Energy revisited

Ah, Newtonian physics. Energy is work. Not a thing. That’s a reasonable classical definition which in the macro world is a very usable model of energy, so we use it when appropriate.

The definition of matter most people use in conversation is: Matter is anything that has mass and volume. This is also some people’s definition of existence. A thing exists if it has mass and takes up space. But to me a better definition for matter has to do with what it is made of. Matter, of course, is made of atoms. More specifically combinations of atoms that create chemicals and substances.

The biologist’s definition of matter is: The material that makes up an object. I like that one because when it comes down to it matter is material; in the same sense as building material.

Mass is often meant to give us the measure of the amount of matter in a physical object. Really it is the characteristic of matter that makes it tend to stay at rest if it is at rest, or stay in motion when it is in motion. Mass is the amount of inertia in an object. So it is relative to force and acceleration as per Newton's Second Law of Motion. Mass then is the major factor in determining an object’s resistance to changes in speed/acceleration and/or direction . But what is mass?

The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity, so it is not weight. However, the weight of an object is determined by how gravity interacts with matter. Even though your weight and mass are the same number or close on earth, in space you don’t weigh anything but you still have the same mass. On another planet your weight might change depending on the gravity of the place, but your mass wouldn’t change. Neither would your matter.

Simply put, mass is kinetic energy. kinetic energy is the movement energy of an object.

The problem in the early part of the twentieth century was, photons have no rest mass or volume. All “things” have mass and volume, right? So light must be an illusion then? Just a concept perhaps?

Probably not. So what is it?

We equate energy with movement even in classical physics. Quite so. Photons, for one, obviously travel at the speed of light, and can’t sit still. No thing with matter or mass can do that. The closer an object that starts with mass gets to light speed the more mass it acquires and the more energy required to get it going even a little faster, until the object acquires so much resistance that it could never reach the desired speed no matter how much energy you add to propel it. Remember that: the more energy added when accelerating the more mass is acquired.

Electrons get close but never reach it. In physics an electron is considered an electromagnetic wave.

So what are photons then if not matter? Energy? That’s all I know of that exists, matter and energy, right? That’s why I’m a materialist.

But that’s a different use of the word energy from the classical use. We always assumed that matter itself had this ability to do work. Humans push a rock around, they are doing work. Work is defined as: moving objects., exerting force in order to accomplish a task. Of course exerting force expends energy.

Now matter is material. How is this material formed? As I said: All material things are made of atoms. All of these atoms interact producing different types of material. The materials interact to produce compound substances.

All of these interactions are the result of the rules of physics.

Well what are atoms? Are they matter?

We said early on that matter has mass and it takes up space. Certainly atoms have mass and they take up space. So they are matter. But experiments have shown that parts of them can be both particle and wave, depending what you are looking for.

That’s a bit odd, isn't it? So what does that mean? It means that it isn't as simple as saying they are matter. There is more to it than that.

Big bang theory had a problem in the beginning too. That problem was that according to the math the subatomic particles like quarks which make up protons etc, would not have had mass to begin with. So where does mass come from?

Higgs and a team of others developed the idea of an energy field that actually slows most other forms of energy down to below light speed. It was based again on mathematics done from the consequences of the Big Bang and it fit. But until recently it had never been found in any experiments, and of course it is hard to find because it’s a field, not just the odd particle or wave here or there. Have they found it? Possibly. They certainly found something that looks like it.

The Higgs field would lend mass the same way running in water slows you down considerably, as opposed to running on dry land. Interactions between quarks etc that create atoms would have a hard time happening at light speed. These reactions happen in condensed states, which in turn happen below light speed.

So that’s were mass comes from then, but does mass actually create matter? No, it’s an aspect of matter.

According to relativity, rest mass itself doesn't constitute the amount of matter in a system: the energy–momentum tensor does. In other words: The density and momentum of the energy in a system is a way to determine the amount of matter in a system. He’s saying in essence that compressing energy allows material to form.

E=Mc squared has consequences which tell us that mass and energy are the same thing.

E stands for energy, M stands for mass and C stands for the speed of light. So energy is equal to the mass of an object times the speed of light squared. You can convert units of energy to units of mass, But we can’t convert mass to energy of course, and the reasons for that should be obvious: Mass is already energy. It’s kinetic energy.

You can convert matter to energy however, just like you can turn water to ice or vapour, but it remains h2o. A dramatic example is an atomic explosion where in massive amounts of energy is released from a relatively small bit of matter. The matter is all but gone but its energy and mass are conserved in the by-products of the blast.

So what then is the difference between energy and matter? Mass? No. You can’t have mass without energy, but you can have energy without mass. So which is the base? Which came first?

When you can’t have one without the other, but you can have that other without the one, which is the stand alone? Mass is a consequence of the nature of energy. A consequence of relativity is that: matter is a product of energy, not the other way around.

Up until very recently the idea that compressed energy below light speed could create matter was a theory with in Relativity and unproven. That’s changed and scientists in Germany created matter photons. Einstein and I are once more vindicated.

There is really nothing but what we call energy: that which is animate. As I said: according to relativity, rest mass itself is not matter. Energy under specific conditions creates matter. Energy is certainly not just work: whatever it is, it seems to be the default state. Matter is condensed energy at its root.

It gets more interesting. The laws of conservation tell us that energy cannot be destroyed or created. But it also tells us that mass can’t be destroyed either. Both are conserved no matter what transformations they go though. Energy is mass, and mass is energy in a specific state. They are the same thing in different form.

Material /matter /a specific system or configuration, can be destroyed because it is made by a specific configuration of atoms, but the energy and mass of those atoms can’t.

What shows us that matter is not exactly mass is the fact that adding 90 mega joules of any form of energy at all to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram even though no extra matter gets created. So no extra atoms have been added, but the mass increases as energy is added. This again tells us that matter is the material created by energy/mass.

Protons are made of gluons and quarks. Like photons, Gluons have no rest mass. The mass of a proton is 99 percent more than the mass of all three quarks that make it up due to the energy of the gluon field that binds them together, creating more kinetic energy.

So kinetic energy is mass, but gluons, like photons, have no rest mass. Where does the extra mass come from?: The energy the gluons and quarks produce by their movement within the proton accounts for all the extra mass.

In our definition of matter, one of the requirements is that it takes up space. Protons do take up space. But quarks and gluons don’t.

So protons are the first form of what we define as matter. It has mass and volume. Subatomic ‘particles” don’t fit our definition of matter as some have no mass and others no volume.

It’s probably not a completely Newtonian world, as good as it’s arguments sound. The problem for them is that Relativity has not been proven wrong, and has proven correct in its predictions and applications in the real world time and time again. As has QM. Why not use the model s that work? We do. And when we do, a sign that they work is the new tech and new discoveries their use brings.

We have a very different view of energy in the macro world as opposed to the micro world, and while the macro world is based on the micro world, the two layers behave differently. Or so it seems. In this layer of reality classical physics and deductive reasoning are fine for most applications. We can get to the moon with Newtonian physics alone, no problem.

But the micro layer is not so approachable by common sense deductive reasoning. Science these days relies on math and testing. Many of the major findings of physics in the last 100 years or so were very counter intuitive.

It might help some people to know that Einstein considered energy like photons to be a form of matter even without mass or volume. Perhaps it’s a good time to revisit common definitions of matter? Or those of energy? After all, according to modern science they are the same thing, whatever that may be.

And I say whatever that may be because things don’t have explanations of what they are attached to them. Feynman complained about, saying no one could tell us what it is. Best we can often do is talk about something in terms of how it behaves, and give a name to that pattern of behaviour. The name is, of course, nowhere near as important as the package of information it represents. But it’s important to understand that asking what energy is, really, is a meaningless question. That is to say it’s not answerable in principal because it’s everything. It’s the end of the line.

Ask me what anything is and I can describe it in many different ways. What is a mouse? It’s a mammal. You can ask what that is. We can discuss what it does, how it acts, how it interacts. But ask again: what is it? Well we can talk about cells, chemical processes. We can even say it’s a specific configuration of atoms. And when we are done with that you can ask what atoms are. The answer is: energy. And that’s the absolute end of the line.

There is nowhere to go from there. What is energy? That which produces and makes up all things according to its nature. It’s nature being the laws of physics. And when we talk about nature, what are we talking about? The nature of energy.

There is nothing but energy.. That’s really all there is.

More by this Author


Comments 23 comments

billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

You didn't revise anything. You just parroted the party line. Anyone still using terms of religion such as energy, mass, photon, dark matter, black hole, time, etc., in the 21st C should be kicked out of Science. You are behind the 'times'...

Richard Feynman: " It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

John Wheeler: "Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass."

Stephen Hawking/Paul Davies: Both wrote extensively about 'time'. Neither one ever defined the term. You won't find it in the glossary of 'A Brief History of Time' or in 'About Time'.

You should try to learn the basics of Physics before posting an article analyzing terms you can't define.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 21 months ago from Canada Author

So, Bill, good to see you still kicking around on Hub pages.

I see you still haven’t changed. You still don’t read what’s written. Still don’t understand models, still hate physics, still ask for clear definitions of what things are.

Ask me to draw you something, I dare you. Lol... How absurd that is.

I said that we usually can’t talk about what things are because there is never a way to talk about things directly. They don’t come with identifying labels. We talk about behaviour and define things by how they behave, their aspects and attributes. Then we name those behaviours under a heading like energy or matter.

So sad that you can’t grasp context either. It might help you get the “point”.

How’s the rope hypothesis going? All tied up in knots? Perhaps if you didn’t hate physics so much you’d get it reviewed? Maybe be taken seriously?


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

"We... define things by how they behave... Then we name those behaviours under a heading like energy or matter"

.

.

If energy and matter are BEHAVIORS, it is IRRATIONAL to 'transfer a behavior' and it is IRRATIONAL to 'move a behavior' or 'to convert one behavior into another'.

.

.

In Physics, we can transfer objects, not DYNAMIC CONCEPTS!


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 21 months ago from New Mexico

Bill, you mentioned religion, as if it had any place in this conversation or article. Religion has no place in the topic of ANY conversation about science. So under what context does religion, in your mind, play in any science topic?

I do understand that many of the topics in the sciences contradict many if not all the

claims made by religion and for that reason many of the people of religion try to argue that their holy books have scientifically accurate (they don't) concepts in them, going so far as to claim religious texts predate scientifc discoveries (they don't). I have yet to be shown or read any religious texts that make a scientifically accurate observation or claim. As for your claim that what Slattery is making inaccurate definitions of physics compared to what the major phyicists are saying, you are wrong, and i have yet to see a quote that specifically contradicts anything this article is saying. I do see, from people like you, cherry picked, out of context quotes from physicists, but if you read through the statements made by these scientists, you will see an explanation for these statements that goes beyond the mere quotation. The problem is that people such as yourself don't get that scientists rarely make mere statements to the affirmative of any particular concept, they often make huge statements the can only be covered in large paragraphs that merely say, we have an idea but don't fully understand it all and we are still look at everything and making working models that fit the math and the observable facts, i suggest you read through this article as well as the literature written on the topic rather than skimming it to find quotable statements that fit your beliefs on the nature of the universe.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

No cheery picking whatsoever! O'Brian said it like all the idiots in Mathemagix: "We... define things by how they behave... Then we name those behaviours under a heading like energy or matter"

.

So it is PERFECTLY CLEAR what the word 'energy' means and represents. 'Energy' is a CONCEPT, specifically a BEHAVIOR. Concepts and behaviors cannot be moved, transferred, or converted into anything. We're done!

.

And yes, religion has everything to do with this article. Mathemagical 'fizzix' IS A RELIGION. Terms such as energy, mass, time, force, field, charge, black hole, Big Bang, dark matter, Higgs, wave-particle duality, time dilation, etc., have no place in Science. Only the monks at the Math Monastery use such ridiculous words.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

“we… don't fully understand it all and we are still look at everything”

.

You NEVER will understand ANY phenomenon because you are not interested in EXPLANATIONS. No one in the Mathemagical world deals with RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS. The only thing that matters to Mathemagix is DESCRIPTIONS. Math can ONLY describe! Math has no power whatsoever to explain.

.

Therefore, the mathemagicians have no problem whatsoever with irrational explanations, from Big Bang to black holes to Higgs field to wave particle duality. They can live with all this horseshit because they DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXPLANATIONS.

.

Therefore, NO! You will never UNDERSTAND because we can only understand RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS.

.

.

.

“making working models that fit the math”

.

Name ONE model that is RATIONAL in the religion of Math fizz.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 21 months ago from New Mexico

Bill, it is clear you are an idiot with no concept of science or nature or how things work. You aren't worth arguing with.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 21 months ago from New Mexico

Here is the worst part of your statement. Physics is the study of how nature works. With religion and God there is nothing to study, it's like researching the nature of Superman, he doesn't exist, he has no properties to study, just what some book that makes claims as to what he is and does, but no evidence to confirm that this is what he is or that he exists.

Physics has enough understanding of the universe for us to have practical applications, it's not magic, it shows us how things works and it has results and we have used the discoveries made by physics to build our society, our technology and be able to manipulate our world.

Science is real, religion is not.

The simple fact is just because YOU claim to not believe in physics, you use it every day, however much you claim to not believe in physics it is something you use and you cannot deny that it works. God does not work, he is a fantasy and he is impotent in reality. A useless dream.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

“no evidence to confirm”

.

In Science, we neither present evidence nor confirm anything. Evidence is what a prosecutor presents to SWAY the jury. The purpose of evidence is to PERSUADE the individual to think like you do. Evidence is what religious idiots like you use to RECRUIT.

.

In Science, we are not in the business of recruiting; therefore, we are not in the business of going door to door presenting evidence in order to persuade.

.

Science is about EXPLAINING RATIONALLY, not about presenting evidence to convince people that you are ‘right’.

.

.

.

“Physics has enough understanding”

.

Physics indeed does. It is the idiots of Mathemagix who have no clue how this Universe works. The deranged mathemagicians at the Loony Asylum claim that space and time are physical objects that can be warped and bent. These religious bozos also believe in Creationism. They claim that the Universe had a beginning, that it started from nothing all by itself. The math monks transfer concepts such as energy and information, and move concepts such as mass and charge. They should all be locked up in padded walls.

.

.

.

“to have practical applications… we have used the discoveries made by physics to build… our technology”

.

Technology has NOTHING to do with Science or with Physics. Science is NOT practical. In Science, we merely explain phenomena. Technology is about developing gadgets by trial and error. No Science needed.

.

.

.

“Physics… it's not magic”

.

To relativists and mechanics it is! They ONLY use magic. There is not a single RATIONAL theory in General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. It’s all poppycock.

.

.

.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 21 months ago from Canada Author

"If energy and matter are BEHAVIORS, it is IRRATIONAL to 'transfer a behavior' and it is IRRATIONAL to 'move a behavior' or 'to convert one behavior into another'"

See, still not comprehending what is written. The behaviour is of a thing we call energy or matter. A thing is defined by how it behaves. Clearer?


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

“The behaviour is of a thing we call energy”

.

.

That’s not what you said. Let me quote you VERBATIM…

.

“we name those BEHAVIOURS… energy or matter”

.

If you can’t make up your mind whether energy is a THING or a BEHAVIOR of something else, then you clearly have no clue. Therefore, it is YOU who doesn't comprehend what he writes.

.

Nevertheless, neither energy nor matter are things. You should do a minimum of research before making a fool of yourself in public. Here’s a starter for you…

.

energy: a PROPERTY of objects… a core CONCEPT… (Wiki)

energy: the CAPACITY… a MEASURE… (dictionary.com)

.

energy: the CAPACITY for DOING (Hyperphysics)

.

energy: an ABSTRACT QUANTITY… Energy is MEASURED… units of energy (Wolfram) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.htm...

.

.

“the concept of energy… energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing… But people speak of energy as if its a thing… To understand the concept of energy… energy measures the capability…” http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_ene...

.

.

It took me a couple of minutes to look up all those entries. It means that not only you have no clue about whether energy is a thing or the behavior of a thing, but you haven’t done a minimum of research on the subject. It is not surprising that you flaunt your ignorance in public.

.

And to top it off, you have idiot mathemagician Richard Feynman who gives you the closing argument:

.

“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

.

.

Of course not, Rich! If idiots like you and Slarty can’t decide whether ‘energy’ is a thing or a behavior, if you can’t tell the difference between an object and a concept, then clearly YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about.

.

.

.

“A thing is defined by how it behaves.”

.

Absolutely not. That’s why what you do is religion and not Physics or Science. Hopefully, the Moon is a thing BEFORE it moves. A thing precedes its motion. The sculptor must first make his statue before he moves it. Otherwise he’s got absolutely NOTHING to move. We must first identify whether it is a dog, a cat, a fish or an owl BEFORE we talk about its behavior.

.

.

.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 21 months ago from New Mexico

You don't seem to know what evidence is. In a court we do use evidence to convince people of something that has actually happened vs what people want to imagine what has happened, same with all the sciences including physics. If I go into a room and stab someone to death and then leave, how do you know it was me? You find a trace of me. Finger prints, maybe I cut myself so you find my blood as well as the victims, you see what the blood did and where the placement of the stab wound was and how the body fell to understand how I did it and how tall I am, maybe there are footprints that show what kind of shoes I was wearing and match all these things to a person. So even if I am not there you can see that I was there.

Physics works the same way, but it looks at everything, how things work, because we have even less information we use math to predict what is possible, what is going on, we test things to see if they follow this mathematically predicted characteristics, it's why the hadron collidor exists, to discover what math has already said should take place. We understand how light travels and the doppler effect to know that though during the big bang the entire universe was bright as day we cannot see all the light because it has been red shifted all the way to the ultra violet spectrum so we can no longer see it with the naked eye. We use physics to discover and predict how particles should move in certain situations and test these out to see if they are true. We find evidence for things to know if they are real.

There is nothing religious about it, if it didn't work we would abandon it.

We observe a thing before it moves yes, and we define it before it moves, yes, but what if it's not a THING but and event?

Energy, what is it exactly? How do we know it is energy? What is light exactly made of? This is what we are talking about, you seem to have no idea what this article is about. I suspect it's because your brain is too tiny to understand it and you are too illiterate to read through the article and understand what it means. I also suspect that you don't have a clue as to what physics is or science.

I'll make it easier for you.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.

Physics is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.

Evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.

This article has nothing to do with religion or does it have any religious views connected to it, this is about what science has been discovering about the nature of energy.

Bill, stop being stupid and get an education.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

“In a court we do use evidence to convince people”

.

.

Correct. However, in Science, we are not in the business of convincing because we are not in the business of recruiting. It is religion that persuades in order to recruit.

.

.

.

“. If I… stab someone to death… how do you know it was me?”

.

.

Bad example! It is Philosophy which deals with matters of guilt and who and why (REASONS). Physics deals with CAUSES. In Science, we are concerned with theories: explanations of phenomena, not with ‘who done it’.

.

.

.

“fingerprints… blood… stab wound… footprints”

.

.

Such evidence allows a theorist to formulate a theory, one of which is that they were all planted by the police or your next door neighbor. In the end each juror reaches nothing more than an OPINION! That’s why the 12 jurors spend their time in the room persuading and recruiting each other to their versions.

.

Like Mathemagix, Law is a branch of religion: opinion. In Science, we have no opinions. We only have explanations. As soon as the person votes for a theory and calls it the truth or claims that it has been proven he is doing religion.

.

.

.

“even if I am not there you can see that I was there”

.

.

…or that you were framed! Gullible idiots like you accept the first theory that authority tells them to believe. No wonder so many morons believe that Bin Laden did 9/11.

.

.

.

“we use math to predict”

.

.

Neither math nor predictions are a part of Science. So your statement is irrelevant. In Science, we don’t use math, much less in Physics. In Physics, we use objects. We can’t do Physics without objects. The idiots of Math instead use concepts.

.

.

.

“the hadron collidor exists, to discover what math has already said should take place”

.

.

A prediction is a description and NOT an explanation. In Science, we don’t do descriptions. In Science, we explain. The moment the idiot of Math can EXPLAIN his so-called ‘prediction’, he is ‘predicting’ the past. Explain we can only explain a CONSUMMATED phenomenon. If an idiot of Math can explain the cause of the eclipse that is to occur tomorrow, he is talking about a movie he already watchED.

.

.

.

“We understand how light travels”

.

.

Apparently NOT! The idiots at your Math Monastery can't tell you unambiguously whether light travels rectilinearly or curvilinearly. This stupid moron Einstein claimed that space is warped around EVERY mass in the U (i.e., every atom). This means that light should never travel parallel to a straight line. Yet, in Optics, they teach that whether refracting or reflecting light ONLY travels in straight lines, . You should learn the basics about light travel, art. Look up Fermat’s and Hero’s Principles.

.

So? Who is correct? Who should we believe? This stupid moron Einstein who says that light always travels in curves or Fermat and Hero who say that light always travels in straight lines?

.

.

.

“during the big bang the entire universe was bright as day”

.

.

So you’re a Creationist, huh? Well, that figures. You should read more non-fiction and less Bible. What was your God doing that day? Scratching His nuts?

.

.

.

“test… to see if they are true. We find evidence for things to know if they are real.”

.

.

True to YOU? Real to whom? All you did with your INTERPRETATION of the evidence is convince yourself. You didn’t convince your neighbor.

.

Again, evidence is used to persuade in order to recruit. In Science, we do neither.

.

.

.

“if it didn't work”

.

.

Angels also work. They push the Earth around, don’t they? We just can’t see them. We infer them.

.

Should we then accept angels because the theory ‘works’?

.

In Science, we clean our arses with what ‘works’. Science (rational explanation) is divorced from Technology (what works).

.

.

.

“We observe a thing before it moves yes, but what if it's not a THING but and event?”

.

.

An event that moves????

.

You should sober up, art! There’s got to be a double-A near your home. Check the Yellow Pages.

.

.

.

“What is light exactly made of?”

.

.

Well, it can’t be made of energy because energy is a concept. See my earlier comment where I tear your energy garbage apart. Let me post the relevant segment here again so that a superficial reader like you doesn’t miss it next time…

.

.

energy: a PROPERTY of objects… a core CONCEPT… (Wiki)

.

energy: the CAPACITY… a MEASURE… (dictionary.com)

.

energy: the CAPACITY for DOING (Hyperphysics)

.

energy: an ABSTRACT QUANTITY… Energy is MEASURED… units of energy (Wolfram) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.htm...

.

“the concept of energy… energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing… But people speak of energy as if its a thing… To understand the concept of energy… energy measures the capability…” http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_ene...

.

Were you able to get this far or does your short attention span prevent you from reading that much?

.

If energy is an abstract concept, light cannot be made of energy any more than it is made of love.

.

.

.

“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.

.

.

Despite that the word ‘science’ derives from the ‘scire’, meaning knowledge/to know, Science has NOTHING to do with knowledge. Science only comprises rational explanations. The irrational ones belong to religion. In Science, we don’t ‘know’. In Science, we explain.

.

.

.

“Physics… the study of matter and its motion through space and time,

.

.

You should take an introductory course in Physics when you get to high school, art. Space and time are concepts. You can’t move through concepts. Try moving through intelligence one of these days.

.

.

http://youstupidrelativist.com/05SR/03Time/06TimeT...

.

.

.

“concepts such as energy”

.

.

So how is it that you idiots transfer concepts? Do you pitch them like a baseball or do you kick them like a football? Please draw this concept you call ‘energy’ before you transfer it. I’ve never seen an energy.

.

.

.

“Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun”

.

.

Well here is one guy who you failed to convince with your evidence…

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668S5Zhtk2I

.

So? Who should we believe? What good was your evidence if he didn’t believe your theory? How come you were not able to persuade and recruit him?

.

.

.

“evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis”

.

.

…for one group of people. Another group of people continues to believe in warped space, black holes, Big Bang, and other nonsense despite all the evidence to the contrary

.

.

.

“One of the most useful properties of religious theories is that they can be used to make predictions”

.

.

Yes. If you are into predictions, I recommend that you visit a couple of your local astrologers and palm readers and read your daily horoscope.

.

.

.

“Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress.”

.

.

That’s a big fat lie! The stupid idiotic morons of Math have already DECREED that space is warped. There is no more argument. You will NEVER again be allowed to publish an alternative theory that does not include warped space. Idiot Einstein’s warped space theory is a done deal! All that high school students can do from now on is memorize this garbage.

.

Again, art. You should make it a point to take an introductory course in Physics when you get to high school. You have amusing beliefs that will die a natural death once you take your first course.

.

.

.

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs”

.

.

Big Bang Creation, magical black holes, particles of mass, wave-packet, many worlds, alternative realities, Uncertainty Principle…

.

.

.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

“In a court we do use evidence to convince people”

.

.

Correct. However, in Science, we are not in the business of convincing because we are not in the business of recruiting. It is religion that persuades in order to recruit.

.

.

.

“. If I… stab someone to death… how do you know it was me?”

.

.

Bad example! It is Philosophy which deals with matters of guilt and who and why (REASONS). Physics deals with CAUSES. In Science, we are concerned with theories: explanations of phenomena, not with ‘who done it’.

.

.

.

“fingerprints… blood… stab wound… footprints”

.

.

Such evidence allows a theorist to formulate a theory, one of which is that they were all planted by the police or your next door neighbor. In the end each juror reaches nothing more than an OPINION! That’s why the 12 jurors spend their time in the room persuading and recruiting each other to their versions.

.

Like Mathemagix, Law is a branch of religion: opinion. In Science, we have no opinions. We only have explanations. As soon as the person votes for a theory and calls it the truth or claims that it has been proven he is doing religion.

.

.

.

“even if I am not there you can see that I was there”

.

.

…or that you were framed! Gullible idiots like you accept the first theory that authority tells them to believe. No wonder so many morons believe that Bin Laden did 9/11.

.

.

.

“we use math to predict”

.

.

Neither math nor predictions are a part of Science. So your statement is irrelevant. In Science, we don’t use math, much less in Physics. In Physics, we use objects. We can’t do Physics without objects. The idiots of Math instead use concepts.

.

.

.

“the hadron collidor exists, to discover what math has already said should take place”

.

.

A prediction is a description and NOT an explanation. In Science, we don’t do descriptions. In Science, we explain. The moment the idiot of Math can EXPLAIN his so-called ‘prediction’, he is ‘predicting’ the past. Explain we can only explain a CONSUMMATED phenomenon. If an idiot of Math can explain the cause of the eclipse that is to occur tomorrow, he is talking about a movie he already watchED.

.

.

.

“We understand how light travels”

.

.

Apparently NOT! The idiots at your Math Monastery can't tell you unambiguously whether light travels rectilinearly or curvilinearly. This stupid moron Einstein claimed that space is warped around EVERY mass in the U (i.e., every atom). This means that light should never travel parallel to a straight line. Yet, in Optics, they teach that whether refracting or reflecting light ONLY travels in straight lines, . You should learn the basics about light travel, art. Look up Fermat’s and Hero’s Principles.

.

So? Who is correct? Who should we believe? This stupid moron Einstein who says that light always travels in curves or Fermat and Hero who say that light always travels in straight lines?

.

.

.

“during the big bang the entire universe was bright as day”

.

.

So you’re a Creationist, huh? Well, that figures. You should read more non-fiction and less Bible. What was your God doing that day? Scratching His nuts?

.

.

.

“test… to see if they are true. We find evidence for things to know if they are real.”

.

.

True to YOU? Real to whom? All you did with your INTERPRETATION of the evidence is convince yourself. You didn’t convince your neighbor.

.

Again, evidence is used to persuade in order to recruit. In Science, we do neither.

.

.

.

“if it didn't work”

.

.

Angels also work. They push the Earth around, don’t they? We just can’t see them. We infer them.

.

Should we then accept angels because the theory ‘works’?

.

In Science, we clean our arses with what ‘works’. Science (rational explanation) is divorced from Technology (what works).

.

.

.

“We observe a thing before it moves yes, but what if it's not a THING but and event?”

.

.

An event that moves????

.

You should sober up, art! There’s got to be a double-A near your home. Check the Yellow Pages.

.

.

.

“What is light exactly made of?”

.

.

Well, it can’t be made of energy because energy is a concept. See my earlier comment where I tear your energy garbage apart. Let me post the relevant segment here again so that a superficial reader like you doesn’t miss it next time…

.

.

energy: a PROPERTY of objects… a core CONCEPT… (Wiki)

.

energy: the CAPACITY… a MEASURE… (dictionary.com)

.

energy: the CAPACITY for DOING (Hyperphysics)

.

energy: an ABSTRACT QUANTITY… Energy is MEASURED… units of energy (Wolfram) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.htm...

.

“the concept of energy… energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing… But people speak of energy as if it's a thing… To understand the concept of energy… energy measures the capability…” http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_ene...

.

Were you able to get this far or does your short attention span prevent you from reading that much?

.

If energy is an abstract concept, light cannot be made of energy any more than it is made of love.

.

.

.

“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.

.

.

Despite that the word ‘science’ derives from the ‘scire’, meaning knowledge/to know, Science has NOTHING to do with knowledge. Science only comprises rational explanations. The irrational ones belong to religion. In Science, we don’t ‘know’. In Science, we explain.

.

.

.

“Physics… the study of matter and its motion through space and time,

.

.

You should take an introductory course in Physics when you get to high school, art. Space and time are concepts. You can’t move through concepts. Try moving through intelligence one of these days.

.

.

http://youstupidrelativist.com/05SR/03Time/06TimeT...

.

.

.

“concepts such as energy”

.

.

So how is it that you idiots transfer concepts? Do you pitch them like a baseball or do you kick them like a football? Please draw this concept you call ‘energy’ before you transfer it. I’ve never seen an energy.

.

.

.

“Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun”

.

.

Well here is one guy who you failed to convince with your evidence…

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668S5Zhtk2I

.

So? Who should we believe? What good was your evidence if he didn’t believe your theory? How come you were not able to persuade and recruit him?

.

.

.

“evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis”

.

.

…for one group of people. Another group of people continues to believe in warped space, black holes, Big Bang, and other nonsense despite all the evidence to the contrary

.

.

.

“One of the most useful properties of religious theories is that they can be used to make predictions”

.

.

Yes. If you are into predictions, I recommend that you visit a couple of your local astrologers and palm readers and read your daily horoscope.

.

.

.

“Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress.”

.

.

That’s a big fat lie! The stupid idiotic morons of Math have already DECREED that space is warped. There is no more argument. You will NEVER again be allowed to publish an alternative theory that does not include warped space. Idiot Einstein’s warped space theory is a done deal! All that high school students can do from now on is memorize this garbage.

.

Again, art. You should make it a point to take an introductory course in Physics when you get to high school. You have amusing beliefs that will die a natural death once you take your first course.

.

.

.

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs”

.

.

Big Bang Creation, magical black holes, particles of mass, wave-packet, many worlds, alternative realities, Uncertainty Principle…

.

.

.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 21 months ago from Canada Author

All things have attributes and behaviours. An oran ge wouldn’t be an orange without all it’s characteristics. It’s characteristics come from what it is made from. All things have behaviours and characteristics unique to them. So a thing is defined by those behaviours.

An object is obviously still an object even if it appears not be moving, but within all things there is a great deal of movement going on at close to light speed, and things are far less solid than they appear. According to modern physics the slid floor under your feet isn’t solid at all.

But let’s say modern physics is wrong about atoms and energy etc. So what? The current model is just that: a model based on observed facts. In other words it is an interpretation of scientifically obtained data.

A model tries to explain facts. When we do this, this other thing happens. Why?

The facts are facts. But the interpretation of the facts is a model. Models don’t have to be accurate to be useful. Some have interpreted from the data gathered through the use of QM that the act of observing determines the outcome of an event. I find that notion absurd for a number of reasons.

But the math used in QM does not use or require such an interpretation be correct. Good thing too because there are dozens of interpretations of QM. They all try to interpret the meaning of the observations and data collected. But none of them have to be correct. QM continues to make accurate predictions about quantum events and furthering technology even without being 100 percent certain about the nature of quantum events.

That’s a tool. Relativity is a tool. Electro dynamics is a tool, Newtonian’s laws are a tool, etc. Tools help us accomplish tasks. They do not require interpretation as to why they work; they just require a skilled hand to use them. But people love to know, or think they know how things work, so interpretations are high on people’s agenda’s when arguing about how stuff works, so we have plenty of them.

Now, that’s fine because it spurns us on to prove our interpretation is correct, and just as often that ends up proving some interpretations wrong.

QM was the result of experiment and thought, and has proved itself as a tool. So has Relativity and Neutron’s laws, and QED. They are all tools we can now use to farther humanity. So what if energy doesn’t exist? Something is going on on the lowest levels of our existence, and it is what we and the orange are made of. It determines what we are and what everything is. For now we and modern physics call it energy.

And the tools we have developed through inductive reasoning achieve real world results. That’s the test of whether a model is useful or not. Can you do something with it you can’t do without it.

I fully expect that we will continue to modify our model s of the universe as time goes on, and it may well be that future scientists look at us and laugh at some of the ideas we have now about physics. That’s how science works. No one has the last word; only the latest data.

Yes energy is work. Work is movement and energy is movement. All things are in constant motion internally and externally all the time, including rocks that may appear to do nothing for centuries at a sitting.

The idea that energy does not exist except as a measure or some other simple dictionary common usage definition is just not adequate. And saying that a thing/mass/volume defines existence is naïve, though understandable given the desire to be able to see this as a Newtonian clockwork universe.

Unfortunately it clearly isn’t.

Now tell me; why is you think your ropes wouldn’t tangle, and no I’m not buying the book until I thinkbit stands a chance of adding to the discussion of physics.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

Part I

.

.

“An object is obviously still an object even if it appears not be moving”

.

Correct! Therefore, an object/thing canNOT be defined by its behavior. Before a rock or a tree ‘behaves’, it already has shape. Shape is a stati concept. We do not need to see or imagine a rock moving before it qualifies as an object.

.

.

“the math used in QM does not use or require such an interpretation be correct.”

.

No one is criticizing the Math! There’s nothing wrong with De Broglie’s equation. There’s nothing wrong with Schrodinger’s equation. What is IRRATIONAL are the physical interpretations (e.g., 0D point particle, Uncertainty Principle, wave-packet duality, particle of mass [Higgs] or time [chronon] of sound [phonon] of speed [tachyon]) These are AD HOC spirits and angels that the mechanics forcefully include to get through their presentations. It means that they still have no idea how our Universe works.

.

And here’s the Lion’s Paw Test to any mechanic to see how much their religion is worth.

.

[Lion’s Paw for those who don’t know what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Isaac_N... )

.

How does a magnet attract another ?

.

He who can solve this Lion’s Paw gets a beer! Quantum Mechanics will NEVER be able to tell you how a magnet attracts another because Quantum Mechanics is rubbish. It only offers IRRATIONAL explanations for invisible phenomena.

.

Indeed, another Lion’s Paw is the atom. Not a single mechanic in the world can draw the H atom for you.

.

1. The mechanics claim that they have photographed and interviewed atoms personally.

.

https://www.pinterest.com/maryandersonn/atoms-are-...

.

2. The mechanics claim that they have filmed the electron which is a small component of an atom.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

.

3. The mechanics claim that they have imaged gluons and quarks which are constituents of the proton which is a small constituent of an atom.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9mw75xX2YE

.

Yet not a single particle mathemagician can draw for you an atom! This is what the idiots of Math still draw in the 21st C:

.

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-hydrogen-ato...

.

When you ask them whether that is the true blue H atom they deny it and tell you to take a course in Math.

.

.

.

“But let’s say modern physics is wrong about atoms and energy etc. So what?”

.

What do you mean ‘so what?’ I thought that the purpose of Science was to understand how this Unievrse works. If we’re going to invoke angels and spirits to explain phenomena, we didn’t need Science for that!

.

.

.

“Models don’t have to be accurate to be useful.”

.

Angels are useful. You can explain anything with them. God is even more useful. He’s all powerful. We don’t need Science if we’re going to invoke the Good Lord to fill in the gaps in our ignorance.

.

.

.

“the act of observing determines the outcome of an event. I find that notion absurd”

.

Yet you prod along as if nothing. Obviously there is something there that the mechanics don’t understand. But try to challenge QM or GR this late in the game… You’d be stepping on too many toes. No one is ever going to overturn Math fizz now. We’re stuck with irrationality until the end of time.

.

.

.

“there are dozens of interpretations of QM… none of them have to be correct.”

.

NONE of them are ‘correct’ (opinion). They are ALL 100% IRRATIONAL. There are no rational explanations emanating from Math fizz today. And one reason for this is obvious. The language is irrational. Terms such as energy, mass, time, force, field, charge, black hole, Big Bang, 0D particle, wave-packet, etc., do NOT belong in Science. They only have a place in religion.

.

.

.

“QM continues to make accurate predictions”

.

In Science, we don’t do predictions. It is in religion where the prophets, the astrologers and the palm readers do predictions. Neveertheless, the mechanics and relativists always predict the past. It would be nice if they would try to predict the future for a change.

.

.

.

“Relativity is a tool…Tools help us accomplish tasks.”

.

Science doesn’t care what tool you use. You can use your imagination if you want. Science only cares that when you come to the conference you give a rational explanation to a phenomenon. If you use the GR tool and then end up saying that spacetime is the 4D sphere in which we live, your tool was worthless.

.

.

.

“They do not require interpretation as to why they work”

.

Science is ONLY about interpreting WHY they work (CAUSE, not reason). Physics is ONLY concerned about explaining the mechanism behind a phenomenon. Physics is only concerned about physical interpretations. We don’t use Math in Physics. We use objects. Without objects we cannot even begin to do Physics!

.

.

.

“proving some interpretations wrong”

.

In Science, we don’t prove. It is in religion where they prove to the flocks. In Science, we explain and let everyone reach their own conclusions at home. Whatever people believe is no concern to Science. Science stops at explanation. If someone believes that a given theory is ‘wrong’, that’s HIS opinion! Opinion is the hallmark of religion.

.

.

.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

Part II

.

.

“QM was the result of experiment… has proved itself as a tool”

.

In Science, we neither do experiments nor prove. You can do all the experiments you want in your dark basement. When you come to the conference, you are required to give a rational explanation. If you did a million experiments and learned nothing, what was the point of the experiments?

.

Indeed, the idiots of Math since Newton have carried out gazillions of experiments to discover the workings of gravity. Not a single Math moron can tell you why the pen falls to the floor and not to the ceiling. What physical object comes in contact with the skin of the pen? That’s another Lion’s Paw.

.

.

.

So what if energy doesn’t exist? Something is going on on the lowest levels of our existence… For now we… call it energy.”

.

You first need to determine whether energy is ‘something’ or ‘something that’s going on’. You cannot say that what underlies our existence is ‘something that’s going on’. Either way, all you’re saying is that Quantum still has no clue. Yet try to challenge QM. Try to publish a paper that says that QM is irrational.

.

.

.

“achieve real world results. That’s the test of whether a model is useful or not.”

.

Science doesn’t care whether a model is useful. That only concerns Technology. The only test in Science is whether the explanation is rational. That’s an objective criterion. If you move a concept, if you don’t define your terms, if you can’t draw your objects (e.g., 4D spacetime, 0D electron), if your theory does not follow from the initial postulates, then your theory is IRRATIONAL by definition.

.

.

.

“I fully expect that we will continue to modify our model s… future scientists look at us and laugh at some of the ideas we have now about physics””

.

There is no future. We’re the last humans on Earth!

.

http://hubpages.com/education/We-are-the-last-gene...

.

So you’d better hurry up. What model of the H atom will they come up with in what little time we have left if they haven’t modified the Rutherford/Bohr Planetary Model in 100 years?

.

.

.

“That’s how science works. No one has the last word”

.

It’s over and done with. You missed it. We die with QM and GR and the poppycock of String Theory. No one will ever overhaul all that garbage in what little time we have left.

.

.

.

“only the latest data”

.

The data is used over and over to confirm QM and GR. There is not even an attempt to provide alternative models. If there are no discrete particles in the U (the ASSUMPTION that the mathemagicians make), then all of the nonsense that Math fizz has created in the last 500 years dies a sudden death.

.

.

.

“Yes energy is work. Work is movement and energy is movement”

.

Therefore, neither light nor atoms nor anything imaginable can be MADE of a brick called ‘energy’. Energy is like the joker in a card game. You can put it anywhere you like in lieu of anything. You can use the letter X instead of energy and it will have the same effect.

.

.

.

“The idea that energy does not exist except as a measure or some other simple dictionary common usage definition is just not adequate.”

.

We can call it X. We will never have a grasp of X if we don’t define this symbol or have a remote idea of what we’re talking about, specifically if we can’t decide whether X is a brick or a brick in motion.

.

.

.

“the desire to be able to see this as a Newtonian clockwork universe. Unfortunately it clearly isn’t.”

.

So you’re saying that it works by magic? The magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat and you simply explain that he converted empty space into length, width and height?

.

.

.

“why… you think your ropes wouldn’t tangle”

.

Too advanced for you! You gotta go through kindergarten, elementary school, and high school before you can go to college. You can’t just jump to college from zip and expect to understand explanations of invisible light-on-light phenomena such as neutron bombardment, backscattering, and magnetic attraction. You first need to get an idea of what an atom looks like and what the word ‘touch’ means. Hopefully, before light can slice through light there is a point where the beams touch.

.

.

.

“I’m not buying the book”

.

When did I try to sell you a book? My God!

.

.

.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 21 months ago from Canada Author

So we're all doomed? lol.. You really are mad. Perhaps on the weekend I'll answer some of this.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

"So we're all doomed?"

.

Yep! No species can avoid becoming extinct. Once our global economy disintegrates, the agri corps will have no incentive to produce or distribute food to you. The only reason they produce and distribute food today is for money (profits). No money, no food. No food, no humans. It's just that simple. That's how the dinos died: the entire ecological pyramid disintegrated. No cycads, no triceratops, no T-rex.

.

.

.

"You really are mad."

.

Thanks for the compliment. You made my day.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 21 months ago from New Mexico

Bill, you are a total wack job with a very shortsighted, twisted and limited point of view. You are possibly a troll. Either way you are an idiot that is a total hilarious and pathetic joke.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

Thank you for your heart-warming words of encouragement , art. Coming from you I feel better already.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 21 months ago from New Mexico

Think about the statement you have made.... if money vanish then no one will want to produce food.... except for the agri corps who want to eat too. And the dinosaurs didn't all die out at the same time and not from lack of food, considering what their food was. They died because of an extreme ecological disaster. Many animals did survive this disaster and adapted to it.

Not one statement you have made about anything has any accuracy to it, its completely paranoid, propaganda and hearsay with no scientific accuracy whatsoever $6.


billgaede profile image

billgaede 21 months ago

“if money vanish then no one will want to produce food.... except for the agri corps who want to eat too”

.

.

Corporations don’t eat. It is humans that eat. Why would any worker go to the corporate farm if they won’t receive a salary? What will you pay them with? Food? While the rest of the world starves and just looks on? And even in this case we are talking about the die off of billions of people.

.

Why would the driver take the trouble to distribute the food to the cities? What will the cities give the agri corp in exchange? Money? Profits?

.

How would the employees of agri corps plant and produce food while millions of starving city folk come looking for them with their guns or to steal whatever they planted?

.

.

.

“the dinosaurs didn't all die out at the same time and not from lack of food”

.

.

You obviously didn’t do a minimum of research on the subject of extinction, bean brain. A mass extinction is BY DEFINITION a collapse of the ecological pyramid, the disintegration of an entire food chain. No mass extinction can do without the common denominator: starvation. From the Wiki K-T Extinction Event…

.

.

“a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis”

.

“Photosynthesizing organisms, including phytoplankton and land plants, formed the foundation of the food chain in the late Cretaceous as they do today. Evidence suggests that herbivorous animals died out when the plants they depended on for food became scarce. Consequently, top predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex also perished.”

.

“organisms whose food chain included these shell builders, became extinct”

.

“it is thought that ammonites were the principal food of mosasaurs, a group of giant marine reptiles that became extinct at the boundary”

.

“Extinction was more severe among animals living in the water column than among animals living on or in the sea floor. Animals in the water column are almost entirely dependent on primary production from living phytoplankton while animals living on the ocean floor feed on detritus or can switch to detritus feeding”

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Pa...

.

And from the Alvarez Hypothesis asteroid paper: “The resulting darkness would suppress photosynthesis”

.

Here’s a synthesis of the 'asteroid' FOOD/STARVATION theory from Enchanted Learning…

.

“The dust and debris thrust into the atmosphere would have blocked most of the sunlight for months, and lowered the temperature globally. Those organisms that could not adapt to the temperature and light changes would die out. Since plants' energy is derived from the sun, they would likely be the first to be affected by changes in climate. Many families of phytoplankton and plants would die out… Major changes in the food chain would result from all of these these environmental upheavals. The herbivores (plant eaters) who ate those plants would starve soon after the plants died. Then, at the top of the food chain, the carnivores (meat eaters), having lost their prey, would have to eat each other, and eventually die out.”

.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaur...

.

.

.

It is gullible, lazy people like you that don’t do any research who clutter the forums with unsubstantiated opinions, making sweeping statements about issues you know nothing about. All you do is parrot something you read superficially and never challenged or investigated. You should stick to going to church every Sunday if you’re into listening to sermons between yawns rather than engaging in scientific exchanges. You have no mental capacity to climb out of the box.

.

.

.

Here, bean brain! Learn the basics from Bill Gaede…

.

.

mass extinction: the disappearance of one or several FOOD CHAINS

.

.

Humans won’t die of asteroids, supernovas, climate change, disease or any of the other nonsense proposed by the mathemagicians. Humans will mostly die of starvation. It is highly likely that because of the collapse of the economy, infighting will play a major role. Certainly, the T-Rexes jousted for carcasses among themselves towards the end. Similarly, the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Indians, Pakistanis, and others will probably cast their fireworks at each other before the final collapse.

.

.

.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working