re: Sorry about that,
perhaps we would understand each other better if we came to some type of an agreement as to the fundamental meaning of some key words and what the outcome of this friendly debate should be.
It was my intention to give my (incomplete) answers to Michael's questions.
Can we make a parallel between the relationship of mass to energy and the relationship of intensity to power? If so, what does it mean, in real terms? I know I'm not a "physicist," so a little help here? Anyone ever make this parallel before? (I'm sure they must have, it's so obvious to me, it must have been to someone else, yeah?) If so, who, and are there any good laymen's references relating to the subject?
I have always tried to be as "laymen" as possible in my (science related) posts here, that seems to infuriate some posters here.
Your posts have been of excellent quality and informative but they are, as you pointed out, in the area of classical mechanics.
THIS MAY BE TRUE IN A RELATIVISTIC ENVIRONMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE. THE MASS OF AN OBJECT IS NOT AFFECTED BY ITS MOTION UNTIL YOU GET TO COLOSSAL VELOCITIES, AND THE RELATIVISTIC EQUATIONS NEEDED FOR THAT ARE BASED ON NEWTON'S LAWS. YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT RELATIVITY UNTIL YOU HAVE MASTERED CLASSICAL MECHANICS. PLEASE, PLEASE, DON'T MIX THE TWO OR YOU COME UP WITH NONSENSE.
I was under the impression that Michael's questions: "Can we make a parallel between the relationship of mass to energy and the relationship of intensity to power? If so, what does it mean, in real terms?"
Was about relativistic equations.
Perhaps I am trying to "hum a tune" that has not been composed into a song yet.
Or perhaps I am learning to fly an airplane before learning to do tricks on a motorcycle.
In my opinion the Einstein's formula E=MC^2 gives an accurate "energy" outcome, but it is somewhat misleading since it does not specifically show how the potential for energy exists within a quantity of mass.
My understanding of fundamental existence. (The very basic things that we know exist, though we do not know why they exist.)
Fundamental SPACE = area that is totally empty.
Fundamental MASS = That which can be manifest in infinite number of densities, also that which has the ability to move in relation to other densities.
Fundamental ENERGY = relative motion of MASS.
Without "space" mass could not move, without mass there would be no "energy."
That is just the beginning of the story.
Did you read the info at:
http://www.habitablezone.com/offtopic/messages/426107.html ?
Thank you ER for an enjoyable exchange of information.
Johannes