Sorry for the lack of courtesy in not citing the specific objection. It was, however ment to be vague. I was simply throwing back the same comment you made to Cipher22. It appeared that you were arogantly tearing down (instead of building up by the strength of your own arguments) when you stated that Cipher22 should read a book or two before posting again.
I would make three points about this:
First, that Cipher22's comments were demonstrably wrong, and I explained in detail how before disparaging them.
Second, that Cipher22 was purporting to bring to the table ideas that were brought second-hand from his chem teacher, and not concepts that he had personal knowledge of. I was very upset by the report of a public school teacher giving such hogwash to his students, and my remark was meant to be a directive to seek knowledge from a better source, although I admit it was phrased rather harshly.
Third, that Cipher22 had intentionally crafted his post to be inflammatory towards those who understand the concepts being discussed, in the hopes of baiting a response such as was furnished.
The specific objection was relating to your brick analogy, which you responded to Headswabby and dug yourself an even deeper hole. What you are saying about the the speed of light is correct and I think everyone understands what you meant by the maximum "weight" of a brick, it is simply not stated correctly. The weight of the same brick can change. Theoretically there is no maximum, practically there is sure to be. But the fact that a bricks weight can change and the speed of light does not makes it a poor analogy (in my opinion). Maybe I have misunderstood your response to Headswabby, but from my point of view you were grasping at straws. Maybe you can explain it to me in a way that is not too technical for me to follow.
I don't know how to explain any simpler then I did in my last post. The maximum weight of a brick cannot change. The idea that whatever brick you make, someone can always make a heavier one, or put it in a stronger gravity well is irrelevant. The maximum weight will be where all the variables for gravity, size, materials, and any other pertinent considerations are all set so that the maximum weight is achieved. Even if this means the maximum weight of a brick is one atom away from it collapsing on itself and becoming a black hole, whatever the limit, that limit is not maileable. That is why it is the maximum.
I am quite unsure however, how this off-hand comment became such a big part of the discussion. The part of the example that was pertinent was the answer.
P.S. Don't take anything I am writing too seriously, bleive me, I don't. I am just having a little fun. I could'nt have hard feeling towards a Feynman fan.
No harm done, I was just very surprised as I know my physics are sound (even if there is disagreement about my metaphors) and I wanted to know what you objected to so I could riposte appropriately. Knowing that you impugn only my knowledge of astro-masonry, and not that of special relativity, I am quite content.
Could you do me a favor? Can you please provide an explanation for your signature:
No trouble, it's Greek. Translated it means, "Do it! Now, now; quick, quick!" It is from an ancient Greek love spell that my brother found while doing research for his master's thesis. This spell is purported to cause "men to fall in love with women, women to fall in live with men, and virgins to run out of their houses."
First you draw a demon on parchment. This demon is headless, and his name is a synonym for 'envy.' Then you tack this image up over the door to the public bathhouse and recite the magic words. Then! ...you wait.