers you..BTW there is nothing to enjoy when one is doing disservice to both religion and science.
Its speaks volumes about the state of mind.
 
Yeh kya reply yaar?

How do you know you are 100% right?

Is it so hard to put a disclaimer to your thoughts?

Its becos we Hindus dont launch "Fatwas" you are escaping.

Try this stunts of self interpretation in another religion and I am sure you would be writing what causes entropy to decapitate the one who wrote some unsubstantiated stuff.

Yes..I understand nothing bothers you..BTW there is nothing to enjoy when one is doing disservice to both religion and science.
Its speaks volumes about the state of mind.

:)

Rather if anyone points out anything wrong in what i wrote as science or what I wrote from our Puranas, then I am ready to correct it and evolve.

Sanatana dharma is not an abrahamic religion. We live in the land of Vedas, Upanishads and vedanta. We are proud of our heritage and knowledge and evolution.

Our Vedas and Puranas are not things that are to be made fun of. They are science and knowledge which can guide out future quest for knowledge.

-TBT
 
:)

Rather if anyone points out anything wrong in what i wrote as science or what I wrote from our Puranas, then I am ready to correct it and evolve.

Sanatana dharma is not an abrahamic religion. We live in the land of Vedas, Upanishads and vedanta. We are proud of our heritage and knowledge and evolution.

Our Vedas and Puranas are not things that are to be made fun of. They are science and knowledge which can guide out future quest for knowledge.

-TBT

If anyone points out anything you do the Zakir Naik and give some twisted answer to fit into the story you weave.
I still remember you saying Vishnu is inertia when I pointed that if Vishnu is inertia then why Vaikunta means sans inertia?
But you said sanskrit words have multiple meanings.

Anyway you have fun! LOL
 
Last edited:
If anyone points out anything you do the Zakir Naik and give some twisted answer to fit into the story you weave.
I still remember you saying Vishnu is inertia when I pointed that if Vishnu is inertia then why Vaikunta means sans inertia?
But you said sanskrit words have multiple meanings.

Anyway you have fun! LOL

I always say Vishnu is 'mass'. In Quantum world it raises from interaction with Higgs field. In Classical world it is Inertia. In Cosmology is gravity. kuNTha means 'dull', 'weak'. vaikuNTha means very much dull or weak. VaikuNTha is the abode of Vishnu, the mass. it is the 'weak force-field'.

A primer on quantum physics (not psuedo-physics) simplified, if interested

1. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2018/01/aditya-hrdayam-part-56-fields-and.html
2. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2018/02/aditya-hrdayam-again-part-57-particles.html
3. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2018/02/aditya-hrdayam-again-part-58-particles.html

thanks for your wishes to have fun. I always do have. :)

-TBT
 
I always say Vishnu is 'mass'. In Quantum world it raises from interaction with Higgs field. In Classical world it is Inertia. In Cosmology is gravity. kuNTha means 'dull', 'weak'. vaikuNTha means very much dull or weak. VaikuNTha is the abode of Vishnu, the mass. it is the 'weak force-field'.

A primer on quantum physics (not psuedo-physics) simplified, if interested

1. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2018/01/aditya-hrdayam-part-56-fields-and.html
2. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2018/02/aditya-hrdayam-again-part-57-particles.html
3. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2018/02/aditya-hrdayam-again-part-58-particles.html

thanks for your wishes to have fun. I always do have. :)

-TBT
Purusha (Dark matter), Shiva (Energy), Shakti (Momentum), Vishnu/Madhu (Inertia), mAyA (rest-mass), Hiranyagarbha (spacetime),Brahma (Gravity) et al belong to the classical domain in the macro world of atoms, elements and compounds. Sapta Rishis too belong to this classical world of ‘beings’.




LOL!

Who wrote this? You wrote this yaar.

Vishnu is inertia!

I still remember ....my memory is like 2 intoxicated elephants!
 
Last edited:
Btw Kunta means Dull/inertia.
Vi/ Vai means Without.

So Vaikunta means Without Dullness/ Inertia.
 
Purusha (Dark matter), Shiva (Energy), Shakti (Momentum), Vishnu/Madhu (Inertia), mAyA (rest-mass), Hiranyagarbha (spacetime),Brahma (Gravity) et al belong to the classical domain in the macro world of atoms, elements and compounds. Sapta Rishis too belong to this classical world of ‘beings’.




LOL!

Who wrote this? You wrote this yaar.

Vishnu is inertia!

I still remember ....my memory is like 2 intoxicated elephants!

So that's what very much I wrote now. Vishnu is inertia in classical world. So what is the difference you find..?

kuNTha means dull or weak. I am not sure how it becomes inertia...?

It is true that vi prefix many times is used as 'negation' like 'dis'. It is also true that Vi-kuNTha is translated as 'not blunt' or 'sharp'.
(We had this discussion in one of our earlier interactions).

But it is also true that vi prefix many times is used to 'strengthen' (definitely, verily, very much). For eg. jaya is victory, vijaya is also definite victory. bhA is shining vibhA is also strongly shining, lohita is red, vilohita is deep red etc..

On Vi-kuNTha, vi-kuNTha is translated as 'void of kuNTha', but vikuNTHita is translated as deeply blunt.

I translate vai-kuNTha as very much weak or dull (nothing to do with inertia).

Remember inertia is not only the property of being at rest, but also the property to be in motion always. So it cannot be 'weak'.

-TBT
 
So that's what very much I wrote now. Vishnu is inertia in classical world. So what is the difference you find..?

kuNTha means dull or weak. I am not sure how it becomes inertia...?

It is true that vi prefix many times is used as 'negation' like 'dis'. It is also true that Vi-kuNTha is translated as 'not blunt' or 'sharp'.
(We had this discussion in one of our earlier interactions).

But it is also true that vi prefix many times is used to 'strengthen' (definitely, verily, very much). For eg. jaya is victory, vijaya is also definite victory. bhA is shining vibhA is also strongly shining, lohita is red, vilohita is deep red etc..

On Vi-kuNTha, vi-kuNTha is translated as 'void of kuNTha', but vikuNTHita is translated as deeply blunt.

I translate vai-kuNTha as very much weak or dull (nothing to do with inertia).

Remember inertia is not only the property of being at rest, but also the property to be in motion always. So it cannot be 'weak'.

-TBT



You are saying Vaikunta means dull/ weak when Vaikunta means without dullness/ weakness.

Kunta means dull/ weak...Vaikunta means without dullness/ weakness.

Please dont change the meaning of words to fit into your theory.

Yeh bahut haraam hain! LOL

In no dictionary you will find the meaning of Vaikunta as as you claim.

BTW ...from Vishnu is Inertia and now Vishnu is mass and now some classical world too?

I guess in your alternate world your theory holds good.
 
Last edited:
You are saying Vaikunta means dull/ weak when Vaikunta means without dullness/ weakness.

Kunta means dull/ weak...Vaikunta means without dullness/ weakness.

Please dont change the meaning of words to fit into your theory.

Yeh bahut haraam hain! LOL

In no dictionary you will find the meaning of Vaikunta as as you claim.

BTW ...from Vishnu is Inertia and now Vishnu is mass and now some classical world too?

I guess in your alternate world your theory holds good.

As i wrote, Vishnu is mass, mass manifests as inertia in classical world that we see and observe. Mass also causes gravity in cosmology. Mass is measured through inertia and gravity and they both yield same results.

vaikuntha does not mean without dull or weak in any place. None translate it like that.

Vaikuntha is abode of Vishnu. What does 'without dull or weak' mean in vishnu's abode..? Nothing.

Some scholars translate vai-kuntha from vi-kuthi. kuthi means wry, shortage. vikuthi is no shortage. Hence they claim vaikuntha is lack of shortage, unlimited etc..

But staunch vaishnavite see vaikuntha as paramam padam, Lord's feet.

-TBT
 
Sir

Since you yourself said you lack knowledge of science, I can understand your 'ideas' on Energy vs Momentum. I have nothing to get offended in it.

Assume a world before mass manifested, before Higgs field acquired expectation value, an Universe which has energy and force-fields, but no 'mass'. What would momentum look like..? In classical physics momentum is mass * velocity. In that Universe mass is zero. Will the energy in that Universe have 'zero' momentum...?

No.

Energy even in that 'massless' Universe has momentum. Because Energy (Shiva) and Momentum (Shakti) cannot be separated. They are ardha-nareeswara. Whatever was energy in that Universe, it was characterized by movement at 'speed of light'. It had momentum. It is called E= pc.

Without momentum (shakti) there is no energy (shiva) and without shiva (energy) there is no momentum (shakti).

Energy, in that Universe was in different 'force-fields'. It was a probabilistic Universe and not a deterministic Universe. There are three fundamental properties of what was in 'motion', which we call energy. They are 'Energy', and Momentum (which is split into Linear and Angular).

So why do we call Energy the gross (sthula) and Momentum the subtle (sukshma).

It is because whatever we call as energy takes different 'forms' and manifests as the external world we see. You call it heat, light, sound etc etc and this becomes 'observable'. Momentum always remains subtle.

-TBT

Dear Mr TheBigThinking,

Yes, I am not a scientist.

Not sure about your training.

Showed couple of your post to someone who is doing post doctoral research at a university and in his late 20s aspiring to become a Professor of Physics one day. Because he is young and he is polite I had to press him for his view. In one word he summarized your understanding and assumptions as rubbish. More powerful than my use of the word absurd.

If you have specific references to back your scientific part of any claim do share. But do not mention of some buzz words. No one serious will discuss with you and no layman will know enough to engage with you. Anyone can write anything here does not mean we can write absurd things all the time.


Beside you did not answer my questions as to why you are posting this - Is it to prove science (as you know it) with puranic stories or prove that puranic stories are right? They both are different and have their own use,

Also give precise definitions to these terms below:

What is mass? What is before? What is time? Was there time 'before' so called big-bang?
I thought Einstein showed mass is energy and vice versa. Do you disagree with that?

No one separated energy and momentum except in your imagination. They are all mathematical things. All subtle,
Energy is subtle in a mass (remember e=m times speed of light squared).

So there is lot of confusion about subtle and gross in your posts.

Do not mean to bust the big thinking. Since you are a good sport and not get offended by me being critical of your post, I applaud you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top