Yes and no
Yes your answers did give me a better understanding of your view (or belief) of the structure of the universe.
I agree with much of what you are saying but there are areas where my ideas diverge from yours.
I'll try to be brief in pointing the major differences. Hopefully you will (constructively) criticize these differences.
You said:
"1. Energy and mass are interchangeable according to Einstein's special relativity. The equation E=MC2 is valid for all observed physical processes. So energy can form mass and vice-versa. In our universe we observe kinetic energy and potential energy. Kinetic as the name implies is in motion, whereas potential energy is relatively static."
We have slightly different perspective or understanding of the mentioned Einstein's equation.
When you say: Energy and mass are interchangeable, it implies that when mass is converted to energy the mass disappears and energy takes its place.
In my opinion the E in the equation represents kinetic form of energy, therefore something has to be moving. I believe that what is moving is the essence of mass. In other words the essence of mass does not disappear but rather is accelerated to the highest possible speed.
My understanding of potential energy is that it is simply the POTENTIAL for kinetic energy. Therefore it IS static in nature. Empty space can not move therefore it contains the potential for kinetic energy. If mass moves into (or in) space it contains kinetic energy.
You said:
"Kinetic energy is energy in motion. A particle with mass and velocity has a kinetic energy given by the equation: E=1/2mv2
That equation is correct as long as the intrinsic energy of the mass is not taken into consideration.
Ordinary mass (particle) contains within itself both types of energy potential and kinetic.
Einstein's equation takes into consideration all the energy that the mass can generate.
That's for the energy. Now another two questions popped into my head.
What is intelligence and does creativity involve intelligence?
Johannes
Off Topic » in reply to My pleasure...but remember you asked for it!
re: My pleasure...but remember you asked for it!
The whole thread (103 posts)
- Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- After all the comments in this thread I listened to it...
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- Literalism has its pitfalls
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- Heard it too.
- re: Interesting view point, but
- Why do otherwise smart people think that religion solves the first causes problem? (n/t)
- Creation is an oxymoron.
- re: Creation is an oxymoron..... I see you Reorganized some words, did
- 64,000 Monkeys....
- Well...
- I'd like to see your proof of your assertion (n/t)
- circular infinity
- That's just math though
- Causation is driven by chaos
- re: Causation is driven by chaos
- Infinite Parameters (warning long)
- Universal I/O
- The problem must be addressed at the "atomic" level
- Is there really any chaos in the game of life?
- Conway’s Game of Life is the starting point
- disagree: adding more dimensions to Life does not require adding anything random.
- Randomness is required to model this problem
- nice stuff, Gary
- re: Randomness is required to model this problem
- Life is a good model of a creationist view
- Randomness is required to model this problem
- disagree: adding more dimensions to Life does not require adding anything random.
- I should have capitalized the L in Life
- Agent Smith Quotes
- Conway’s Game of Life is the starting point
- Is there really any chaos in the game of life?
- re: Creation is an oxymoron..... I see you Reorganized some words, did
