I have differences with a colleague over
the term “energy.” He believes energy to be equivalent to motion and considers
our differences to be mere semantics. I don’t think so. Astute followers of
this Blog know that I consider energy to be a matter-motion term. Energy is a
calculation. Energy neither exists nor occurs; energy is neither matter nor
motion.
He may regard energy as motion, but there are
others who regard it as matter:
NASA says that: “roughly 70% of the
Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything
on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal
matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.” (http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/)
It is quite clear in this passage that NASA
regards dark energy as matter, in other words, dark energy is a thing just like
“dark matter” and “normal matter.”
So it certainly is not simply a matter of
semantics when the same term can be used for two different fundamental phenomena
by different people. I suppose that on Thursday, I could regard energy as
motion, and on Friday, I could regard it as matter. You could have some fun
with your modern physicist friends by asking them what energy is. The only
correct answer is that energy is a calculation: E=mc2, the physical
meaning of which I discussed in: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf.
This calculation, like other matter-motion terms such as momentum and force, describes
matter in motion. NASA’s imagery is of bare-naked matterless motion floating
around outer space—an impossibility. My friend should give up “energy” whenever
possible, like Steve and I did to great advantage in "Universal Cycle
Theory" (www.universalcycletheory.com).
No comments:
Post a Comment