-=> Quoting Clarence Hogan to Stephen Williamson <=-
 CH> Ok, so far so good, as it is understood that you are saying that
 CH> if the mass of a one ton rock is multilplied by it's velocity, it
 CH> would equal it's momentum, correct?
Yes, the value obtained would equal the rock's momentum.
 CH> Then, are not you saying
 CH> that in order for the rock to EXIST, it must possess all three
 CH> qualities which are p, m and v?
Not quite.  I think what I'm saying is that the three values are the
result of the object existing, not vice versa.  The values don't need
to be larger than zero, and are often negative.  
 CH> And not to be smart, but this one is going to be extra hard
 CH> to splain, for the simple reason that the mass of any object is NEVER
 CH> at REST, right?
 
 SW> Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but you can't ever measure
 SW> anything but the speed of light in the grand scheme of things,
 SW> methinks.
 CH> Please explain how so?  For if a thing does indeed EXIST, is it
 CH> not measurable?
If something cannot be measured, does that mean it cannot exist?  What
of love, the soul, things like that?  Just illusions/delusions?
Anyway, what I meant to say was that the speed of light is the only
value I can think of that doesn't change based on your frame of
reference.  No matter where you are or how fast you are moving, the
speed of light is always the same.  Light doesn't need to be measured
against something else for us to know its velocity, so it can be
measured in the "grand scheme of things", while everything else that
I am aware of needs to be measured against something else, like the
Earth.  
 
 SW> You always measure velocity of an object as compared to
 SW> another object, usually one that *seems* to be at rest.
 CH> OK, fine, in such case as that, both objects must EXIST then,
 CH> right?
One would assume that we wouldn't be measuring it if it didn't exist...
I must say that I'm unsure of how the question of existence came into this.
 CH> Now comes the extra hard part of the question...if a
 CH> thing is truly at REST, then that thing does NOT exist, right?
Well, define "truly at rest".  Since everything but light is compared
to another object when calculating its velocity, an object would seem
to be at rest in one frame of reference but not in another.  One of
those cases where the truth is relative... 
 CH> Now if that thing does not exist then it cannot be measured or
 CH> measured from, correct?  But if that thing only *seems* to be at
 CH> rest, then any measurement you might take would be wrong, would
 CH> it not?
It would be correct for that reference frame, and only that reference
frame.  For the reference frame that it is measured in, the object
would indeed be at rest, or rather moving with the same velocity as
the point of measurement.
 
 SW> It all depends upon
 SW> what frame of reference you measure things in.
 CH> Exactly and therefore if a thing exist, it cannot be accurately
 CH> measured, right?
I would say that it cannot be given an accurate UNIVERSAL measurement.
The measurements taken in one frame of reference are accurate in that
frame of reference, but not anyware else.
 CH> And if it does not exist, then no measurement
 CH> is possible, correct?
One would assume so.  
 CH> And we would agree on this point also, for light is the ONLY
 CH> thing in the universe that has no dependence on anything else in
 CH> the universe to EXIST, correct?
I would think that light depends upon its source for existence.  I
don't think there is a constant amount of light in the universe since
different forms of energy can be transformed into light, and for light
to not be dependent upon anything else for existence it would need to
be eternal, wouldn't it?
 CH> And therefore, ALL things are
 CH> completely dependent upon their relationship to light and not
 CH> the reverse and if light were to cease to exist, then so would
 CH> ALL things cease to exist, right?
If a tree falls in the forest...  I honestly don't know.  Light
simply ceasing to exist seems like an impossibility to me.  Light
DOES depend upon outside influences for existence, like a match or
a star, but once it is created it is independent.  I think... 
 CH> There, of course, is much more to discuss here, but this is
 CH> enough for this time as I would like to give it sum mo thought!
And I would like to give it some more reading.  I'll have to make a trip
to the local library and build upon my meager experience in this area.
        Ves Thu Heil,
                Stephen
--- EzyBlueWave V1.48g0 01fa0167
---------------