Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
If you were wrong about the Eagles, could you be wrong about DNA and the Big bang?
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: first thing    was wrong.If   Big bang   debate  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't say I don't know what is meant by intelligence in the design of nature. It is clearly designed by an intellect, outside of nature. I merely say what it cannot be from a scientific standpoint, construed to mean anything beyond that. That is the correct application of the rigor of science. We can speculate as to what it suggests and many do, including that it points to the existence of a superior spiritual being, such as the Christian God. As I am a Christian, that is my faith-based interpretation of that evidence, but I would never be persuaded to claim it is a scientifically based assertion, for the simple reason no scientific evidence exists which proves that. I'd have thought that is pretty obvious.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Spare me the rest of you assumptions which are not relevant here.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: goal posts    big bang theory   atheist   better analogy  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think the only disconnect we have left is that you believe science holds that nature is designed in general. That is a reflection of more faith-based interpretations of scientific findings.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't know how old you are, but our text books claimed the Big Bang was the beginning of three dimensions, time, matter and space. It was always taught as those three. Atheism has shifted the goal posts so many times now, it is hard to keep up.
No, mate. As a kid I fully accepted the whole kit and kaboodle of the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. As science advanced it became obvious that many clearer, smarter heads were rejecting these theories on solid grounds. You can't put the Genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back in the tube. I have done the hard yards and am just not prepared to accept junk science anymore. It is the atheists who are afflicted, not others and funny how it is ONLY atheists who are. That speaks volumes.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
...and I wouldn't disagree with the BB being the beginning of 3 dimensions along with space, time, and matter. How are the goalposts being shifted here?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not remember the Department of Energy defining what physics theories are. Your "lol"-s do nothing but expose your insecurity and inability to admit when you are wrong.
When you have no clue what the big bang theory is and what it states, what makes you want to debate people on the subject who are actually certified professionals in it?
This is a very strange phenomenon among many people: that they choose to just make up stuff in their heads and substitute reality for that stuff. Someone says something, and they will think, "Ah, he says a different thing from what I just heard". They are really like Cathy Newman:
"I think women and men have different psychologies."
"Guys, look, Jordan just said that women are inferior to men!"
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well then, explain how one bunch of cells, with no intelligence knows how to form a nose, another bunch knows how to form skin and another how to form toenails? Of course they need information, which is contained in DNA. If you are going to deny that, then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You would be defying proven, accepted, undisputed scientific fact. Are you gonna do that? Then you whine ...
Sure, but it changes nothing. A few nucleotides and acids clumping together still can't build a life form in any event, and certainly not with necessary complex and specific characteristics. The length, shape and organisation of the protein strings are critical. The information in the DNA and how that code is specifically arranged in the right order, in the correct permutations is critical to the characterization of every cell and every cell's function. Without this information the cells cannot function, are useless, just blobs. Then you delve into the depths of the nano world with this ....
It still changes nothing. No matter how minuscule the particles under the microscope become, the ultimate question remains, whatever the first dot, first spark may eventually be proved to be, whatever the source, whatever the abiogenesis I T W I L L H A V E T O H A V E C O M E F R O M N O T H I N G and that is the very obvious fact which atheism just refuses to accept. It is the billion dollar question which atheism refuses to countenance. Funny how it is ONLY atheists who are afflicted with this blind spot. Your next remark confirms that, as follows ....
DNA and Einstein's equation seriously close the God gap, not widen it and there it is, again, in black white, the very stubborn resistance which afflicts atheists and atheism, alone. It is a croc. A fraud.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've seen the claim that BB was not an explosion made by many atheists, but only in the last decade. Prior to then it was always a solid claim that the Big Bang was an explosion which birthed the beginning of time space and matter. Always, yet three people on this page are claiming it was not an explosion - just an expansion, LOL. It appeared your previous comment endorsed that too.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Big Bang    solid claim   beginning of time space   last decade  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Explosion" is expansion of matter in space; it cannot happen in the lack of space. Hence, "explosion which births the beginning of time, space and matter" is a phrase that makes no sense.
The Big Bang Theory also has nothing to do with atheism; there is plenty of religious physicists who accept the evidence implying its validity. Your problem, once again, is not that you are religious, but that you are irrational.
Your debating style is also extremely weak: put words into people's mouths and attack those words. You have rarely, if ever, addressed the actual arguments people make.
Stop hiding behind your religiousness; nobody cares about it. Your arguments are just poor, is all.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
For the record, I accept what the experts say: the BB was an expansion of space and not an explosion.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Big Bang    possible difference   solid claim   beginning of time space  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I may one day be proved wrong, but as it stands right now, at this minute, science has already shown that a cell cannot be functional without intelligent information. There is no information which is unintelligible and at the same time useful. Unintelligible information is all that could be created from any random collection of it. Intelligible data is the definition of information. Unintelligible data is not the definition of information, so I can't even contemplate the hypothesis you propose, let alone provide an answer in the affirmative or the negative, because I don't consider it is a scientific possibility. Science has moved right away from the randomness of natural selection and Darwin's hypothesis due to the discovery of DNA . Random selection is no longer accepted as a viable hypothesis by the science which is prepared to countenance the facts.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: real question    Unintelligible information   intelligent information   information  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
What you are really saying is that the scientists who specialize in the field of energy in the Department of Energy, have no clue how to define energy, let alone teach its origins? The lecturer has "Dr." in front of his name too. But I guess you know best. Right. Got it. LOL! ... and spare us all your amateur psychoanalyses. We really don't need them, May. Then you wrote ....
That's rich coming from someone who has demonstrated no inclination at all to debate me here on the Big Bang theory, while accusing someone who IS prepared to debate it. As I said before to you, May, if you think I am so clueless, then why are you so unprepared to debate me on the subject, instead of being only interested in reducing the debate to a personal slinging match? If you find my responses so worthless, then you should be able to destroy them hands down, but you make no attempt to. LOL! If you can't see how your persistence in this vein exposes your own ignorance, then God help you.
If your penchant is to discuss psychoanalyses, you are in the wrong topic. Now debate the topic or shove off and quite wasting space, which we all have to scroll past. Soon you will be on Dee's level.
.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
I never said anything of the kind. I accept there are explosions of stars ongoing and that the Universe is continually expanding. As for why I reject the BB Theory I have already clearly stated those reasons under this topic. I reject it on the basis that it is peddled as the genesis of time, space and matter. It simply is not logical that it could be. It is an oxymoron in and of itself. That's why I reject it. For a more complete explanation of my reasons for accepting that it is an oxymoron, you need to follow the COMPLETE conversation in here and read my responses to others.
If everyone pigeon-holed the discussion to just between themselves and me, I would have to re-type every answer every time to everyone. It is E X P E C T E D that commenters are following the discussion. Kindly oblige.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: complete explanation of my reasons    nbsp   possible difference   expansion of space  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
Logic requires analysis of claims, not people who made them. Whether something is said by a doctor of philosophy or by a random guy from cornfields does not change the validity or invalidity of that something.
All I see from you is "you, you, you". So many claims about what I am willing or unwilling to do or my general qualities, but not a single attempt to address the actual arguments I make.
Invite me to a date already. You seem more interested in me than I myself am! I do not generally date guys, especially such stubborn ones, but I am willing to make an exception in this particular case as a gesture of good will.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I couldn't agree more, but that's what has been taught in schools for decades. I still have a textbook which has that very definition in its text. As I said, atheism has been shifting the goal posts of its definition since strenuous criticism of the Theory began to surface, testimony to the fact that it was never a solid theory at all, merely a narrative, which narrative keeps changing. That is not how science works. Once a Theory is disproved, then the Theory is taken off the table and a new Theory replaces it, but do you think the atheists will ever admit the BBT was, is, or will ever be a croc? Nah. They just keep changing its definition and as each new and ignorant generation comes along, it's taught the latest definition as if it was always the Theory. Such a truckload of bullshite and an abuse of the rigors of science too. You now claim ...
Well, I would expect an atheist to deny that, while everyone else with any merit and knowledge knows two things. It was invented by atheist establishment scientists, defended by atheist establishment scientists and in its dying last gasps only atheists remain clinging to it. So what does that tell us? Plenty. If you read literature which went beyond confirmation bias, May, your knowledge would be much broader, much deeper and much wiser. Instead your knowledge is shaped by your bias, commonly known as a closed mind, but you are not alone. Every atheist MUST do the same thing, otherwise they could not be an atheist.
Spare me the personal attacks which are based on zero. I merely rebut yours. If you refrained from making such, there would be nothing to rebut and no weaponizing of the personal even occurring here.
.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is taught in schools has little to do with what goes on in sciences. Am I supposed to dismiss all science because some people write books with false claims in them and some teachers choose to use those books?
Who are "atheist establishment scientists"? I am not aware of such a group of people.
No atheist must do anything; every human is a free individual, free to believe and say whatever they want. There is no hive mind among us, or some sort of deviation in our brains making us unable to think and come to our own conclusions. There are atheists who question BBT, and there are religious people who look favorably to it.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
What you personally are supposed to do is not even relevant. What IS relevant is that the SCHOOL SYLLABUS was hijacked by this junket science - the Big Bang and Evolution Theories - right across the Western sphere and, in spite of scientists now being fully aware that both have been seriously shown to be questionable Theories, both are still taught as the official line. Worse, the atheist cabal of scientists in the establishment refuse to allow that either has been disproved in the actual scientific sense, regardless of that transition. Whenever elements of a Theory are disproved and collapse the Theory, then it is usual scientific practice to take that Theory off the table, but that hasn't happened. Witness all of you in here still defending these two Theories. The only section of the original Big Bang Theory which remotely resembled fact was the expansion of the universe, still an observable fact today. The rest of it was and still is a truckload of horseshite. Then you plead ignorance, which can only be expected, coming from an atheist with this pretence ...
They are corralled in the areas of influence, which control the dissemination of scientific material, whether it be in the Education Dept., the peer reviewed science journals, the Nobel Prize selectors, involved in influential research NGOs, likewise in influential Think Tanks of the science sector and the publishing of scientific data, critiques, reports, media, you name it. Atheism is like Socialism/Communism. Both have commandeered the "influence peddling" industry, the Ministries of Propaganda. That's where they ferret their livelihoods from, a whole horde of them bunkered down in the bureaucracy in order to "control" the information the public receives and believes, whether it be science, religion, social norms, politics, history, whatever, wherever it serves their political and social engineering Agenda.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
DNA: it evolved. We’re not sure exactly how, but one theory is that there were chains of self-replicating cells, and by accident one of them was a bit different and became RNA, which later evolved into DNA.
You see, science cannot provide all the answers straight away. Scientists are working to find the answers, and by following science and scientific news, you may see the answers emerge. Just because something is not clear is no excuse for theists to invoke the argument “Well God must have done it”. It’s plainly illogical. @Grafix
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.82  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: scientific argument    chains of self-replicating cells   arguments   instruction manual  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is the "official line"? People at schools are exposed to various views and theories; nobody forces them to accept anything if they do not want to. There is no "official line", there are individual schools and teachers making their curriculum.
In any case, what people are taught at schools has nothing to do with what the theory actually is.
According to this paper (from 2007), just a bit over a third of scientists in the US working at elite universities do not believe in god; in physics it it ~40%:
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/54/2/289/1676075?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Sounds like it is actually the religious scientists that are running the show overall, not the atheist ones.
Acceptance of the BBT does not just occur among the religious scientists; even prominent religious figures have spoken in favor of it. Even one of the Catholic Popes has said explicitly that the BBT does not conflict with the Christian world view.
The BBT is also widely accepted in scientific communities in heavily religious Muslim countries, where questioning religion is outlawed and the science is run by theocrats.
Sounds like it is not all some evil atheist conspiracy.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
. Put your ridiculous nonsense about the Eagle to bed proving easily ( again) you’re a lousy debater
****They treat material evidence on the historical record, regarding occurrences involving Christ,
“Occurrences” oh , you mean “miracles” and slyly try to introduce it in the back door , most credible Historians accept a man called Jesus lived , not one credible Historian believes the claims of miracles or divinity
****which are verified and authenticated, in the same way.
No they’re not , point out one credible Historian that says so
****They do the same in the scientific discipline, denying the impact of DNA, that it is evidence of Intelligent Design in creation.
Post up one peer review paper that supports your ? What ? You cannot , I know
***Atheists deny that.
Peer reviewed paper?
****Why?
We don’t swallow
****They do the same regarding Einstein's equation, E=mc², concerning the question of relativity.
Do “they”?
***I don't think atheists truly understand the implications of Einstein's equation, which he said himself proves the existence of a higher intelligence,
But a nut like you does it seems? Einstein never stated anything “proves” a higher intelligence
**yet atheists will not accept even the scientist's own words on this.
You mean words he never uttered?
****Why do atheists do this?
Why do we deny ? Work it out Sherlock
***The reason is obvious. It is because the facts do not support their position, so they are compelled to deny them, which subsequently sees them denying the historical and verified record, no matter how well-documented and authenticated it is.
You have presented no “facts” only claims as usual
***Can atheists prove me wrong?
There’s nothing to prove you given nothing but your biased opinion which is absolutely worthless
Your claims you cannot support ( yet again )
1: Solid proof for miracle claims/divinity of Jesus or as you call them “occurrences “
2: Peer reviewed papers regards your claims for intelligent design so far , zero
3: Yet another appeal to authority and this time it’s Einstein
Your claim that Einstein said the implications of E=mc² proved a higher intelligence is nonsense , it’s yet another lie in an ever increasing list of such
Also Einstein thought people like you swallowed infantile childish stories which were pure fantasy, I agree
  Considerate: 36%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    Einstein's equation   BS claims of miracles   existence of a higher intelligence  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I’m going to put you up for an award for attempting to educate lost causes and one for patience in your endeavors to do so
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: award    patience   endeavors   causes  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why? Can you provide an alternative that can survive scientific rigor, if not, can you provide valid falsifiable justification to drop or amend BBT? If you can't do either of these, could it be you reject the BBT because of Ideological reasons and not because of the evidence?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: scientific rigor    BB Theory   Ideological reasons   alternative  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
Does this equation E = m c ² look the same or mean the same as this equation E = M C ^ ² ?? It does not, although that is the equation you seek to debate and attempt to compel me to debate. They're not the same.at all, so quit with the sleight of hand here. You then claim that energy is mass and that mass is energy. Almost, but not quite the correct way to express it. Just because the two share the basic component of energy does not mean they are equally interchangeable at all in their static state. They are not. Energy is not mass period. Energy can be motion, friction or thermal, etc. but it is never mass. Mass is not energy in its static form, either, although it is potential energy. Motion is necessary to create the transition of mass to energy, which then becomes kinetic energy. These qualifiers are important.
All of your high falutin' scientific terminology, which I refuse to engage in for the benefit of those who do not understand it, does not mean that you are more correct, nor does it mean that my way of explaining the equation is low order schoolbook maths, either. It is far from it. The damage to the wall testifies to that when we compare the impression in the wall from the FORCE of the jet-engined Mini with the impression in the wall from the FORCE of the 850 Mini. Force = Energy. It is synonymous with Energy. Force or Energy are synonymous with mass only when mass is multiplied by motion. Motion is speed, which is also energy. As all energy travels at the speed of light, Einstein sought to discover the totality of ALL energy and quantify it. That required the inclusion of static, potential energy contained in mass. To release static energy and transition it to its naked form requires the application of speed to mass. He showed the relativity between energy in mass and the totality of all energy in existence when it is released from mass.
That is the same equation they use in atomic explosions - the release of energy from mass by splitting atoms at astronomical speeds = force. If the purpose of a nuclear bomb is not to release an indescribable force, Bozo, then what is its purpose - a Sunday picnic?. So, it is neither mass nor energy which are increased, given both are constants. It is force which is increased when the constants of mass and energy are multiplied by speed, which provides the sum of potential naked energy released from the mass. The level of force produced is relative to the volume of mass and relative speed. That is the relativity the equation demonstrates..In other words the world has enough potential energy to vaporize itself in the blink of an eye if ever all of its potential energy were ever released all at once. The same energy which brought it into existence can snuff it out.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: equation E    nbsp   own hand   nuclear fission  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you engaging in Anti Religious discrimination with these very words?
"Stop hiding behind your religiousness; nobody cares about it. Your arguments are just poor, is all."
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
What's more wrong?
The anti religious discrimination, or people being peacefully non religious oriented, or being peacefully religious oriented?
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 76%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious discrimination    people   anti    
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Grafix said: Please tell me what mutation is then. If you think that DNA is always intelligent, then that means you think that mutation that kills the cell is intelligible.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** did you graduate high school? the "^" denotes exponentiation. The two equations you wrote are the same.
Bet he will come up with some as a response
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 73%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
did you graduate high school? the "^" denotes exponentiation. The two equations you wrote are the same you moron!
The equation does in fact mean that mass and energy are the same thing, mass is energy, if you don't believe me I will show you what nukes are all about! Nuclear fission turns mass into energy, so does nuclear fusion. This is reality, get on my level!
That is in blatant violation of the law of the conservation of momentum, "An object at rest stays at rest, an object in motion stays in motion" Grade school stuff. What I am claiming has nothing to do with ice, and just adding motion doesn't make an object turn into energy, that isn't it at all. Adding momentum adds mass to the object, such that it can never reach or exceed the speed of light, because to add more speed means more energy is needed, which approaches infinity at the speed of light. This is reality, get on my level!
LOL! So you think that momentum and E = mc^2 are the same thing? No, you should not be applying general relativity here because the effects are so small that you can just use Newtonian physics to calculate the force of the impact. Assuming the mass of the vehicles is the same then the one moving faster relative to the wall is the one that does the most damage, because it has a higher inertial frame. No need to use Einstein here. This is reality get on my level!
That would be very self indulgent wouldn't it, being as you are the one who is trying to argue against it in your ignorance. You should really read a book before you make yourself look any dumber. This is reality, get on my level!
No, it has nothing to do with the speed of splitting atoms. In fact, conventional reactors and nuclear weapons use highly enriched Uranium, which is a thermal fuel, meaning it absorbs neutrons at thermal energies. In practice, this means they are not moving fast as apposed to fast fuels (i.e. low enriched uranium) in order to fission. The force comes from the mass defect as I have lectured you on before now 3 times. The mass of a Uranium nucleus is more than the mass of two daughter nucli (and extra neutrons if applicable) thus some of that mass turned into energy.
MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
Until he accepts that this is reality and gets on my level, I don't think anyone should be talking to him if he refuses to be educated.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: top of the peak of the dunning-Kruger graph    ing idea   nuclear reactions   reality  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
He’s beyond education he’s too far gone this clot believes card and coin tricks are the work of Satan , men dressed up for the opening of CERN were actually demons and scientists are in a satanic plot ( because they’re Commies ) to overthrow young Earth creationists he makes Ricky D look balanced which takes some doing
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: young Earth creationists    coin tricks   work of Satan   opening of CERN  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
"EAGLES CAN SWIM, MASS IS ENERGY, DNA DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE.
This is reality get on my level!"
until he gets the picture.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** . I'm not getting paid to educate this guy
He actually claimed you and I were getting paid to post comments on here , I still haven’t got my dough feeling a bit put out
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: guyHe    comments   dough   bit  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: general incompetance    bait   laugh    
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whatever you do, please do not create another spam post. Its effing annoying to have to scroll through that time after time.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: effing    spam   @Happy_Killbot   time  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can't have any kind of useful discussion with someone who has the level of knowledge of a high school freshman coupled with the conviction of an conquering dictator.
Arguments from ignorance and the god of the gaps fallacy do not a good argument make, and quite frankly, those things annoy me.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: kind of useful discussion    level of knowledge of a high school freshman   conviction of an conquering dictator.Arguments   truth  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
No doubt he will take our denial as acceptance that we are getting paid
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Worst case scenario    realization   things   mind  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes that’s possibly the best approach . I think also your original observation about his religion is right as in he’s definitely a Catholic as recently he kept using the Douay Rheims bible which is the one most used by Catholics when it comes to biblical translations
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: kind of useful discussion    level of knowledge of a high school freshman   conviction of an conquering dictator.Arguments   god of the gaps fallacy  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ideology of hopelessness    argument   atheist   atheists  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** What argument does the atheist have for their ideology of hopelessness?
None, because Atheism is a position on one question and one question alone , nothing else ...What ? ......Oh , you’re welcome
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 76%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The thing is, his level of knowledge is too low for us to have any kind of meaningful discourse. Normally this isn't a big deal if someone is open minded and willing to learn, I have no problem informing them about where exactly their ideas fall apart, and sharing my knowledge with them, or perhaps learning from them if there is something they know more about than me.
But when that lack of knowledge comes with the assumption of knowledge, there is no productive discussion which can occur. Gullibility topped with ignorance and sandwiched between two loaves of conviction is a recipe for disaster. He is so dumb he isn't even aware of what he doesn't know, and can't fathom that anyone could be smarter than him. It could take years to educate this person enough to get him to a level of knowledge capable of having any idea why what he is thinking is wrong, and it is neither my responsibility nor my intention to educate him any further. That is firmly his responsibility and I am not wasting any more time trying to educate this imbecile.
It is going to be faster and more productive to talk to this person in a language he understands, which is this case is simple, , and marginally accurate. If you need evidence of this, just look at my very first response to him, which has arguably been the most productive thus far in this entire thread, and I literally wrote it as a joke. He marked it as "great argument" This is a common theme with him. As much as it disgusts me to admit it, there can be no constructive argumentation with those programmed to reject reality. We must therefore adapt our way of discussing things to a more compatible mode of discussion.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: words of life    Truth   restraint   Dee  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'd encourage you to ask honestly how non-believers view the world. I doubt very many will grant the fatalistic nihilism you suspect of them. I certainly don't.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Big bang    much proof   greater chance   evolution  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lack of honesty    atheism   forum   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
What makes you think I had an issue with the exponent? I didn't. I take issue with the the case of each letter in the way you wrote the equation.. These are important and it is incorrect to show the equation as, for example,
e = MC² or even as E=MC^2. This is because physicists use the case of letters as well as the letters themselves, to denote particular physical entities, quantities and constants in equations. As Einstein was expressing the constants of mass and energy it must be written as E=mc² . NEXT ...
Why is energy not mass? Take a log of wood and burn it. The wood gets lighter as it burns the fuel. However, all of the ash, the tiny smoke particles, the water vapour produced from the combustion still weigh exactly equal to the mass of the log before it was burnt up. Altering its chemical properties does not alter its volume or mass at all. It's mass remains the same. It is simply converted to other chemical properties.
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra