Nofear Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 In our sun, some 4.5 million tons of mass is being converted into massless energy each second (and a tiny bit of that gets reconverted back into massive energy later -- the conversion goes both ways). We ought not be naive about our concept of mass. I'm quite confident Joseph Smith, Abraham, Parley P. Pratt, etc. would all be willing to clarify the language of their revelations, inspirations, exegeses to a form consistent with our modern usage of terms if given the chance.
thesometimesaint Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 In our sun, some 4.5 million tons of mass is being converted into massless energy each second (and a tiny bit of that gets reconverted back into massive energy later -- the conversion goes both ways). We ought not be naive about our concept of mass. I'm quite confident Joseph Smith, Abraham, Parley P. Pratt, etc. would all be willing to clarify the language of their revelations, inspirations, exegeses to a form consistent with our modern usage of terms if given the chance. Agreed.
Rob Osborn Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Incorrect. E=MC(squared) That is how our sun works. It combines Hydrogen in a thermonuclear explosion to form Helium in a release of excess energy. Like I said, you can change its structure but you cannot destroy or make matter disappear.
Rob Osborn Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 The first question to clear up is this... Rob, do you consider "energy" to be "matter"? Energy is matter in motion. It may change its nuclear structure as in nuclear fision but you never can turn matter which has mass into a form where it loses its mass. Much has been debated on whether photons have mass. I studied it for years when I was a teenager into my early teens. Not much has changed to this day some 20 years later. Its still debated that photons have mass because of it being effected by gravity and also being sucked into black holes. Some just say its space being bent. But, why then should light also be effected if it were to have no mass? There is some logic involved however. In order for a body to be effected by a source of energy it has to be physically touched by something acting upon it. For instance- when the wind blows we say there is energy in the wind. In reality this is true but the energy is just air molecules which are moving intoand colliding with other matter that is at rest. Even in E=Mc2 it is entire logic that in order for a body to have energy it must have mass. But, this does not mean that the matter itself turns into energy that has no mass. It means that a body of mass has x amount of power according to its mass and that mass can change its elemental structure into smaller particles that no longer are bound to the nucleus of an atom and thus vacate causing massive collisions such as seen in nuclear reactors. All this energy though is just mass in motion- a lot of motion. So, in the end, mass is never destroyed nor created, it just changes its elemental properties and in the process smaller particles such as electrons once bound escape or become unbound causing these smaller pieces of mass to collide.
cdowis Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Some of it has been confirmed under lab conditions. But the problem revolves around the assumptions of the initial conditions. I remember decades ago when scientists discovered that protein was produced under the initial conditions of earth's creation. They beat their chest, and bragged how they discovered the beginnings of life. Any day now they will have something crawling out of the test tube.... until someone pointed out that these "initial conditions" were wrong.
Nofear Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I think that Rob Osborn has me muted (doesn't bother me). But as a physicist I will publicly declare that his science in post #279 is fatally flawed. Instead of going into details Particle Adventure is an oldie but goodie for how some of the basics. 3
Rob Osborn Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I think that Rob Osborn has me muted (doesn't bother me). But as a physicist I will publicly declare that his science in post #279 is fatally flawed. Instead of going into details Particle Adventure is an oldie but goodie for how some of the basics. Not really sure what you are getting at. All I am saying is that you cannot destroy nor create matter and that energy is just mass in motion. In the D&C it even speaks of light as being matter but hat it is more finer or purer.
Gray Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 But the problem revolves around the assumptions of the initial conditions. I remember decades ago when scientists discovered that protein was produced under the initial conditions of earth's creation. They beat their chest, and bragged how they discovered the beginnings of life. Any day now they will have something crawling out of the test tube.... until someone pointed out that these "initial conditions" were wrong. I'm not sure the "beat their chest, and bragged" characterization is fair or accurate. But there have been multiple promising developments
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Not really sure what you are getting at. All I am saying is that you cannot destroy nor create matter and that energy is just mass in motion. In the D&C it even speaks of light as being matter but hat it is more finer or purer. Energy is more than just mass in motion. The four fundamental forces of the universe are gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear, force. Light in the scripture is truth and knowledge, and has nothing to do with matter. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Edited April 9, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Nofear Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Energy is more than just mass in motion. The four fundamental forces of the universe are gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear, force. Light in the scripture is truth and knowledge, and has nothing to do with matter. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment He confused spirit matter (which is more fine and pure) and "light".
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 He confused spirit matter (which is more fine and pure) and "light". Could's be.
Rob Osborn Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Energy is more than just mass in motion. The four fundamental forces of the universe are gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear, force. Light in the scripture is truth and knowledge, and has nothing to do with matter. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment I understand that energy is more than just "mass in motion". My only point I was making was that you cannot create nor destroy matter. My point about light having mass was in reference to the D&C where it speaks of spirit matter as "light" and has mass only that it is finer.
Rob Osborn Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 He confused spirit matter (which is more fine and pure) and "light". Spirit matter is "light".
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Spirit matter is "light". Light is not matter. it is an electromagnetic force that when the wave function collapses and it acts like a particle.
eddie Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Light is not matter. it is an electromagnetic force that when the wave function collapses and it acts like a particle. It is energy, and energy can be converted to matter, and matter to energy. This of course is with our finite understanding of the laws of physics and the universe.
Rob Osborn Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Light is not matter. it is an electromagnetic force that when the wave function collapses and it acts like a particle. Well, thats mans theory of it. Revelation tells us that light is spirit matter and that it is made of a finer matter.
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 It is energy, and energy can be converted to matter, and matter to energy. This of course is with our finite understanding of the laws of physics and the universe. Agreed.
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Well, thats mans theory of it. Revelation tells us that light is spirit matter and that it is made of a finer matter. Bring on the Cockatrices.
Rob Osborn Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Its completely ludicrous to think one can take physical matter that takes up space and convert it into something that has no matter and takes up no space.
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure the "beat their chest, and bragged" characterization is fair or accurate. I guess you did not see Carl Sagen's TV episode. He had a way with words, and took a couple of laps around the field as he demonstrated the origin of life. "Of course, we aren't going to see something crawl out of the container (using hand gestures), but that took millions of years." Edited April 10, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Its completely ludicrous to think one can take physical matter that takes up space and convert it into something that has no matter and takes up no space. E=MC(squared)
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I guess you did not see Carl Sagen's TV episode. He had a way with words, and took a couple of laps around the field as he demonstrated the origin of life. "Of course, we aren't going to see something crawl out of the container (using hand gestures), but that took millions of years." What is a few million years to eternal beings?
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 What is a few million years to eternal beings? Sigh. It was later shown that the conditions of the experiment were faulty, as noted in my previous post. After millions of years, it would still be soup.
Gray Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I guess you did not see Carl Sagen's TV episode. He had a way with words, and took a couple of laps around the field as he demonstrated the origin of life. "Of course, we aren't going to see something crawl out of the container (using hand gestures), but that took millions of years." I haven't, but none of the laboratory findings I was referring to happened in his life time.
Rob Osborn Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 E=MC(squared) As you will note, the equation has to do with the energy of ones mass not the converting of it from matter into non matter.
Recommended Posts