quote:

---

Gravity is a force, and all forces are the product of some sort of energy. The force that makes two masses attract each other can't really be classified as chemical, thermal, etc., hence the seperate category.

---

quote:

---

As for the rest, your division of energy into those four categories is pretty arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Okay, here's a start. There are a whole *bunch* of different forms of energy. Kinetic energy (movement). Thermal energy (heat). Chemical, gravitational, mechanical and electrical potential energy. Nuclear energy. There are probably a few more I haven't thought of.

---

quote:

---

Yes. You are very wrong.

---

quote:

---

Santa-i think was some pilgrim god then western culture changed it to some queer guy in a red sed that delivers presents to little kids.

---

quote:

---

E=mc^2 is a conversion equation, but one cannot exert a force on an energy with no mass and thus Newton's third law would be violated. However, it's quite possible that non-Newtonian physics allow for forces acting on energy. Where are the local physicists?

---

quote:

---

Energy does indeed exert gravitational force equal to what it would if it were converted to mass, and the two are in many ways the same thing. However, since it takes a great deal of energy to equate to a small amount of mass, and gravity itself is a fairly weak force, the gravitational influence of energy on a system is usually miniscule.

EDIT: A good example is a black hole. Its gravity prevents light (and other massless particles) from escaping, even though light has no mass.

---

quote:

---

But if a point's gravity bends space infinitely, then all of space, as far as that point is concerned, is shrunk down to a volume of zero -- and since the concept of space includes volume, this means there's no space.

---

quote:

---

Pretty much. Applying the laws of physics to singularities frequently leads to results that don't make much sense.

---

quote:

---

The universe began from a singularity. A singularity is a point of infinite density; therefore, gravity at that point is infinite. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so at a singularity, space curves in on itself to zero size and time does not pass. Now remember, our observable universe started with a singularity; if you "rewind" it to the moment of its beginning, at that point space and time curl in on themselves and cease to have any meaning.

---

quote:

---

Current physical models require that to be true in order to make sense…

---

quote:

---

… and since nobody was around then in any case, I don't see that it should bother you so much whether there was or not.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, what is space if there is no matter? Even in the "vacuum" of space there is a certain amount of matter (mainly hydrogen iirc). Without matter, there is nothing space can be measured by. It might as well not exist.

---

quote:

---

Trying to think about things like space and time before such things as matter existed doesn't work. At least not without headaches.

---

quote:

---

Hawking is a logical positivist; he doesn't believe in multiple universes, because they're not observable. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics agrees with him, stating essentially that there's only one universe but some things in it are in an indeterminate state until observed.

---

quote:

---

What's so horrible about wanting to have sex, I'd like to ask?

---

quote:

---

I was a late bloomer and wasn't attracted at all to women until around fifteen or so. But once I felt that first glimmer of attraction, things really began to take off. Just let those hormones do their job, Fringy, and I highly doubt you'll find sex disgusting for long.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

I maintain that the entire education system is, by and large, a waste of time. Higher education may be different, I've no experience with it. I also realise that a lot of fields absolutely require formal education (such as medicine, for example), and am not referring to these.

Having given those disclaimers, I have no qualms saying that I think more often than not, formal education is, at best, very innefficient and you're generally better off bypassing it as much as possible.

Edit: Hmm, that's a lot of qualifiers. :P

---