Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<>> Duane,
About your three questions post:
1. It is NOT possible to create or destroy energy, we can only converse it into different types. If you can think of an example or experiment to proof otherwise, state it. Nothing you've wrote does so.
|
I can think of one. Untill we offer a better explanation for the big bang we cannot rule out what seems to be the case that all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Now I'm not saying this is the case, just saying that it seems to disprove the idea that matter can not be created. The big point though is that whether matter was truely created is irrelevant for our universe because obviously for our universe matter suddenly came into appearance and this is what is important. Now I think there is a better explanation which I am still keeping a secret, but the fact is that all the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant when you consider the universe and time as a whole. For example the universe as a whole IS a perpetual motion machine, therefore that law of thermo is irrelevant. Also at the end of time time it could very well be that time will reverse and thus the law that the arrow of time always goes in one direction is incorrect or at least irrelevant. Thus I have just shown that the laws of thermodynamics are either incorrect or irrelevant or both when you consider the universe and time as a whole, and we can take this from first principles of the Law of Laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GUILLE 2. It is NOT possible to do any work without energy (or energy source). Because in order to apply a force at a distance (this is the physical and mathematical description of work) you must have a previous energy. |
a finite amount of energy is irrelevant when you consider everything. There is enough energy in the universe to do as much work as you want, therefore the statement that it is not possible to do work without energy is an irrelevant statement because it assumes that the universe does not have plenty of energy. So the statement of yours may be correct, but it is irrelevant when considering the universe as a whole because the universe is not without energy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GUILLE Nevertheless, discussion about your theory is not possible because it is wrong from the start idea that relativistic mass is the same as rest mass. It's just as saying that we can put together the Newton's second law with Einstein's famous equation, but we can't, for in the first acceleration is variable and mass is constant, and in the second light's speed is constant and mass is variable. Preciselly the reason that Einstein's 1905 work is there was to the problem between Newton and Maxwell, neglecting the first. |
Is this what dleviwing has taught you? How can we differentiate between rest mass and relativistic mass (without an absolute frame of reference)? According to gravity there is no difference and gravity is what defines mass. Speaking about the rest mass of a photon is irrelevant because photons are never at rest. Well, I enjoyed putting my two cents in.