thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 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. Sigh right back at you. That life is biochemistry is well established. The hunt for the exact process of that chemistry continues. IE; Man dreamt for thousands of years of going to the moon. We even had religious leaders (Like Joseph Fielding Smith) declare that God would NEVER allow men to go there. Guess what. We went, and presented Joseph Fielding Smith with a flag that went there. Even today you can still go on the internet a find those that believe the moon landings to be fake.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 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. The Atomic bomb does just that.
Nofear Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Physicists draw a distinction between energy and mass because they behave differently despite there being an equivalency between the two. For example, light cannot help but go the speed of light, matter can have different speeds. E=mc2 isn't just a willy-nilly conversion but there are bounds and conditions existent to matter that have to be obeyed such as conservation of charge (i.e. mass cannot convert to energy in a way that would result in the creation of destruction of electric charge). One can say whatever they want all their live-long days. But for the sake of comprehensible communication with the rest of humanity it is appropriate to adopt the linguistic conventions in play*. Current convention draws a non-trivial distinction between energy and mass. * If those linguistic conventions result in miscomprehension it would be appropriate to change them. I have seen nothing even approaching a viable cause to do so from any of the interlocutors in this thread. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 The Atomic bomb does just that.Wrong. The atomic bomb creates its energy by changing the elemental structure. Nuclear reactions occur when neutrons are fired at closely packed atoms with heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium isotopes). These heavy nuclei break apart into lighter nuclei when hit by a neutron, in turn generating more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, creating a chain reaction. This process is known as fission.These smaller particles are the energy.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Wrong. The atomic bomb creates its energy by changing the elemental structure. Nuclear reactions occur when neutrons are fired at closely packed atoms with heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium isotopes). These heavy nuclei break apart into lighter nuclei when hit by a neutron, in turn generating more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, creating a chain reaction. This process is known as fission.These smaller particles are the energy. Incorrect Gama Rays, and Heat, are not particles.
Rob Osborn Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Incorrect Gama Rays, and Heat, are not particles. You cannot take something that has mass and turn it into something that doesn't have any mass. The energy of a particle acting upon another is because of motion and interaction of mass. Heat for example is something we can feel with our senses and can be measured by electronic and physical instruments. But are we feeling or observing some invisible massless thing? No, we are measuring or feeling the actual increased motion activity of masses- thats the energy.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 You cannot take something that has mass and turn it into something that doesn't have any mass. The energy of a particle acting upon another is because of motion and interaction of mass. Heat for example is something we can feel with our senses and can be measured by electronic and physical instruments. But are we feeling or observing some invisible massless thing? No, we are measuring or feeling the actual increased motion activity of masses- thats the energy. Incorrect. Heat, Light, and Gama Radiation are not matter.http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/ReflectanceSpectroscopy.pdfhttp://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/f/Why-Are-Light-And-Heat-Not-Matter.htm
Rob Osborn Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Incorrect. Heat, Light, and Gama Radiation are not matter. http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/ReflectanceSpectroscopy.pdf http://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/f/Why-Are-Light-And-Heat-Not-Matter.htm Depends on how you define heat. What is heat? Excited particles/atoms/molecules that interact with other particles/atoms/molecules. I guess one could say that heat is an invisible thing but then what exactly is it? The same goes for light.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Depends on how you define heat. What is heat? Excited particles/atoms/molecules that interact with other particles/atoms/molecules. I guess one could say that heat is an invisible thing but then what exactly is it? The same goes for light. I use the dictionary for my definitions. I don't know where you are getting yours. Please stop using your own special definitions of words. It is frustrating to have a meaningful conversion with you if you continue to do so. Heat is but one form of electromagnetic energy that can excite electrons(a part of atoms) of matter into a higher electron orbit. Light is another. When the orbits collapse to their previous orbits what it gives off is heat. It is not the atom itself but the orbits of the electrons that count. The microwave oven you probably have in your kitchen is one example of microwave (electromagnetic) energy exciting the electrons in water molecules in your food to heat it. It only incidentally heats the air in the oven because of the heat from the hot food. Heat is normally invisible to the human eye, but many animals see energy in the infrared part of the energy spectrum.. We humans have developed camera's that can see in that part of the energy spectrum. They see heat. But the camera's themselves are not that heat, they merely see it, and translate it into pictures we can understand. IE; I can't see you personally right now. I am really just responding to electronic blips of energy I see as light on my computer screen. That translate those blips into something I can understand. BTW Even if you were within my sight. I still would not touch your atoms. I would just see the energy you reflected in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All this is really basic stuff. It would be much easier for both of us if you took a few basic science classes at you local college.
Rob Osborn Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 So, conductive heat is not excited atoms that bump into other atoms that thus too become excited and pass the chain reaction on? Why is the metal hot when I sand it with friction? What is the heat? Its the physical contact of friction of physical matter.
iamse7en Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 All the "facts" regarding timeline, cosmic events, species and their changes over time, planets and suns and their changes over time will be completely different when they re-re-re-redo this show in a hundred years.
Calm Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Perhaps this will help the discussion:http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has. The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint....But for the moment, suffice it to say that energy is not itself an object. An atom is an object; energy is not. Energy is something which objects can have, and groups of objects can have — a property of objects that characterizes their behavior and their relationships to one another. [Though it should be noted that different observers will assign different amounts of energy to a given object --- a tricky point that is illustrated carefully in the above-mentioned article on mass and energy.] And for this article, all we really need to know is that particles moving on their own through space can have two types of energy: mass-energy (i.e., E= mc2 type of energy, which does not depend on whether and how a particle moves) and motion-energy (energy that is zero if a particle is stationary and becomes larger as a particle moves faster). Edited April 12, 2014 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 So, conductive heat is not excited atoms that bump into other atoms that thus too become excited and pass the chain reaction on? Why is the metal hot when I sand it with friction? What is the heat? Its the physical contact of friction of physical matter. Friction is just one type of heat. The main source of heat is our sun. We don't get hot by rubbing our atoms with the sun. The space between us and the sun is actually very cold. Please please take a couple of basic science classes before you make such demonstrably false claims about it.
MiserereNobis Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 Friction is just one type of heat. The main source of heat is our sun. We don't get hot by rubbing our atoms with the sun. The space between us and the sun is actually very cold. Please please take a couple of basic science classes before you make such demonstrably false claims about it. And I'll add that he should please read those philosophy of science articles I suggested, too. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 And I'll add that he should please read those philosophy of science articles I suggested, too. I am not qualified enough to say much about the philosophy of science. But any learning is a good thing.
MiserereNobis Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 I am not qualified enough to say much about the philosophy of science. But any learning is a good thing. Yup, especially if you're going to make big claims about a certain field of knowledge
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Yup, especially if you're going to make big claims about a certain field of knowledge I'm not convinced that putting the supernatural into the natural is of much benefit to either. But then who am I to say what God can do?
Rob Osborn Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Friction is just one type of heat. The main source of heat is our sun. We don't get hot by rubbing our atoms with the sun. The space between us and the sun is actually very cold. Please please take a couple of basic science classes before you make such demonstrably false claims about it. Regardless of your rudeness and lack of respect to carry on an honest open minded dialogue, I am sticking to my guns on the fact that you cannot turn matter into nothing.
pogi Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Regardless of your rudeness and lack of respect to carry on an honest open minded dialogue, I am sticking to my guns on the fact that you cannot turn matter into nothing. Energy is not nothing. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. I learned that in Chemistry when I was studying nursing. It is also important to understand that "light" as spoken of in scripture is not the same light defined by science. Spiritual light is not composed of photons. Spiritual light fills all of space - that simply is not the scientific understanding of light. Science can't measure spiritual matter, but it can measure physical matter, and physical matter can convert to energy. Here's a mind boggler for ya - If spiritual light is matter which fills all of space...what exactly is space? Isn't that a catch 22 phrase? If spiritual matter fills all of space, then there is no space - so what does matter fill?
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) Regardless of your rudeness and lack of respect to carry on an honest open minded dialogue, I am sticking to my guns on the fact that you cannot turn matter into nothing. I am not being rude, though I certainly know to. It is one thing to allow for new information to change your mind, and quite another to dismiss at least 200 years of hard fought scientific progress. That is not a fact. Einstein disproved that idea around a century ago. Robert Oppenheimer disproved it physically conclusively in 1945. I've never claimed that energy is nothing. Matter is almost infinite in its forms and shapes, as simple as the nuclear burning of hydrogen in our sun to the intricacies of the human body. OTOH energy while not nothing it is not matter. From the heat and light of the sun to the bio-chemical electrical firings in our brains. I am humbled that God saw fit to include me in that creation. Edited April 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 The idea of converting matter to energy is nice but not proven to be true. Its all just mass in motion.
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 The idea of converting matter to energy is nice but not proven to be true. Its all just mass in motion. No it is not. The computer screen you're looking at right now is emitting light not matter.http://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/f/Why-Are-Light-And-Heat-Not-Matter.htm
Rob Osborn Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 No it is not. The computer screen you're looking at right now is emitting light not matter.http://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/f/Why-Are-Light-And-Heat-Not-Matter.htmLight is matter, its just smaller particles
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Light is matter, its just smaller particles Incorrect. Light is an electromagnetic wave in the visible part of the spectrum.http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/visible.html Edited April 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint
changed Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Is anyone staying up tonight to watch the eclipse?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gzgSuJM5O8#t=212
Recommended Posts