philosophy is nothing but physics. Can U prove by coordinating physical Science and philosophy that E=mc2?

Answer 1

By reducing philosophy to physics you fell into what is referred to as REDUCTIONISM. Be careful of the words "NOTHING BUT" next time you pose a question.

Philosophy is not Physics. The two disciplines are different and deal with different subject matter. By trying to make the two into one, you followed the same course as that of the Rationalist Philosophers. For example, Descartes - being a mathematician and philosopher - tried to "fix" philosophy by using mathematical/geometric principles. As you can imagine, it did not work efficiently. Others, like Spinoza, also saw problems with philosophy and tried to use physical/natural science to "fix" it. And, like in Descartes' case, such an endeavour led to philosophy falling into disrepute.

Answer 2

Philosophy is not Physics, as Physics would function independent of thought

Philosophy is a function of the thought which would not be possible with out Physics

Physics is the function of Energy's in motion, the reactions of those energy's, and the interaction of those energy's, however are comprehended through thought which brings about understanding.

Regarding your question, I myself cannot prove by coordinating physical Science and philosophy that E=mc2, but I feel confident that I have proved to myself through thought the contrary, that it does not.

Through thought I believe strongly that there is no such thing as a constant, only a great number of variables including Light speed

if light is not constant then, which is simple to prove because it can be accelerated when approaching a quantum singularity, and bent around it, and would then slow again after passing it, and that is with direct respect to not being consumed with in the event horizon, and also magnetism, and gravity bend light, then how can we affix any absolute constants to any state of function.

It is my belief that with respect to our understanding of anything we tend to reach for that which seems to be easily tangible, although that which may look to be on the surface real, may quite possibly not be the only answer, and simply a mirage just as water on the desert floor appears to be real, but only with respect to the angle at which one observes it, once the angle of observation is changed slightly we observe the desert floor for that which it is, and that is void of water completely.

Answer 3

Physicists develop theory and argue with reference to observable (empirical) phenomena. Philosophers often make assertions that cannot corraborate or contradict observations. Crudely put, physicists theorize a posteriori, philosophers philosophize a priori, though often a posteriori as well. The physicist does not ask why the billiard balls are there, thats the philosophers job. The physicist merely takes their existence for granted and tries to analyze how they behave. The physical law you speak of can only be understood as a mathematical conjecture that captures observed phenomenon, so it is a matter that can be 'proved' only by the physicist.

Answer 4

A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawkins
Explains the theory of relativity, or at least my understanding of it as:
E = energy
M = mass
(C)2 = speed of light
From the equation we get the speed of light which is a constant, and a constant squared is still a constant value.
The removal of this constant from the equation as it always is the same speed (in a vacuum) resolves the equation to E = M.
Thus the energy is directly proportional to the mass, which physically tells us that as the energy increases to move a certain mass, so to does the mass proportionately, which means to us that we would need an immeasurable amount of energy to move and infinite mass as both increase exponentially.

Answer 5

Philosophy is inclusive of physics. How can you prove an ocean is same as a pond or river?

Answer 6

Laughably simple. You really have to try harder.

Realize that you, in fact, submitted this question and are now re-reading the question and the resulting answers.

Time travel can be fun...

Answer 7

your first premise is absolutely wrong. so that makes the answer of your second question a big "No."