🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Evens wrote:
(commenting on a previous post on dynamic equilibrium)
> The problem with this notion of equilibrium is that it makes
> absolutely no sense. It does not differentiate, for example,
> between a crashing aircraft and a rock sitting completely
> motionless on the ground.

Dan. You are being way too local in your view. If I were to try to
establish equilibrium as an absolute, then there is no such thing. This
is also a useless approach. Consider for example the very short term. A
few seconds. Then a crashing aircraft, and a rock, are similarly in
equilibrium with their immediate surroundings. From the view of very
long times, the rock is no more stable than the plane, it just takes
longer to be turned into sand. BTW, how can a rock sitting on the
ground, racing around the sun, the galaxy, and streaking away from some
of it's distant neighbors at a significant fraction of the speed of
light, be described as motionless because it is loosly attached to a
rapidly spining surface. I think that there are only a few viewpoints
from which the rock is in equilibrium.