I agree with much of what you say, the “The Mechanical Universe” series is something I have seen several times and enjoyed it every time, I also recommend it very highly to anyone that is interested in physics.
My attempt was not to mystify the word “energy,” it seems to me that it is mysterious enough already, on the contrary, the attempt was to clarify the concept of the two parts of the energy equation by separating the meaning of the words “kinetic” and “potential.” The mathematical formulas will not change, regardless of how you name the two different sides of the equation, however, the understanding of the way the two sides mesh together can change. It seems to me that in your way of understanding the word “energy”; is that it is a single entity and changes from kinetic variety to a potential variety depending on its position or motion, whereas my way of understanding the word “energy” is that “it” exists only when something is moving, and the word “potential” implies a “force” rather than energy. In either case the description does not change the mathematics.
Yes: Finnish is correct, and
I’d like to know how to discern accent from written words?
Space/Science » in reply to Re: How to get a cosmos from nothing.
Re: How to get a cosmos from nothing.
The whole thread (28 posts)
- How to get a cosmos from nothing.
- Re: How to get a cosmos from nothing.
- Re: How to get a cosmos from nothing.
- A lot of people are going to fiddle with this for a long time.
- Re: How to get a cosmos from nothing.
- Re: How to get a cosmos from nothing.