[EDIT: split from the 'did Jesus exist' thread: [url]http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229564319/28#28[/url]

Physics teaches us matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered.

Therefore, where did matter come from, if it cannot be created?

There has to be something out there. There is too much junk science.

I read recently that every star at its' creation contains RNA or something, the thing which eventually turns itself in to DNA. Might have been in New Scientist. Might also just be speculation and not a proven fact.

Therefore, there is a good chance there is a lot of intelligent life out there, if this RNA/DNA star formation theory is true.

easel wrote on Jan 1^st, 2009 at 6:46pm:

Physics teaches us matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered.

Well it teaches that we cannot create or destroy it. Maybe other things or processes we have not yet encountered or understand can. Also quantum mechanics disagrees with this.


Quote:

Therefore, where did matter come from, if it cannot be created?

Why did it have to come from somewhere?


Quote:

There has to be something out there. There is too much junk science.

There's plenty out there. Just nothing that leads me to believe there is a magic fairyland afterlife for the clever clothed apes on planet earth, in the far outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies in the known universe. Bit on the arrogant side for us to say its all here for us. If our lifespan is extended by medical science sufficiently (say into the thousands of years) we might grow out of our tendency to create mystical afterlifes in our brains.


Quote:

I read recently that every star at its' creation contains RNA or something, the thing which eventually turns itself in to DNA. Might have been in New Scientist. Might also just be speculation and not a proven fact.

Who knows what is in a star - not like we can go and check.


Quote:

Therefore, there is a good chance there is a lot of intelligent life out there, if this RNA/DNA star formation theory is true.

Life is just a chemical reaction, with an infinite universe, there is a good chance there is a lot of life out there. Most of its probably pond scum goo however. Some of it would be advanced. And some of it, of necessity, will not be friendly. Thats why it seemed to me to be remarkably stupid to send Voyager into the universe carrying a map of where earth was, saying 'Hello, evil aliens, here is the location of a very primitive planet for you to destroy or takeover.'

All of that seems pie in the sky stuff, but it would only need to be one group headed our way and we'd be stuffed. And then the inherent unlikelihood of it happening just wouldnt matter anymore, now would it?

Quote:

There's plenty out there. Just nothing that leads me to believe there is a magic fairyland afterlife for the clever clothed apes on planet earth, in the far outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies in the known universe. Bit on the arrogant side for us to say its all here for us. If our lifespan is extended by medical science sufficiently (say into the thousands of years) we might grow out of our tendency to create mystical afterlifes in our brains.

Fair point. My science understanding isn't that detailed. What's the story with energy, is energy considered separate to matter? I assume so, but then again isn't energy stored within matter? I don't know. Let's assume energy is separate to matter. Therefore, would energy be capable of existing outside the known universe, as it would not be contained by physical limits? Is energy the hypothesised cause of matter? That would leave us open to the potential of multiple universes, and potentially a place where the soul, if it exists (I think it does) in a state of energy and not matter, can reside when it leaves the body. Also, isn't energy attracted to other energy, such as magnetic energy, electrical polarity and what have you?

That's just theory straight off the top of my head, I have no idea if any of that is based in scientific fact, I just like reading the simple translations for the layman when it comes to hardcore scientific stuff like that.


Quote:

Life is just a chemical reaction, with an infinite universe, there is a good chance there is a lot of life out there. Most of its probably pond scum goo however. Some of it would be advanced. And some of it, of necessity, will not be friendly. Thats why it seemed to me to be remarkably stupid to send Voyager into the universe carrying a map of where earth was, saying 'Hello, evil aliens, here is the location of a very primitive planet for you to destroy or takeover.' All of that seems pie in the sky stuff, but it would only need to be one group headed our way and we'd be stuffed. And then the inherent unlikelihood of it happening just wouldnt matter anymore, now would it?

That's a fair point too.

Energy and matter are the same thing, according to Einstein (relativity). That's what E=mc^2 is about.

Quote:

Life is just a chemical reaction, with an infinite universe, there is a good chance there is a lot of life out there. Most of its probably pond scum goo however. Some of it would be advanced. And some of it, of necessity, will not be friendly. Thats why it seemed to me to be remarkably stupid to send Voyager into the universe carrying a map of where earth was, saying 'Hello, evil aliens, here is the location of a very primitive planet for you to destroy or takeover.'

I don't think that you can rationally relate anything to infinity.
If you say that there's life out there within an infinite amount of space, then you'd also accept that there's an infinite amount of life out there; an infinite amount of pond scum, an infinite amount of advanced life, an infinite amount of unfriendly life, and an infinite amount of everything else.

As for Voyager carrying a map, if any intelligent lifeform found it, then they probably already know all about us.

I don't think that you can rationally relate anything to infinity.


Quote:

If you say that there's life out there within an infinite amount of space, then you'd also accept that there's an infinite amount of life out there; an infinite amount of pond scum, an infinite amount of advanced life, an infinite amount of unfriendly life, and an infinite amount of everything else.

No I dont accept that. Just because the container is infinitely large, does not mean that what is contained within it is infinite.


Quote:

As for Voyager carrying a map, if any intelligent lifeform found it, then they probably already know all about us.

Nobody has found it yet - it seems. Voyager still travels on its merry way. It was just a dumb thing to do.

...

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:45am:

Energy and matter are the same thing, according to Einstein (relativity). That's what E=mc^2 is about.

Now maths definitely wasn't my strong suit, but looking at that equation;

Energy = (matter x speed of light)^2

Therefore energy is larger than matter by a huge margin. If the theory is correct.

And you would think that it would travel much faster than the speed of light. But that theory might be applicable only to energy contained within matter.

But then, if that energy leaves the matter it is contained in, you would assume it has more speed than light, and therefore would be able to travel faster than the hypothesised expansion of the universe.

Quote:

No I dont accept that. Just because the container is infinitely large, does not mean that what is contained within it is infinite.

I'd agree if you're talking about a container, but infinity means forever. No walls, no boundaries.

Quote:

Therefore energy is larger than matter by a huge margin.

No, it means energy is matter. It's like saying 1 dollar equals 100 cents. They are both currency. Charging $1 or 100c is the same thing. The apparent size really just reflects the units we use. If the designers of SI units had had more forsight, the equation may have read E=m.


Quote:

I'd agree if you're talking about a container, but infinity means forever. No walls, no boundaries.

I'm with Calanen on this one. Infinite in size does not mean infinite in mass, or anything else. It could just be an infinite vaccum. As the diameter of your sphere of observation increases, the mass (or number of life forms or any other proxy) could approach the total mass asymtotically. Infinite space does not have to imply that anything else is infinite. I suspect that the big bang theory suggests a finite mass. I also think that relativity implies infinite space in a cartesian sense, but that in a real sense space folds back in on itself and has a finite size, but you can't reach the edge. That's about the limit of my memory of high school physics.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 8:26pm:

No, it means energy is matter. It's like saying 1 dollar equals 100 cents. They are both currency. Charging $1 or 100c is the same thing. The apparent size really just reflects the units we use. If the designers of SI units had had more forsight, the equation may have read E=m.

Look at the equation again.

E = (mass x speed of light)^2

Energy cannot possibly equal mass. It equals the product of mass and the speed of light, answer squared. Impossible for energy to equal mass on its' own just by using that formula.

Try that with a simple high school formula.

A = XY^2

A does not equal X. It does not equal Y either. It equals XY^2.

Mass and matter are different, google just told me.

I'm not good at physics so go slow if you want to discuss this one with me.

Quote:

Look at the equation again. E = (mass x speed of light)^2

I believe it is

E = mass x (speed of light ^2)

Ok.

I was in the low class for maths at school.

E=MC^2

So you are saying energy is mass x (speed of light)^2 or whatever?

That still doesn't make energy equal to mass.

Quote:

That still doesn't make energy equal to mass.

Yes it does. That's what this symbol -> = means.

Yeah and you will see in the equation that it equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Therefore it isn't equal to mass by itself.

Energy and mass are the same thing. The c^2 part is just a unit conversion. It's like saying $1 and 100c are the same thing, or c = 100 x $. The fact that there is a multiplier just refers to the units you measure it in. Like I said, if we used different units for speed, the formula would be E=m. The c^2 does not mean that the energy is part of sometyhing else. It is the mass. The c^2 just tells you how to convert between the two different measures of the same thing, like converting from pounds to kilograms. The c^2 is a constant, not a variable.

Quote:

I'm with Calanen on this one. Infinite in size does not mean infinite in mass, or anything else. It could just be an infinite vaccum. As the diameter of your sphere of observation increases, the mass (or number of life forms or any other proxy) could approach the total mass asymtotically. Infinite space does not have to imply that anything else is infinite. I suspect that the big bang theory suggests a finite mass. I also think that relativity implies infinite space in a cartesian sense, but that in a real sense space folds back in on itself and has a finite size, but you can't reach the edge. That's about the limit of my memory of high school physics.

Then what if I asked, how many days are contained within an infinite amount of time?
My answer would be, the same amount as the number of hours, minutes, seconds or milliseconds; an infinite amount.

It seems to me to be the same as asking, how much matter is contained in an infinite amount of space.
Since infinite means boundless or unmeasurable, how can you put a measure on what's contained within the unmeasurable?

Just to add:
What does infinty x 1 million equal ?
It equals the same as infinity x 0.0001.

While we are off on irrelevant tangents(thanks FD), it brings to mind when some jehovahs came to my house once, and I asked them what Jesus looked like.

I asked them if there were any references in the bible, which described his appearance.

They did not know, but said they could not think of any, so I asked them if they thought our attitudes would change if he were represented as a grim, dark skinned middle eastern looking man, rather than the beatific european hippie that we are used to seeing.

We see plenty of images on our TV's of middle eastern zealots, and I cannot help but think that an image like that would be far less appealing to our western sensibilities.

---

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:12pm:

Energy and mass are the same thing. The c^2 part is just a unit conversion. It's like saying $1 and 100c are the same thing, or c = 100 x $. The fact that there is a multiplier just refers to the units you measure it in. Like I said, if we used different units for speed, the formula would be E=m. The c^2 does not mean that the energy is part of sometyhing else. It is the mass. The c^2 just tells you how to convert between the two different measures of the same thing, like converting from pounds to kilograms. The c^2 is a constant, not a variable.

As far as I am aware, the theory of relativity has not been proven either way.

So you are saying energy = mass.

I disagree, but I am only basing that off basic human anatomy and understanding.

Eg, two guys can both have exactly 2kg of muscle in a bicep. One guy can move 20kg with that single muscle, the other guy can only manage 10kg. The 20kg guy can move 2kg at a speed much greater than the guy who can only manage 10kg. He can also last a lot longer before hitting failure. So he has more strength, speed, endurance and power than the other guy, even though their mass is exactly the same.

Therefore E cannot equal m.  

Quote:

Then what if I asked, how many days are contained within an infinite amount of time? My answer would be, the same amount as the number of hours, minutes, seconds or milliseconds; an infinite amount.

But time and days are a measure of the same thing. Volume, mass, number of lifeforms etc are not a measure of the same thing. It would be a better analogy to ask how many bell tolls, or how many grains of sand there are in an infinite amount of time.


Quote:

Since infinite means boundless or unmeasurable, how can you put a measure on what's contained within the unmeasurable?

Difficulty in measuring a quantity does not imply the quantity is infinite.


Quote:

As far as I am aware, the theory of relativity has not been proven either way.

It is not possible to prive a scientific theory. Only to attempt to disprove it.


Quote:

So you are saying energy = mass.

I am saying energy is mass. They are two measures of the same thing.


Quote:

Eg, two guys can both have exactly 2kg of muscle in a bicep. One guy can move 20kg with that single muscle, the other guy can only manage 10kg. The 20kg guy can move 2kg at a speed much greater than the guy who can only manage 10kg. He can also last a lot longer before hitting failure. So he has more strength, speed, endurance and power than the other guy, even though their mass is exactly the same. Therefore E cannot equal m.

 

The guy who put more speed (kinetic energy) into the weight would lose slighly more mass (energy) from his muscle than the guy who moved less. Of course, the quantity of energy involved, when measured as mass, would be way beyond insignificant and undetectable compared to the wieght of the muscle. E=mc^2 refers to the total amount of energy, not the minuscule amount that is 'available' through biological or chemical processes.

Quote:

The guy who put more speed (kinetic energy) into the weight would lose slighly more mass (energy) from his muscle than the guy who moved less. Of course, the quantity of energy involved, when measured as mass, would be way beyond insignificant and undetectable compared to the wieght of the muscle. E=mc^2 refers to the total amount of energy, not the minuscule amount that is 'available' through biological or chemical processes.

I don't think you understood my analogy.

I don't buy your idea that for a second, here's why.

Ok, we have 2 generators, identical in all aspects, fuel, conditions, atmosphere etc.

Attached to these generators are identical contraptions, gears/cogs/pulleys/whatever which ends up with a shaft thingo. Both these contraptions are placed in water, not the same place, but identical in every way.

Now attached to these shafts are propellers. Say one is lead, one is titanium, both made with exactly the same mass and proportionate ratios.

Output is measured by infinitely accurate data readers, and prop cavitation is recorded.

What will the results be, even though everything is identical, including power source and mass of propeller? Now, the props are not going to be the same, but in proportion, so in scale of each other, but they will have exactly the same mass.

Your theory says that their output measured in the water through such things as thrust and cavitation, will be the same. I disagree.

Or maybe I am not able to understand what you are trying to explain. Can you make it clearer?

FD, another thing.

If energy was equal to mass, then those special types of uranium would not be necessary to run reactors.

All uranium would be good to go.

Now, I have 1kg of lead, and 1kg of yellow cake uranium (I think that is the right terminology).

Which has more radiation (a type of energy), the lead or the uranium?

Quite clearly, energy does not equal mass.

I think (on Earth with our gravity) mass is equal to weight. Not sure.

Quote:

While we are off on irrelevant tangents(thanks FD), it brings to mind when some jehovahs came to my house once, and I asked them what Jesus looked like.

I think that the comments are intertwined and relevant to the original question Mozz. As is yours, in that Jesus is portrayed as a pretty average looking bloke and not an unatractive nor overly attractive one. IMO, this is because Jesus is a reference point for all people to aspire to, and not such a bad thing.



Quote:

Difficulty in measuring a quantity does not imply the quantity is infinite.

I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about impossibility.

It's impossible to measure because there is no end.
Even if you went out into the furtherest reaches of space and found that the edge of space is a wall of gold ecompassing the entire universe, the question might then be, how much vacuum exists? It's still unanswerable because you don't know what's on the otherside of the wall. But if you asked, how much vacuum exists within this wall, then the wall would then be a reference point and it would be a measurable. The mass contained within this wall would also be measurable.

I'm talking about infinity, meaning forever, which is beyond comprehension and beyond reason.


Quote:

But time and days are a measure of the same thing. Volume, mass, number of lifeforms etc are not a measure of the same thing. It would be a better analogy to ask how many bell tolls, or how many grains of sand there are in an infinite amount of time.

All measurements are reference points.
I don't think you're coming to terms with what "infinity" means.

easel wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 11:37am:

Quote: The guy who put more speed (kinetic energy) into the weight would lose slighly more mass (energy) from his muscle than the guy who moved less. Of course, the quantity of energy involved, when measured as mass, would be way beyond insignificant and undetectable compared to the wieght of the muscle. E=mc^2 refers to the total amount of energy, not the minuscule amount that is 'available' through biological or chemical processes. I don't think you understood my analogy. I don't buy your idea that for a second, here's why. Ok, we have 2 generators, identical in all aspects, fuel, conditions, atmosphere etc. Attached to these generators are identical contraptions, gears/cogs/pulleys/whatever which ends up with a shaft thingo. Both these contraptions are placed in water, not the same place, but identical in every way. Now attached to these shafts are propellers. Say one is lead, one is titanium, both made with exactly the same mass and proportionate ratios. Output is measured by infinitely accurate data readers, and prop cavitation is recorded. What will the results be, even though everything is identical, including power source and mass of propeller? Now, the props are not going to be the same, but in proportion, so in scale of each other, but they will have exactly the same mass. Your theory says that their output measured in the water through such things as thrust and cavitation, will be the same. I disagree. Or maybe I am not able to understand what you are trying to explain. Can you make it clearer?

You appear to be confusing energy with available, or productive energy. The amount of energy present is billions of times greater than the energy you see doing work.


Quote:

If energy was equal to mass, then those special types of uranium would not be necessary to run reactors.

Yes it would. Just because the energy is there does not mean you can harvest it.


Quote:

I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about impossibility.

Same principle. Ju8st because it is impossible to emasure something, does not mean the quantity is infinite. You are confusing two issues, by assuming that the quantity is impossible to measure because it is infinite. Rather, it is impossible to meausre merely because it is spread infinitely thin.


Quote:

I'm talking about infinity, meaning forever, which is beyond comprehension and beyond reason.

But it is not beyond comprehension at all, or reason. It is quite easy to comprehend a finite mass distributed over an infinite space.


Quote:

I don't think you're coming to terms with what "infinity" means.

Yes I am. You are merely confusing infinite space with infinite mass. The two are different things. If one is infinite that does not automatically mean the other is.

Quote:

You appear to be confusing energy with available, or productive energy. The amount of energy present is billions of times greater than the energy you see doing work.

Kinetic energy?

Both propellers are provided with the exact same amount of energy. Exact same. They have the exact same mass (which you think is the same as energy, if it was I think Einstein would have not bothered adding the c^2 to his equation). Now is their output the same? Your theory implies it would be. Are you changing your theory now?


Quote:

Yes it would. Just because the energy is there does not mean you can harvest it.

What kind of energy is in lead apart from potential energy? Potential energy isn't energy, it means it is capable of acquiring energy. The uranium is leeching energy from it without anything having to be done, that's why I think uranium has the same more radioactive energy than the lead, which it does, and why I also think uranium has more energy overall than lead. Potential energy is not energy, it means it has the potential to have energy. I hear lead can absorb radiation though, or deflect it, or something.

Also, when lead leeches energy, it isn't energy it is leeching, it is just other lead which is being removed from it, which is why you get lead contamination of things.

You get radiation poisoning from the uranium, not uranium poisoning. I think that's why you get such things as depleted uranium, when all the radioactive energy has gone.

Quote:

Both propellers are provided with the exact same amount of energy. Exact same. They have the exact same mass (which you think is the same as energy, if it was I think Einstein would have not bothered adding the c^2 to his equation). Now is their output the same? Your theory implies it would be. Are you changing your theory now?

the theory does not imply anything like that, because the energy is not 'output', it remains there, in the form of mass. If the energy were output, the mass would be also.


Quote:

What kind of energy is in lead apart from potential energy?

There are all kinds of energy, potential, kinetic, chemical, nuclear etc. The mass is a measure of the total energy.


Quote:

Potential energy isn't energy,

Yes it is. that's why the call it energy.


Quote:

it means it is capable of acquiring energy

No it doesn't. The energy is already aquired. It merely refers to the capability ot loosing the energy in a simple mechanical manner.


Quote:

The uranium is leeching energy from it without anything having to be done, that's why I think uranium has the same more radioactive energy than the lead, which it does

It has a tendency to lose, or radiate the energy. That doesn;t mean it has more per unit mass.

Quote:

the theory does not imply anything like that, because the energy is not 'output', it remains there, in the form of mass. If the energy were output, the mass would be also.

Do you have a complete understanding of the theory FD? Energy can be measured, like with bullets, energy is measured in ft/lbs of energy. Joules are energy. Newtons are energy. Rather, they are measurements of energy, energy quantified. These two propellers have the same mass. They are of the exact same proportionate dimensions. They are powered by the exact same amount of transferred energy. Therefore, if you were correct, measured output energy and cavitation would be identical.


Quote:

There are all kinds of energy, potential, kinetic, chemical, nuclear etc. The mass is a measure of the total energy.

I disagree with the last sentence.


Quote:

Yes it is. that's why the call it energy.

No, it isn't. It is potential energy. An uncompressed spring contains potential energy, a compressed spring contained that energy potential realised. It actually has energy, compared to the uncompressed spring which just contains potential energy.


Quote:

No it doesn't. The energy is already aquired. It merely refers to the capability ot loosing the energy in a simple mechanical manner.

No it is not already acquired. It has the potential to be acquired. If I put a piece of aluminium outside, it has the potential to contain thermal energy. If the sun comes out and shines on it, and transfers that heat to the aluminium, then it now contains thermal energy.


Quote:

It has a tendency to lose, or radiate the energy. That doesn;t mean it has more per unit mass.

I think you are wrong.

Quote:

Do you have a complete understanding of the theory FD?

No, but I have more than enough to respond here without challenging my understanding.


Quote:

Energy can be measured, like with bullets, energy is measured in ft/lbs of energy. Joules are energy. Newtons are energy. Rather, they are measurements of energy, energy quantified.

Mass is the measure of all the energy.


Quote:

These two propellers have the same mass. They are of the exact same proportionate dimensions.

Therefor they have the same total energy. This has nothing to do with the attached motor.


Quote:

They are powered by the exact same amount of transferred energy.

Any transferred energy will also result in a change in mass, though in this scenario it would be far too small to be significant or measurable.


Quote:

I disagree with the last sentence.

Well, that's what the theory says.


Quote:

No, it isn't. It is potential energy.

That is energy. It is just a reference to a certain form of energy. The potential refers to the ability to harvest the energy mechanically, not to the absence of the energy.


Quote:

An uncompressed spring contains potential energy

Wrong. A compressed spring contains potential energy.


Quote:

I think you are wrong.

I know you are wrong.

Quote:

No, but I have more than enough to respond here without challenging my understanding.

Are you sure?


Quote:

Mass is the measure of all the energy.

Mass is not the measure of energy. Mass is mass. Things like joules and newtons and ft/lbs are measures of energy.


Quote:

Therefor they have the same total energy. This has nothing to do with the attached motor.

So their output would be identical? Is that what you are saying?


Quote:

Any transferred energy will also result in a change in mass, though in this scenario it would be far too small to be significant or measurable.

I assume the amount of energy transferred would be identical if everything leading to the propeller, and the conditions it is placed in, are identical. With your advanced understanding (compared to me) of science, please explain why the mass transfer would not be identical, if the props have the same mass, and the only thing different in the two experiments is the size of the props, and their materials. They have the same mass, so by your logic, they have the same energy. Please explain.


Quote:

That is energy. It is just a reference to a certain form of energy. The potential refers to the ability to harvest the energy mechanically, not to the absence of the energy.

If it has to harvest it, it doesn't have it yet, it has to get it from elsewhere. Therefore, it isn't energy.


Quote:

Wrong. A compressed spring contains potential energy.

I thought an uncompressed spring has potential energy because as of yet, it requires compression to realise it's energy or energy potential, and therefore cannot provide energy for any thing else, it has to receive it from somewhere.

I thought a compressed spring would contain energy because it has the ability to release energy, it doesn't have to harvest it from anywhere.

That was my reasoning, sorry if I got the scientific terminology wrong, but that was the point I was trying to go with.


Quote:

I know you are wrong.

Please tell me how. Can you prove Einstein's equation? Please tell me how you know I am wrong, when discussing theoretical science.

Quote:

Are you sure?

Yes.


Quote:

Mass is not the measure of energy. Mass is mass. Things like joules and newtons and ft/lbs are measures of energy.

According to the theory of relativity, mass is the same thing, just another different unit.


Quote:

So their output would be identical? Is that what you are saying?

You are confusing the mechanical system with the energy contained in the mass of components. The 'output' as you described it has nothing to do with the total energy contained in the mass of the components. I have no idea whether the output would be the same. Energy would be conserved, so in that sense the output would be the same, but it may end up in different places - ie as less useful work.


Quote:

I assume the amount of energy transferred would be identical if everything leading to the propeller, and the conditions it is placed in, are identical. With your advanced understanding (compared to me) of science, please explain why the mass transfer would not be identical, if the props have the same mass, and the only thing different in the two experiments is the size of the props, and their materials. They have the same mass, so by your logic, they have the same energy. Please explain

.

The mass, and therefor the energy, in the props, is the same, if the mass is the same. This has little to do with the energy in the fuel that gets converted to mechanical energy via the system.


Quote:

If it has to harvest it, it doesn't have it yet, it has to get it from elsewhere. Therefore, it isn't energy.

It does have it. It doesn't have to 'harvest' it.


Quote:

I thought an uncompressed spring has potential energy because as of yet, it requires compression to realise it's energy or energy potential, and therefore cannot provide energy for any thing else, it has to receive it from somewhere.

No. In any case, this is getting back into Newtonian mechanics. the potential energy refers to the actual amount stored in the compression.


Quote:

I thought a compressed spring would contain energy because it has the ability to release energy, it doesn't have to harvest it from anywhere.

It does, and they call it potential energy.

I'm trying to debate a theory, and you insist that the theory cannot be questioned, even though theory means it isn't fact.

1500 years ago people KNEW the earth was flat.

500 years ago people KNEW the earth was flat.

Why is my questioning wrong? I am essentially asking questions when I write. There is not such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers, is what I was taught.

I am questioning things, and you are presenting unproven ideas as fact. You know, I am trying to think outside the box, I am one of those guys who back in the day would have asked, but maybe the earth is round! And you would have said, shutup unbeliever.

Quote:

I'm trying to debate a theory, and you insist that the theory cannot be questioned, even though theory means it isn't fact.

You have to understand the theory first, before you can sensibly question it. If you are suggesting your own alternative theory, please say so. As far as I know, we are debating what the theory is, not whether the theory is correct. That's why I keep including things like 'according to the theory'. If we are establishing what the theory is, then I am totally justified in dismissing you as simply being wrong.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 5:23pm:

You have to understand the theory first, before you can sensibly question it. If you are suggesting your own alternative theory, please say so. As far as I know, we are debating what the theory is, not whether the theory is correct. That's why I keep including things like 'according to the theory'. If we are establishing what the theory is, then I am totally justified in dismissing you as simply being wrong.

My understanding of the theory is E=MC^2.

Your understanding is E=M.

My understanding of high school algebra (which is probably wrong), makes me think these are the only possible ways that formula can be interpreted:

0 = MC^2 - E

E divided by C^2 = M

E divided by M = C^2

And so on and so forth, like I said, I wasn't good at maths.

The original theory says E=MC^2. Einstein, the guy who thought up the theory, and therefore would have the greatest insight in to it, did not write E=M, probably because he did not think that was the case, I do not know.

What idea did you have that made you come to the conclusion that E must be equal to M?

I also do not think you understand the theory, otherwise you would be writing international best sellers and giving speeches at universities all over the world.

Quote:

Your understanding is E=M.

What I said was that that could be the case, if the units for E and/or m were different. That is because c is a constant. It is a conversion ratio, like grams to kilograms. It is a way to convert one measure of a quantity - kilograms - to another measure of the same thing - Joules.


Quote:

I also do not think you understand the theory, otherwise you would be writing international best sellers and giving speeches at universities all over the world.

Plenty of people understand the theory. That doesn't make them famous. There is no broad questioning or misunderstanding among those involved in the field as to what the theory says, only about whether it is correct.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 6:06pm:

Quote: Your understanding is E=M. What I said was that that could be the case, if the units for E and/or m were different. That is because c is a constant. It is a conversion ratio, like grams to kilograms. It is a way to convert one measure of a quantity - kilograms - to another measure of the same thing - Joules. [quote]I also do not think you understand the theory, otherwise you would be writing international best sellers and giving speeches at universities all over the world.

Plenty of people understand the theory. That doesn't make them famous. There is no broad questioning or misunderstanding among those involved in the field as to what the theory says, only about whether it is correct.[/quote]

Does that mean a kilogram of Corn Flakes has the same energy (joules/kilojoules) as a kilogram of fat?

Well I agree with you Easel.

It is a typical meaningless tangent, FD goes off on them from time to time.

Or perhaps that should be time, squared?

Speed equals time after all. ;)

Amadd wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 11:13pm:

I'm with Calanen on this one. Infinite in size does not mean infinite in mass, or anything else. It could just be an infinite vaccum. As the diameter of your sphere of observation increases, the mass (or number of life forms or any other proxy) could approach the total mass asymtotically. Infinite space does not have to imply that anything else is infinite. I suspect that the big bang theory suggests a finite mass. I also think that relativity implies infinite space in a cartesian sense, but that in a real sense space folds back in on itself and has a finite size, but you can't reach the edge. That's about the limit of my memory of high school physics.

Quote:

Then what if I asked, how many days are contained within an infinite amount of time? My answer would be, the same amount as the number of hours, minutes, seconds or milliseconds; an infinite amount.

Quote:

It seems to me to be the same as asking, how much matter is contained in an infinite amount of space. Since infinite means boundless or unmeasurable, how can you put a measure on what's contained within the unmeasurable?

Given that the observable universe has large volumes of empty space, we know that the amount of matter is less than the container being the borders of space, even if itself is infinite. So while the universe may be infinite in size, the fact there is empty space before our eyes, means that the amount of matter within the universe is finite.

Also, it must be less than infinite, because All matter has mass and mass has attraction. An infinite amount of mass would have an infinite amount of attraction, attracting all matter in the universe to it and reaching singularity.

As there is observably not infinite attraction, there is clearly not infinite matter.

Oops double post. Sorry.

Calanen wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 6:42pm:

Also, it must be less than infinite, because All matter has mass and mass has attraction. An infinite amount of mass would have an infinite amount of attraction, attracting all matter in the universe to it and reaching singularity.

After writing that, what do you think of the big bang theory? Doesn't it imply that all the mass of the universe was compressed to a single dense point at one stage?

mozzaok wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 6:28pm:

Well I agree with you Easel. It is a typical meaningless tangent, FD goes off on them from time to time. Or perhaps that should be time, squared? Speed equals time after all. ;)

Thanks mozza.

Quote:

It is a typical meaningless tangent, FD goes off on them from time to time.

I didn't start this tangent. I merely corrected mistakes as I saw them.


Quote:

Does that mean a kilogram of Corn Flakes has the same energy (joules/kilojoules) as a kilogram of fat?

Yes. But don't confuse the total energy with the available chemical or 'biological' energy. This seems to be what everyone is doing here. The identity of matter and energy means that our traditional view of energy only captures the minute fraction of energy that is easy to do useful work with. It's like talking about the amount of energy involved in two suns colliding in terms of the output of the solar panel on a calculator. You are missing 99.99999+% of the picture.


Quote:

Also, it must be less than infinite, because All matter has mass and mass has attraction. An infinite amount of mass would have an infinite amount of attraction, attracting all matter in the universe to it and reaching singularity.

Not necessarily. There are several reasons. If the universe is expanding as per currently accepted theory, and was sufficiently spread out, then yes it would tend to do that, but the acceleration would by sufficiently slow such that it takes a really long time for the next singularity (big bang) to come, or may never come at all, if the rate of expansion exceeds the 'escape velocity'. Also, there may be additional forces pushing matter apart. Finally, infinite mass separated by infite distance does not mean an infinite attractive force, as you are essentially dividing infinity by infinity. You would need other techniques and more information to figure out what actually happens. That is, it is not a logical result of the assumptions you have presented, but merely one of many possible results.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 7:18pm:

Yes. But don't confuse the total energy with the available chemical or 'biological' energy. This seems to be what everyone is doing here. The identity of matter and energy means that our traditional view of energy only captures the minute fraction of energy that is easy to do useful work with. It's like talking about the amount of energy involved in two suns colliding in terms of the output of the solar panel on a calculator. You are missing 99.99999+% of the picture.

I heard a reliable method of measuring energy contained within something is to burn the object (say use the cornflakes first, then the fat) in an oxygen saturated environment, and record the thermal energy given off. Something like have a litre of water in a beaker and have that heated, record the temperature it reaches, something like that.

That wouldn't be measuring biological energy would it? Not sure.

But I've seen that test done before, maybe on Mythbusters, where they had the myth that the packet the cereal comes in is more nutritious than the cereal itself, and they burnt them both to determine the joules or whatever contained within.

I think they used normal air though, and it wasn't a proper scientific experiment, as exact replication conditions were not provided, or something.

Quote:

That wouldn't be measuring biological energy would it?

That would be measuring the chemical energy, loosely speaking. The energy available biologically is significantly less I think. That is only a small part of the energy present. Even nuclear reactions, which release massive amounts of energy and only require a small mass, still only transfer a very small part of the mass/energy. Most of the mass/energy remains as spent fuel. In conventional burning, most of the mass ends up in CO2 and other gasses that float away. When you release all of the energy, you release all of the mass, so the light or whatever it gives off is the entire mass you started with. Or in other words, the light you get when you burn something is actually a minute part of the mass of what you are burning.

Quote:

Given that the observable universe has large volumes of empty space, we know that the amount of matter is less than the container being the borders of space, even if itself is infinite. So while the universe may be infinite in size, the fact there is empty space before our eyes, means that the amount of matter within the universe is finite.

But you're still talking in terms of containers and borders and trying to relate it to infiniy. Infinity doesn't have any reference point, it's just a concept.

Even if there was a known container, what's outside it?
If it's vacuum forever and ever, then the container would be infinitely small. If it's matter forever and ever then the vacuum would be infinitely small.

easel, my understanding of physics and maths is quite limited so maybe I can help from the point of view of a dummy.

You are thinking of energy the wrong way when you talk about potential and kinetic enery in relation to the theory E=MC^2 or E=M. Which I agree with FD is just as sensible way to put it.

Energy and Mass are the same thing. Think of Mass as frozen or solidified energy. (It's not really frozen or solidified only from a human subjective perspective...everything is in flux except at absolute zero) a reasonable but not accurate analogy would be to imagine the the different states of water - gas, liquid and frozen. They are all water.

It would not be incorrect to say that the only thing that exists is energy, in one state or another.

Being able to extract the energy from things is still for human technology still in a very crude stage. We have nuclear fission but are unable to work out a way of properly containing the heat and energy from nuclear fusion, this is what the sun does. It is a very efficiant way of extracting or more accurately converting energy from mass. The sun produces enough energy in 1 second to power the USA for 9 million years.

Apparantly, the most efficient place to convert mass into energy (theoretically) is at the point where mass encounters the Event Horizion of a Black Hole. All or near all energy is released. There would be enough energy released from one glass of water that it would probably meet ALL human energy requirements for a year. I read this many many years ago so details could be inaccurate and of course it was speculative science.

Ok, you say water is energy, in regards to mass is energy.

What's the deal with gravity applied to water then?

Eg, hydroelectricity, that water is just holding energy, that gravity/speed/force, when it is flowing, when it is stationary it lacks that same force.

Is the energy in flowing water, that which has the influence of gravity applied to it, the same as stationary water, say that in a bucket?

Gravity doesn't change when that water flows, so gravity isn't stolen by that water?

I'm not good at sciency type stuff when it gets in to extreme detail.

Relative to you, water that is moving has slightly more enery than still water - the kinetic energy. That's assuming all else is equal. Thus it is also slightly heavier, bu the quantities are insignificant. If you push on something to give it the kenetic energy, you are tranfering energy, and hence mass to it.

I suspect you are having trouble understanding because you still see energy only in the form of potential, kinetic or chemical energy. That is only just scratching the surface of the energy that is there. It's like you are trying to conceptualise the energy coming from the sun in terms of the power of a solar calculator, and asking what happens to the sun when you do a calculation.

So you are saying intertia, which is energy, is also mass?

No. Inertia and mass are not the same thing. Inertia is merely a property of mass. It is a way of measuring mass. Furthermore it is a Newtonian concept. I think inerita loses it's meaning in relativity. For example, as an object travels faster, it has more energy, therefor it's mass increases, therefor it's 'inertia' increases. It takes more and more energy or force to accelerate it further because of this increase in mass. Theoretically, the mass/energy become infinite as it approaches the speed of light.

Technically, mass, distance, time etc mean different things in relativity, than in Newtonian mechanics. At low speeds, the meaning is almost identical to the Newtonian concept.

E=M is dimensionally incorrect, although I understand what you're trying to say.

The correct equation is E= MC^2

I just read the whole thread. Oh boy, you guys all need a science coach. I'm not volunteering. Please consider this post to be invisible.

The square root of a number is the inverse operation of squaring that number, now why is it that you can't understand that simple concept? You can catch mice and climb trees much faster than I can, so why can't you understand square roots? After all you're one smart felis catus - (tears hair out)

:-X :-[

If you understand what we are trying to say and have read the whole thread, why did you feel the need to point out that E=M is dimensionally incorrect?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 3:18pm:

If you understand what we are trying to say and have read the whole thread, why did you feel the need to point out that E=M is dimensionally incorrect?

Because c is not a 'conversion factor'. It's a constant, but it's not a dimensionless 'mathematical constant'.

You might as well say Coles = Woolworths. It would be just as meaningless.

c is the limiting factor in the relativistic universe. It's the cornerstone of Special Relativity, or the physical theory of measurement within inertial frames of reference. Basically it defines the way in which space and time are unified as spacetime. I like think of it like a kind of 4 dimensional pantograph that defines the x y z and t axes with the observer on one leg of the pantograph and the traveller on another. Lay it all out like that and it becomes inevitable. It's just a consequence of the maths.

OK, I broke my vow of silence.   :D

muso can you make this thread make sense and write it so average people without a heavy science background can understand it?

easel wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

muso can you make this thread make sense and write it so average people without a heavy science background can understand it?

1. Can I make this thread make sense ? no.

2. It doesn't need a heavy science background. All you need is a good grasp of mathematics.

You can describe Special Relativity without the maths but it only makes sense with the maths. You can get a sense of the consequences (Whee we have red shifts and blue shifts) but not a sense of 'why is it so'. To get an idea of 'why is it so' you have to do the hard yard.

This link explains it in more detail, but it's highly mathematical. It does give a good insight into Lorentz transformations though.

http://www.colvir.net/prof/richard.beauchamp/rel-an/rela.htm

This link demonstrates it in terms of thought experiments, but just in terms of consequences.  

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/exp/gedanken.html

Special Relativity is often quoted by people pushing a religious barrow. I have never seen them actually get it right yet. It's a convenient way of lying through obfuscation on something that most people don't understand.

FD - Just to be clear, I am not accusing you of that.

Well that clears it all up  :-/

I suppose the bottom line is:

Don't argue with Einstein

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 3:18pm:

If you understand what we are trying to say and have read the whole thread, why did you feel the need to point out that E=M is dimensionally incorrect?

Because Einstein was a Jew and is trying to fill your head with lies! lol! :D

But seriously though.. There is some contradictions though to what I see on discovery and other channels, and the energy only changes doesn't create or destroy theory.

A: If energy only "shifts" then technically the universe is forever. None of this "implosion" death or "cold theory". The universe simply renewals itself. Sure, life as we know it dissapears, but scientists are only saying half the truth without meationing "then it repeats the whole proccess!"

Thus, if energy "shifts", the big bang theory is false..


B: If energy isn't a shifting flow, and is simply dead or alive. Then this means that energy had to all the more be created from somewhere. Ofcourse we're not anywhere close to discovering all the sematics of the universe, so there very well could be a proccess in creating energy from "nothing". But I find that very hard to immagine.


Evidently when you get down to the hardcore physics, it takes more faith to believe in science then God. I don't even believe in quincidences in my normal day to day life, much less on a cosmic scale.

Jim Profit wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 8:27am:

But seriously though.. There is some contradictions though to what I see on discovery and other channels.....

Shudder ::)  :o

Quote:

If energy only "shifts" then technically the universe is forever. None of this "implosion" death or "cold theory".

None of that destroys the energy. The 'cold universe' idea is based on entropy, not energy.

equal(=) and is(==) are not the same operators to start with

furthermore

E=MC^2 does not mean E=M but that E is linearly proportional to M

So on one hand easel is intuitively right there but his statement about the theory of relativity has not been proven  is wrong

Albert Einstein's formula e=mc2 proven right, 103 years later


Here is the link for those interested in this
E = mc^2: What does it mean, and where did the equation come from?

Interesting. Feynman said almost exactly what I said a few posts back:

It is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics. I am sorry, but this seems to be the case.

tallowood wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 3:43pm:

So on one hand easel is intuitively right there but his statement about the theory of relativity has not been proven  is wrong

Danger Will Robinson - Can of worms alert.