Exist is defined as having physical presence, that is having shape and location.
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.
(No capacities exist, its just the ability of an object)
So does energy exists?
If yes can anybody draw a picture of it, as anything that exist has a shape and anything with a shape can be drawn.
If no then what is this stuff called energy that is used to describe every phenomenon?
I don't accept the basic definition premise. Things exist which do not have physical presence. Thoughts, love, ideas, energy, mind, time (admittedly created), feelings, concepts, air waves, currents, gravity, force, inertia, polarization.
Those cannot be said to exist in the strictest sense. They are called concepts. Concepts are conceived by a brain, hence are only in thoughts, not in real world.
Eg:- What you call wave is just to and fro motion of an object(medium). What exists is the molecules of the medium, not waves.
Apparently, then, neither do you exist since you are an avatar in cyberspace.
How do you justify yourself based on your own definition?
Because, according to you, everything you write is a concept or abstraction, nothing real. Hence, your post really doesn't exist, and neither do you.
Yes Carter, I don't exist if you like, I live. The matter that makes up me exist. What you see in the cyberspace is not me. It is the absence of light in your computer screen, which makes sense to you because you are taught to make sense of the pattern. Imagine a china man(who do not understand English) seeing the same thing cannot make any sense out of it.
Are you saying that since we cannot draw gravity or see gravity or make a picture of gravity that, therefore, gravity does not exist?
Forces are real.
Forces are physical---and physical does NOT require that something be within our visual perceptions range.
@couturepopcafe i m fully agreed with you. There are many things which are around us but they can't be drawn on paper.
' There are many things which are around us but they can't be drawn on paper.'
Energy has numerous forms. Everything in this world is composed of energy. the waves , the air, the light etc.
Electricity, heat, energy emitted by bulb, energy produces when we chant some mantra, there is life in us and that one also a kind of energy but no one can draw it.
We can draw the imaginary picture of energy but not the real one. We can only feel energy.
"Everything in this world is composed of energy. the waves , the air, the light etc."
Everything in this world is composed of matter. Waves is vibration of matter. Just see water waves, all the water does is moving up and down synchronously, you take it as wave. Air is a collection of molecules. Light????
"Electricity, heat, energy emitted by bulb, energy produces when we chant some mantra, there is life in us and that one also a kind of energy but no one can draw it."
Heat is a type of vibration of molecules. When you chant mantra or whatever, the vocal cords vibrate, which is transmitted to air molecules, which it transmitted to ear drum, which is transmitted to brain via nerve impulses which is interpreted as sound. We can draw the pictures of molecules as they exist. We can't draw energy as it don't.
jomine - what causes the wave to move? Energy. What causes matter to vibrate? Energy. What is beyond matter, inside of it, broken down to its smallest part? Energy. It exists, brother. Your heart beats because of it. You may say it is a collection of nerve impulses, electromagnetically charged. When the charge misses, your heart stops. No energy.
You well said that energy exists. I don't have much knowledge about science but yes, i can say that energy exists as it can be felt all around.
I appreciate your example.
"Your heart beats because of it. You may say it is a collection of nerve impulses, electromagnetically charged.
I had studied this when i was in high school.
Thanks for reminding me those golden days.
"what causes the wave to move? Energy."
Wave doesnot move, it is that matter that make up that move. All matter in the universe is in constant vibration and motion and the motion is transmitted. When you feel the vibration you call it heat.
"What is beyond matter, inside of it, broken down to its smallest part? Energy."
Matter is matter- an object. Energy is a concept. Concepts exist in the mind of the conceiver. Energy is the "ability" or "capacity". That is what one has, not one is. So you think the whole world is made of ability or capacity?
What do you mean by saying energy is ability or capacity, please elaborate?
It is not me who say so. Check any dictionary or journal, that is the standard definition of energy.
Yes, that's what I wanted to say. We say what we have read or studied. But whatever we read must be written by some human. He wrote what he supposed to be right at that time. Then why don't you believe on what you feel or see. Think above human mind and feel that supreme power in us which moves everything in this universe. Let's have a look on our solar system where each and every plant moves on its own axis. The universe is limitless why the same is not anywhere else. Actually all these have been created perfectly by the creator(The GOD).
He is every where in many forms. So my friend energy do exists. You may argue infinite on the basis of your knowledge. A child sees apple but until his mother do not say that this is apple he won't know. So we accept what we have been told.
"Think above human mind and feel that supreme power in us which moves everything in this universe. Let's have a look on our solar system where each and every plant moves on its own axis. The universe is limitless why the same is not anywhere else. Actually all these have been created perfectly by the creator(The GOD).
He is every where in many forms. So my friend energy do exists. You may argue infinite on the basis of your knowledge"
So you claim, you have original knowledge of this "god" thing? Is this 'god' and 'creator' one and the same thing? If same, why you have to use two terms?
Can you explain anything with this god stuff without any contradiction. Creation in any form is contradictory, so tell me that which is non-contradictory. Or can you 'exhibit' god, the best thing to do it any scientific presentation?
Alisha, all you have is, some claims and opinion by the people who were there before you, or some subjective feelings that are biased because of what you are taught. Magic is never an answer, that answer only comes when someone is lazy.
Universe can be limitless or boundless, as it is a mere concept. All objects are bounded.
Perfection is again another concept, so is subjective. What you say as perfect, may not be perfect for another.
What is this 'energy' that you claim to exist then?
What idea are you trying to convey?
In short i just ask a question from you. What's that keeping you alive? What happens when you die?
What do you mean by alive? If u ask about how people think or how people note on once own volition, i can explain it all but to explain the whole physiology this page won't be enough. When i die the matter that make of me disintegrate and become part of another thing. Just like when u disappam a computer.
One can argue that the force created by energy is a physical thing, measurable. The force moves objects and changes location along with that object. A motion such as an air wave moves sound along a physical cable or through a series of stations and marker points. An ocean current or wave is a physical thing caused not by the water itself but by gravitational pulls. Gravity itself is a form of energy able to move objects. So energy itself, which can move objects, which contains within itself a physical power to create objective forms, must in essence be a physical thing.
Force again does not exists. Force is exerted by one object over another. What we measure is the distance traveled, not any force!
The question is not what causes wave. Wave is just the vibration of an object that is transmitted. We interpret it as wave as it is easier to say say so. Gravity is tension exerted by one object over another.
Any physical thing can be drawn in a paper, try energy, if you think it exist.
Your question and conclusions are based on a fundamental flaw that energy is not defined as you claim it to be as "having shape and location."
Basically, energy comes in two states, potential and kinetic, stored and doing work, all requiring objects with mass. So, if you want to take pictures of energy in its potential state, take a picture of any object at rest, and if you want to take pictures of energy in its kinetic state, take pictures of objects in motion. Simple.
Your question and conclusions are based on a fundamental flaw that energy is not defined as you claim it to be as "having shape and location."
So define energy!!. the definition you quoted was that of "exist", not energy!
Basically, energy comes in two states, potential and kinetic, stored and doing work, all requiring objects with mass.
What is mass?
Please define that too. When potential energy increases what exactly is increasing? The number of atoms in the matter?
If you take the picture of anything that is supposed to have increased potential energy you'll find no change. There is no increase in length or breadth or height of the object. Then what did increase?
Often, when one begins to engage others in a discussion about physics, they would have at the very least taken the time to educate themselves on definitions.
But, to open up a discussion with ill-informed definitions followed by extraordinary claims would show adequately one has not done so.
So, are you expecting to make up my own definitions?
Seriously pal, do your homework.
What do mean by "potential energy increasing"? Potential energy is stored energy. How are you increasing it?
That is the question I am asking you because it makes no sense whatsoever?
"are you expecting to make up my own definitions"
Well if you want you have to. Nobody has made a clear definition for mass. they are just describing ghosts!
"What do mean by "potential energy increasing"
You are the one who claim this non-existent stuff increase, decrease, get converted to mass, then to energy and all, not me. As the one making the claim it is your job to explain all these RATIONALLY!
Or, Is it that you think rationally, only when it comes to god??
I didn't make any claim. I just restated a good definition for "exist". Then I found that neither your energy nor mass comes in that definition. Well I also found that there is no proper definition for either of it, just another word like god, that fits everywhere but explain nothing.
If you are doing physics you should have a definition that is consistent and you should be able to explain, rationally. If not, its just religion with changed names!!
Your claim is about potential energy increasing, which I have no idea what you're talking about. Explain it.
In other words, you created a strawman fallacy.
And of course, I have not seen a definition for "exist" that follows your definition.
I use common accepted definitions. What do you use?
Sorry to butt in, but I've engaged Jomine in this before. It's a nightmare and really not worth the bother. The argument ultimately boils down to him/her saying "explain this, explain that" to anything you say to try to be helpful and explain.
It's really odd, but ultimately you wont get anywhere because they have no point of view, their argument seems to be;"Some things are tricky to explain using common language, therefore they don't exist".
It seems fairly obvious to me that certain aspects of physics will be difficult to explain because they exist outside of what our language was designed to cope with - I don't suppose they'd understand the maths though...
It seems fairly obvious to me that certain aspects of physics will be difficult to explain because they exist outside of what our language was designed to cope with
So says the theists!!
You do not know what exist is, time is, mass is, space is, yet you claim to understand all these(and know that all these expand, contract, dilate and bend!), yet not able to "express" it!! What science are you doing then?
After all these ludicrous claims, to add insult you say reality work on equations. What do you think, that nature first studied maths to exist?
Have you been drinking? No, I understand all of these terms, it seems apparent to me that you don't. Why wouldn't you just do some research before coming on here and embarassing yourself on a topic you know nothing about.
You're defending you point of view (once again)which is based on semantics.
Then feel free to define any of the term, and show your knowledge to the world!!
No, I'm not playing this game with you again - it'll go on all day. You need to read a book or complete junior school, not get your answers on hubpages.
I've got a perfect video for you:
To think rationally if you need to read a book, then your condition is...pathetic!
You studied a book and "believe" it, just like the theists, and then you call the theists irrational, marvelous!
This is quite simple,
You don't agree to my definition of "exist", then you come up with a definition that is non-contradictory!
Then tell me whether time is an object or concept.
You don't have to be super wise, but just normal to know that concepts cannot dilate!
Your claim is that, a clock slowed hence time slowed. If time has to slow then you are claiming it as an object.
Then you have to draw the picture as any objects can be drawn!
(I wonder when you are going to say length contracted, as your scale contracted!)
And your video, the first sentence is "energy is the ability to do work"
I think you have not seen that video yourself, or you do not know what an ability is!!
"I use common accepted definitions"
That is why you know nothing about science!
Then, in order for me to understand science as you do, I am to make up my own definitions and change them whenever the purpose calls for it?
When has I ever changed any definition?
You don't have any definition!!
Though you continuously insist time is 4th dimension, you haven't said what time is, nor dimension is yet!
Terribly sorry, but I am not interested in being your personal dictionary.
Even if you want, you can't, for you yourself don't know what these terms are! You can only regurgitate from what is written in your bible, and there no terms are defined. Every word is used inconsistently and ambiguously that nobody derive any meaning from what you talk!!
jomine - I still disagree with the basic definition that in order for something to exist it must have physical presence, shape and location. Just because someone writes something down - a definition - does not make it so. The world and all of its definitions - what we know to be - changes rapidly.
Please free to define then. A definition is a complete description, that we can identify the word with the object/concept. With out a proper definition we won't be able to convey ideas unambiguously and consistently.
I can agree with that, however, as you stated earlier, a Chinese can not understand any definition in English. It would stand to reason, then, that there are 'definitions' which we can not understand in any written language or picture, unknowns, at least to us. So, although I agree with you about the definition of a definition, I believe the idea of defining what we know is limited to what we know and can define. Sort of a catch 22.
(if you want to take pictures of energy in its kinetic state, take pictures of objects in motion)
How can you take a static picture of "motion"? That is precisely the point Jomine is presenting. Motion is not static. As for potential energy, when you take a picture of a rock lying on the ground, that is a picture of the rock, not of the "potential energy" of that rock. You have to imagine "potential energy". "Potential energy" is a descriptive phrase that illustrates an idea.
Motion - two or more locations of an object - is what is required to describe energy. To view "energy" requires a motion picture show, not a single static picture.
Thus, the idea, the concept of energy is valid, but to create motion there must be a physical connection between objects, a physical medium that transfers power, force, energy....whatever the term.....that causes an object to move.
To say the object was moved by "energy" is to say an idea moved the object. What physical medium transfered that idea into action?
If there was no other medium, then what does the physical medium of energy look like? That is the basis of the OP.
Although we can't see it but energy does exist. It is the energy that can move things without energy we can't do any thing at all.
In religion it is God but in scientific language it is energy.
I am not a scientist so I can't explain E=MC2 but here is a Youtube video for you to find out and understand energy. I hope this information will help you understand the energy.
Want to know more about energy visit this link too........
Can energy exist even when it can’t be created nor destroyed?
http://mysticbanana.com/can-energy-exis … royed.html
Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. That includes converting energy to matter and vice-versa via E=MC²
Simply put, E stands for Energy (in Joules) on one side of the equation. M is mass (in Kilograms) and C^2 is the speed of light times the speed of light, which in itself is a huge number. Hence it can take a very small amount of mass to make a large amount of energy, and vice versa.
Although we can't see it but energy does exist. It is the energy that can move things without energy we can't do any thing at all.
No. We just transfer the motion of one object to another!
In religion it is God but in scientific language it is energy.
Tell me what is "god" and "energy".
Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. That includes converting energy to matter and vice-versa via E=MC²
The M stands for mass, another concept nobody understands!
I suspect also what scientists call energy, religionists call god or life force or something similar. Many religionists make god into a person that controls the universe. I see humans as interacting with the universe
We cannot draw picture of air, does that mean air does not exist?
...I can just give ya example of it's existence, ready?
Grab 2 leads of a wire charged with 220 volts. 1 lead in 1 hand, the other in the other, while standing in the shower with the water running.
Of course the answer won't do ya any good if ya should try that...:
I am still waiting for your feedback on my post. If you overlooked my post, can you look at it now and leave some feedback.
air exists even if you can't see it because it has presence, it occupies space, it affects matter.
'it has presence"
Exactly, now compare with energy!
so you don't consider electricity to be a concept & abstract?
I see, and to you electricity is NOT energy. So Energy saving devices do not save electricity but rather concepts?
Haven't you had this discussion befor? Oh, never mind, that was with fatfist. You two think so much alike it's almost scary.
Yes, by definition energy exists.
Do you even remember what you wrote when starting this thread?
ah, I think I'm understanding where jomine is coming from now
scientists can demonstrate things that exist (even things invisible to naked eye) and even measure them.
God hasn't been demonstrated to exist with repeatable experiments (some crackpot claiming they found god isn't an example of demonstration)
Well said. GOD can't be defined. He is beyond limitations. He can't be described. BUT he can be felt every where. God is not a subject of arguments.
"GOD can't be defined. He is beyond limitations. He can't be described. BUT he can be felt every where. God is not a subject of arguments."
When something is not defined the same thing is different for different people. What you mean by god is not what another person mean. Felt?? Feeling is subjective. With that I can say I feel Loch Ness Monster every where, will you agree?
Energy as in E=MC2? No. It doesn't exist. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are fine. No one dropped a bomb. Nothing happened, and, by the by, my atoms and your atoms are falling apart, we're dissolving, because energy doesn't exist. Ooooh Nooo, I'M MELTINNNGG!
Stand there and let me punch you in the face and then see if you want to ask the same question still?
"Stand there and let me punch you in the face and then see if you want to ask the same question still?"
You will be a good company to superwags and beelzedad!
So you have one more god in addition to the trinity?
Do you all go together to relativistic church, to pray to your quadruplet god - father, son, ghost and the holy energy?
If you are capable, think about my first comment let me punch you in the face if energy does not exist, you will feel nothing. But if it does exist you will be one sore fool.
I will tell you what happens when you punch.
The actin and myosin filaments(molecules) in your muscles combine and the length shortens. When all the fibers does that, the muscle shortens. When first the flexor muscles like biceps and then the extensor muscles contract in tandem, you "make the punch", that is your clenched fist moves from your body to say my face and come in contact with my cells on the face. The motion of your hand is transferred to the cells of my face and the architecture is distorted in consequence. Some nerve cells are stimulated and I appreciate pain. Some blood vessels are damaged and along with that the chemicals released from the injured cells, cause an accumulation of WBCs, and some more chemicals, generally called as inflammatory reaction, which causes the edema(swelling) and redness.
Where is the energy?
Now if your trying to prove energy exists, its very easy. First tell me what do you mean by "exist", if you don't agree with my definition. But it should be rational and should be able to use consistently.
If you agree, then just draw a picture of energy, as anything that exist, has a form(3D shape) and can be drawn. [or sent a link to the picture of this energy!]
When some persons are first told there is no muscles in the body that can push and it is muscles that make all the movements in the body, they find it difficult to accept. But it is a fact, that there is nothing in the body that can push, all it can do is pull, but still we are able to push and find the information bizarre. Similarly we have got accustomed to the concept of energy that, we take 'it' as something existing- reification
Haha; I made it into the "Holy Trinity". Jesus wept jo, change the record will you?!
When you posted "does energy exist?" you should have stated that you have already made up your mind and you'll make strange accusations about people if they point out what 99.9% of the informed people on the globe reckon.
"if they point out what 99.9% of the informed people on the globe reckon."
Still haven't left that "majority is right attitude"?
"when you posted "does energy exist?" you should have stated that you have already made up your mind"
It is not I who made up, it is nature. Nature is binary, either there is something or there is nothing. These things we say "exist" But we humans have developed certain ideas to describe nature, such ideas are called concepts, eg; time, love, energy, intelligence... All these concepts developed only after the first human who walked on earth. All objects existed, eternally.. and we are trying to explain... For mother nature, there is no memory and hence is always in the present!!
We cannot, yet KNOW "dark energy or dark matter" but we know they exists by the "forces" they exert.
Know one has seen a "quark," yet we know it exists by its definition relating to the laws of quantum physics.
Energy is but a "word" to describe the essence of "force."
None of the above need a picture to be drawn of them in any form but mathematics.
Anything that exist in this world can be visualized and can be drawn, by the simple fact that they have shape. Energy is the ability, force is also a verb, what something does. Energy is like the "god" word, means so many things to so many people but actually carry no meaning.
Dark matter, energy are stupid answers by the so called scientists when they cannot explain. All mathematics do is describe, never explain. They never answer a "why" or 'how" question. But science is about the "why" or "how"!
About the "quark", ask the scientist, what is the mass of one, if you want to hear idiotic answers!
I, a simple lay person (as you are) will offer a respectfull bow to those who have dedicated their lives to understanding "reality" in forms so esoteric that only the likes of Einstein, Hawking, Oppenheimer et al can produce them!
Let me put it this way, If I were to take you seriously in opposition to any one of them, I would consider myself to have won "The Fool of the Century" award.
I haven't reached that level of "Alzheimers" yet...
"a simple lay person (as you are) will offer a respectfull bow to those who have dedicated their lives to understanding "reality" in forms so esoteric that only the likes of Einstein, Hawking, Oppenheimer et al can produce them!"
Your choice Qark, your choice.
What I don't understand is, when people like the popes and bishops dedicate their life to esoteric and ask you to believe in god, you ask them what god is, but when they turn their name to science and tell you 'time dilate', you bow to them, why? You never ask what time is!
Hawkings has written an entire book on 'time', but no where he has said what time is. Einstein wrote a book showing science is subjective. (But as far as I know science is the NATURAL OBJECTIVE EXPLANATION of mother nature.
When somebody can't differentiate between object and concept, and say irrationalities, and if you bow to them, you end up being on the side of "earth is flat", but still, it is YOUR choice!
You chronically misspell my hub name. Why?
Don't you take the time to proof read what you post before posting? Or are you harboring a subliminal desire to "dis" - respect me?
Jomine, you, unfortunately, don't get it!
I question everything! "WHY," is the foundation of the knowledge I've gained over a lifetime.
The "esoterica" you speak of as it relates to religious belief is based SOLEY upon "guess and hope."
The "god thing" that guides religious "guess and hope," cannot be defined in any form but "opinion."
There is nothing existing, but the words of an ancient and primitive people to base a religious belief on.
: Jomine, you are all over the place.
I've read everything Hawking and Einstein have offered to the "layperson" for consideration.
Understanding full well that we humans are an arrogant lot, laboring under the false premise that we are an intelligent species, when in fact we are not, functioning as a "full deck," leads me to believe that science has accomplished much, but has a long road, yet, to travel.
Religious belief has only accomplished 1 thing since its conception. It has fragmented humankind like no other concept man has yet conceived.
I will side with those specially tallented human beings who have dedicated their lives to understanding "reality" until they and their search is considered to be an exercise in futility and logic and reason are considered to be inanity.
In ref to your question: "Does Energy Exist?" I'll hang in with the decisions of science.
Religion, as it refers to that question, is irrelevant and can't be considered.
Oh and by the way, Hawking understands that "time" is but a human construct to explain a nonspatial continuum that exists but would not be known if there were not a "conscious" mind to make meaning of it.
"Don't you take the time to proof read what you post before posting? Or are you harboring a subliminal desire to "dis" - respect me?"
Never Qwark, never. No intention of dis-respect. Even after proof readings I make mistakes> The only thing in a computer so far I have mastered is the mouse.
" Hawking understands that "time" is but a human construct to explain a nonspatial continuum that exists but would not be known if there were not a "conscious" mind to make meaning of it."
If Hawkings had known "time" as a concept, he would never have made it the 4th dimension. In fact, Hawkings is unable to differentiate between a dimension, co-ordinate, object and concept.(I made this observation from his book a brief history of time). Einstein, on the other hand, do not even know what is simultaneity. He says if an observer moves, he cannot say whether an event occurred simultaneously, but in science observer has no role, science is objective and events are simultaneous by definition. These are minor examples. Explanations by Hawkings, Penrose, Einstein are all irrational and border on idiotic.
Religion started as a quest by man to explain the nature. It supposed, everything has a beginning and every event has a cause, which they named god arbitrarily. The later day people took advantage of it is not the fault of the original inventors. Similarly the present day science invest the tax payers money in creating colliders , to find particles of concepts. So effectively religion and the present day science is only an excuse to get money and provide job security to there followers. Both are irrational, and so is to be opposed. Then only true scientists have a hope and then only science will get back to the right track- explaining nature rationally.
You're still not picking up.
"Time" is a non-spacial concept that exists but would not be known if there were not a "conscious" mind to make meaning of it.
Nothing more need be said. That says it all clearly and concisely.
I'll make my point one more time In ref. to the existence of "energy,"
I will side with those specially talented human beings who have dedicated their lives to understanding "reality" until they and their search is considered to be an exercise in futility and logic and reason are considered to be inanity.
Yes!"..."which thy named god arbitrarily." "It" is a man imagined abstract concept. WE agree! :
We mostly agree, but there are some disagreements.
You: "Time" is a non-spacial concept that exists but would not be known if there were not a "conscious" mind to make meaning of it.
Me: "Time" is a DYNAMIC concept. As it is a concept it does NOT EXIST and would not be known if there were not a "conscious" mind to make meaning of it
I agree that we should respect scientist and most of the time we can agree with them. But the examples you provided, Hawkings and Einstein, are not scientists. Celebrities they are, and write good imaginary poetic works, but it won't qualify them as scientists.
Then somebody, whoever they are, say irrational stuff we should not bow to them but question them. Religion occurred because some people didn't ask questions!
Sematics, shematics. We're saying the same thing.
I "KNOW" why religion began. You, obviously, don't.
Hawking, Einstein, Oppenheimer, most definitely, are/were "scientists" of the highest calibre mankind has yet produced.
Of course they should be questioned. They are asking and seeking all their lives.
Until I can handle the "science" of physics (physics: The "science" of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.)
in the manner physicists do, I'll rely on their, esoteric, abilities as scientists (until they are proved wrong) in making decisions.
Jomine, you must study and gather trivia in all areas of concern. Then, organize and classify them. The next step would be to, intellectually, fit those pieces of info together as you would a jigsaw puzzle. When finished a "concept" will appear that may be described as an epiphany.
I give you credit for questioning.
Aristotle said: (paraphrase) The more I learn, the more I realize there is to know.
If I were a physicist, I'd draw you a picture of energy in mathematics. I can't, so I'll leave that up to "scientists" such as Hwaking and Einstein.
It's coffee time...:
Hwaking, Einstein, Oppenheimer et al fit intoto, the definition of "scientist."
Scientist defined: "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.
So you are not confused further, the definition of science is: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Jomine, you must gather trivia from all sources relevant to that which you are trying ot understand, sort them out, categorize them, then fit them together like you would in a jigsaw puzzle and the resulting concept can be an apiphany.
I'll give you credit for questioning.
Aristotle said: (paraphase) The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.
Waiting for your reply.......
Sorry for the delay, I was waiting for a computer, but as you insist I type from mobile? So sorry if I don't elaborate much.
Consider salt. When we sly it disintegrate what we odan is that it became sodium and chloride. There may join with other molecules or atoms to form new molecules. So the salt died, but the components continue and become now things. The same thing happen with as humans. When we die the individu molecules go away from our body and become new products.
Or like a building, the building get demolished but the components continue. What we call huma is a building, a giant assortment of molecules. The arrangement goes, we die.
Ok, So you say every thing is made up of molecules.
Do you know how molecules come into existence?
The only thing we all can agree upon is matter exist. So there are two options, either it was there or it was created. If it was created, the event of creation is a past event. All past events can only be explained. So an explanation should be non contradictory, as, if there is a contradiction such an event cannot happen. But when you say everything is created it is contradictory. So if creation cannot happen, by default we come to the conclusion that matter was not created, that is matter is eternal. So all atoms are eternal, can be neither created nor destroyed.
So, finally you agreed that there is something which is eternal like matter and according to you molecules are another form of matter by which every thing is made up of. Then, where did this matter come from? Who created it? or It produced on its own?
Don't you understand?
Self-production, creation are all irrational claims. It is your job to rationally explain a claim. I am not making any claim. What I said is, as creation in any form is irrational, that is contradictory, it cannot happen. As creation cannot happen we have to say matter or molecules or atom is eternal. Eternal means no beginning or end. Only if you suppose a beginning, you can say creation. For that there should be something called time. But time is a human concept, for nature there is nothing called time.
Ok, then define that matter, molecules and atom which according to you are irrational and eternal.
"then define that matter, molecules and atom which according to you are irrational and eternal."
Matter, molecules and atoms are not irrational. These are not claims, to be rational or irrational, these are objects. It is the claim of creation, that is irrational.
Objects we don't define, we point. I don't define an apple, I show you an apple, its photo or picture!
Apple can be defined properly like it is a fruit like mango, banana, it is a fruit blabla.... etc. Why you can't define an object which is before you like matter, molecule, atom.
Atom: It is a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons.
This is definition of atom according to science. So, is it irrational or eternal?
"Apple can be defined properly like it is a fruit like mango, banana, it is a fruit blabla.... etc. Why you can't define an object which is before you like matter, molecule, atom."
Alisha suppose an alien comes to you, who does not know about any fruits. Are you going to tell him an apple is like orange?
A definition is just that, a proper description that tells everything about that excluding everything else. How can you describe an apple like that? You can simply show the alien an apple and he will understand.
"Atom: It is a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons."
Atom, the basic unit that much we agree. The basic unit which has all the properties in question. The structure of an atom is a mystery, so better exclude that. Again, saying that it is the basic unit does not carry much meaning. It does not tell anything about the shape or structure.
"This is definition of atom according to science. So, is it irrational or eternal?"
Atom is eternal, the definition is but useless, and that is not science.
"What do you mean by alive? If u ask about how people think or how people note on once own volition, i can explain it all but to explain the whole physiology this page won't be enough. When i die the matter that make of me disintegrate and become part of another thing. Just like when u disappam a computer"
What do you mean by becoming part of another thing after death> Once you give me the answer of this question i'll be able to justify your question.
Science generally agrees at this point that all matter is made of energy. Also electricity is the movement of energy. Ever see a lightning bolt? I have. Holy crap! Energy.
No. The so called 'scientists' 'generally' agree.
Electricity- till today morning they were saying its the movement of electrons, they changed it?
Lightening? Is it a flash of Light that occur along with thunder? Which is the energy part? The Light or the sound?
I don't think English is your native language.
I thought your definition of "exist" was wrong.
I checked the dictionary and it turned out I am right and you are wrong.
"Exist; to have actual being; be real."
"Being: occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal"
"Real: to have actual being."
Energy fits all the definitions of "exist."
Sooo...in English, yes it does "exist."
Question answered, No need for further query.
I know all that Qwark.
But have you noticed, actual being, real are all synonyms, that we can't use in a scientific dissertation. What I asked is a definition.
see can you consistently use the word exist for all. For example cold is just the absence of heat, so how can you say cold exists? In common parlance we may use words just like that. Haven't you noticed peopl always complain, that they say one thing and people understood another? In science the audience should understand exactly as is said. Then only there is value. If each person is going to make there own meaning what value that conversation got? By the way that definition is not made by me but by Bill Gaede. I'm just borrowing his definition as it can be consistently used. Again one more point , that dictionarys always change meanings as the usage pattern of general public changes. Dimension, cordinate are all defined by ancient geometricians. A dimension represent the architecture and orientation of an object, while cordinates are used to represent the location. Modern mathematicians use the term interchangably and claim and object has more than 3 dimension. Dimensions are length, width and height. All are mutually perpendicular. Can you imagine one more dimension anywhere which is again perpendicular? Can you imagine any of it as stand alone? If you use your dictionary you can use all these interchangably and talk in terms of multiple dimensions, but that will be like the proverbial emperor's cloth, whoever see will interpret a cloth, when there is actually nothing.
Also Qwark, in a scientific presentation it is absolutely necessary to have the exhibit on which the theory is based. One should either bring "energy", a photo or drawing of it or a mock up. So far nobody has done that. Those who attempted always brought photos of light or moving water.
In common parlance we can say concepts exist, but if you do that in science, it is called reification.
See people say love exist and represent it with a heart symbol. In science if you say 'love' exist. Then you have to draw the picture of 'love' itself or bring "love" the 'object'!
...I'll accept a mathematical equation as a "portrayal" of the "existence" of energy.
you are confused fellow, but, your mind is being entertained by use of the concept: idiocy...:
Period end of chat...:
If energy does not exit then how is it possible to do any work. It is due to energy that let the object move
What you call work is just transfer of motion. There is nothing called energy. Energy is just a concept, humans introduced, to facilitate analysis.
What an art? Great dude.
It is out of the world design.
Even energy would not have thought that it looks so awesome.
Kepp it up.
Atom, the basic unit that much we agree. The basic unit which has all the properties in question. The structure of an atom is a mystery, so better exclude that. Again, saying that it is the basic unit does not carry much meaning. It does not tell anything about the shape or structure.
So what is that basic structure? Can you define it? Dear there why don't you accept that energy exists. It is all around us in numerous forms.
An apple is before you, closing your eyes doesn't means it is not there.
"So what is that basic structure? Can you define it? Dear there why don't you accept that energy exists. It is all around us in numerous forms.
An apple is before you, closing your eyes doesn't means it is not there."
An apple has PHYSICAL PRESENCE. You can see or touch an apple. A thousand other people who see it, see and say the same stuff. Is it same with energy? You got an exhibit of 'energy' with you, its picture?
Or tell me clearly what do you mean by "exist"
An apple has PHYSICAL PRESENCE. You can see or touch an apple. A thousand other people who see it, see and say the same stuff. Is it same with energy? You got an exhibit of 'energy' with you, its picture?
Or tell me clearly what do you mean by "exist"
Yes, Energy Exists it is what which has kept us alive. It is in us and outside too.
What do you now say whether energy exists or not?
You can say it a thousand times, but will it change the facts?
There is nothing inside us except organ systems, which are made of organs, which are made of tissues, which are made of cells, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms.I'm a surgeon, I've never seen energy in any bodies I operated!
Just say what these two terms mean, then I think, you will understand.
There are two main categories of things that exist: objects and actions.
Energy is a subcategory of actions.
Does run(action) exist without the runner(doer)?
How is that salient to the question? The runner also would not exist without breathing or digestion which are actions, the heart would not exist without the rest of the body. Neither things nor actions need to be autonomous to exist.
There are two main categories of things that exist: objects and actions.
Energy is a subcategory of actions.
"How is that salient to the question? The runner also would not exist without breathing or digestion which are actions, the heart would not exist without the rest of the body. Neither things nor actions need to be autonomous to exist."
That is THE question.
A runner "lives", his body "exist". Your problem is you equate living with existing, good for ordinary speech, but won't do in scientific speech. Or say a building is a concept, but the bricks that make up the structure exists(grossly).
Things are autonomous to exist. An object exist irrespective of other objects, irrespective of it doing any actions. An action, on the other hand, need a doer. Suppose I move my hand, the hand exist, but the movement occurs. Without the hand there is nothing called movement. Irrespective of its movement, my hand is there.
Allow me to clarify:
There are two main categories of things that exist: objects and actions.
Energy is a subcategory of actions.
So run exist, even if there is nobody to run?
A standalone action?
When you say exist, it should be independent, non-contingent upon anything else.
"things that exist: objects and actions."
And from when on actions are "things"? A "thing" or "it" is an object.
From my 'novice' understanding of energy, it does exist but it appears in many forms. It is a value. The amount of energy in electricity required to make a lightbulb emit a certain value of light energy, etc.
I am a graduate of nothing more than highschool physics though, so you should probably talk to someone a little more knowledgable.
Energy is simply borrowed, and one day we will have to give it back...
It's just about time here for me to plug myself into my own battery charger too - Night night time for bed...
Anything that affects physical presence exists by definition.
Energy affects physical presence.
Therefore energy exists.
There is nothing that affect physical presence. Objects exist. They affect other objects, the study of their interaction is science. There is nothing called 'energy' that affect physical presence.
(Anything that affects physical presence exists by definition.)
Someone has actually attempted to answer the question. Well done. But to your definition, the question remains - how would we know that the affect is not caused by an unknown or unhypothesized physical medium?
In other words, is energy another word for the e/m rope of billgaede's theory? If not, what is the physical medium that causes one object (a rock, a meteor) to hurl itself against another object (the earth).
Did the meteor get pushed or is it being pulled or neither? Neither would imply that some sort of potential stored energy suddenly sprang to life within the bowels of this meteor which then made it hurl itself across the universe.
As no other non-life form is known to have the ability to self-propel, this hypothesis is questionable.
So it gets back to the basic question - what physical medium is responsible for the transfer of this description of motion we label energy?
That would depend. Radiation (photons) requires no medium to transfer energy while sound (phonons) requires a medium.
Consider this perspective, please. When you use mathematics, you are describing, not explaining.
Assuming pure energy (a photon) is possible, what is the mechanism (your hypothesis) of how this energy is transferred to an object that causes that object then to change locations (to move)?
I have a pencil lying on my desk. I can put the tip of my finger (an object)against the pencil (an object) and push and the pencil will change locations (move). What you are terming "energy" is the push part - but it is not really the push but the physical connection of my finger that imparts (is the medium) momentum that causes the action.
I cannot sit still and simply think the word "push" and expect the pencil to move. I can describe the event by saying the pencil was pushed. However, that is not an explanation of how the pencil changed its location for A to B.
This is the difference between the concept (energy) and the physical presence (object). It would seem logical to assume only objects can impart momentum to other objects; assuming thoughts (concepts or descriptions) can do do this appears irrational.
ah, no. that's wrong. as a matter of fact material form is just a FORM of energy...potential energy.
(material form is just a FORM of energy...)
Then could you please explain how a 10 kg lump of potential energy (a granite rock) spontaneously converts itself to the substance kinetic energy?
Again, what you are doing is using synonyms (descriptions) - potential energy (static form)=kinetic energy(motion) - but you have not explained what physical property is at work and how it accomplishes the task.
We can put the numbers into an equation and prove by logic that what is said about energy is true, but that is nothing but a tautology that neither proves nor disproves reality.
What Bill, Jomine, Fatfist, and others are asking for is an explanation of why something happened instead of a description of what happened.
In response to this simple request, no one seems able to use his or her own natural reasoning ability to discuss the issue. All anyone seems able to do is quote his favorite science authority or rephrase the knowledge he was taught, that was accepted on faith, by his favorite institution of higher learning. So much faith in authority I'd almost think I had stumbled into an Evangelical revival instead of a discussion about physical realities.
fair enough. Would you say this is true of all science, or mainly physics? I find physics the most difficult to understand, because it is much more abstract than chemistry & biology.
The more concrete science makes more sense to me.
I consider the basis of all religions to be the abondonment of inate reasoning skills in favor of acceptance of authority.
In this sense, physics to me has been most co-opted by religious-like thinking as mathematics is an abstraction that does not have a 1:1 relationship with reality, but modern physics relies on mathematics to "prove" assertions. When the mathematics fail, claimed reality is then altered to fit the equation - dark energy and dark matter being perfect examples of this backward type of thinking. One might as well claim the power of god instead of dark energy and matter - they all are equally valid as explanations.
Biological sciences have not fallen into this trap - biology still studies what is instead of inventing concepts to fill mathematical holes.
I don't feel so bad that I never really did understand physics especially the quantum stuff (which I encountered & loathed in my physical chemistry class - I thought it was because I was crap at 'advanced' (abstract) maths. I enjoyed the biology-chemistry subjects most - genetics, microbiology, biochemistry - maybe because had more practical applications.
(I never really did understand physics especially the quantum stuff)
Quantum doesn't understand quantum. Quantum seems to be the field of study that readers of fantasy are attracted to - those who like to suspend disbelief and ponder that anything is possible - that whether the cat is dead or alive is dependent upon an observer - that location and speed cancel each other out so you can never know where you are at any given instant.
The three dimensions are length, width, and height. All real objects are made in these three dimensions. Quantum speculates that it is possible for a particle (an object) to have zero dimensions - to have no length, width, or height.
We term this an ontological contradiction. Reasoning tells us that a zero-dimension particle is impossible. Quantum says anything is possible, even 0D particles.
William Lane Craig said in his apologist handbook, "Reasonable Faith", that when knowledge from the holy spirit conflicts with reason and logic, reason and logic should be abandoned.
So which idea is more like the ideas expressed by the apologist: reason or quantum?
There may well be 0D particles in Wonderland, and Alice may be carrying one in her pocket, but it is doubtful this concept is an expression of our reality.
so what is the answer to living in reality? Not believe in god & not bother with physics either? The parts of chemistry that engaged in quantum was goobly-goop to me - I never realised before how concrete I like things to be, not abstract. The line does become blurred in places - much of biology & chemistry I found fascinating. However, I don't think that all the chemicals made have done us a whole lot of good. It makes sense that the quantum physists and Einstein are alchemists (I've been reading about what alchemy is, because curious that it was the roots of chemistry).
This will be useful for the hubs I'm working on about alchemy (influence on religion & science etc)
(so what is the answer to living in reality?)
IMO, the best we as humans can accomplish is to explain rationally what may have been the case. We can never know, prove, substantiate, or positively identify causes.
It is this lack of concrete answers that causes many, I think, to look to religions and religious-like beliefs.
Real serenity comes only with complete acceptance of the instability of life and the environment. We have to adapt; reality does not change to match our beliefs or hopes or psychological needs of stability.
quantum physics has already defined this for a while. you only need to read up on it.
(you only need to read up on it.)
Do you realize how much you sound like the theist who states, It's all in the bible - you just need to read it?
Better question - can you explain it? Can you tell me HOW it is possible for a particle to have zero dimensions?
I don't want an assertion or an appeal to authority. I would like to hear your reasoning, without ontological contradiction.
If you cannot come up with one, then I suggest you are just following a logic system that has as its axiomatic basis that "anything is possible", which is the exact same axiomatic basis of all religions.
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.....
It is possible that a zero dimension particle exists....
Now, which book again should I read?
lots of talk just google it, it's not like it's a secret knowledge.
argumentum ad verecundiam - appeal to authority
This is how science works. We listen to people who know about these things and who have peer reviewed work published.
Not people who don't.
"This is how science works. We listen to people who know about these things and who have peer reviewed work published."
Remember Nicean council?
That too was peer reviewed.
That is religion, not science.
If you have no rational explanation and just want to listen to some authority, any religion is fine.
Thanks for admitting it anyway.
If you don't accept the scientific method then there's not really much to talk about is there?
Do you know what is science?
You just said science is quoting authority.
("We listen to people who know about these things")
Look answer me this and we can get this cleared up; do you have a peer reviewed paper published in which you put forward these ideas?
Do you know what is the right way to structure a sentence?
"Look answer me this and we can get this cleared up; do you have a peer reviewed paper published in which you put forward these ideas?"
Why you want to say it again and again?
You follow any pastor you want.
"o you know what is the right way to structure a sentence?"
Sorry that was a mistake! But that doesn't change things.
Told you your new science is skewed, do you think that people let anybody publish, that does not fit their "beliefs"?
So there is no point in bothering about "peer-review".
And just as I told Nicean council was peer reviewed(no journals then), does that make it right?
If you want any information, there is no dearth of it in internet, and you yourself can think about it too.
Then how do you know whether anyone is correct?
Only one way, look for any contradiction(irrationalities, if there is you are sure it didn't happen(All creation, whether religion or bigbang is irrational, hence cannot happen.
So the only question you should ask is, whether it is rational or not, not peer reviewed!
Back to forum- You tell me what energy is and exist is. Define it in non contradictory way, otherwise whatever you say has no meaning. If what you say has no meaning, then there is no science.
If you aren't going to listen to peer reviewed science and instead listen to people ranting on obscure blogs then you're going to end up in this mess.
Energy does exist, we can measure it, we can describe it, we can predict it and we can use it.
Stick to the scientific method and you wont sound like a lunatic!
"Energy does exist, we can measure it, we can describe it, we can predict it and we can use it. "
Yet you do not know what energy is!! Or you do not know what "exist" is, you are just raving.
Superwags, just because the majority is hoodwinked into believing something, doesn't make it correct. If so, earth would still be flat!
Do you agree science is an explanation of nature?
Or do you think science is just mathematical equations?
If it is an explanation of nature it should be NON-CONTRADICTORY.
We've been through this - you aren't going to listen to what I say. It's a waste of my time. I'm meant to be writing something which is going to be peer-reviewed. Arggghhh, the conspiracy!
Just as you are not going to define........ so that you can continue saying space expand, time dilate, length contract...
I thought only religious people are fanatic about their beliefs!
Say Hi to your pastors!
Depressing isn't it. You'll grow up and learn. Must write my paper - a paper about energy flow no less. Disgusting religious nonsense.
Yes, abilities flowing, don't forget to put the halo!
Energy flowing, energy is ability, so it should be ability flowing.
Next what do you intend to flow?
Space, time or love?
It's a paper on energy simulation software and transient solar energy models.
Look, you don't have a clue. Please give up on this rhubarb and read a book.
I don’t know whether you will ever understand as you are set in your ‘beliefs”. You are just like a Christian who cannot see the fallacy in his arguments!
Consider this- a river.
Does a river exist? No, nothing called river exist, only there is a channel through which water flows. Does a flow exist? No, only water exists and the water is in motion. See, you can measure the speed of flow as the amount of water went through in so much time. But it will not make the flow a physical entity. The river and flow are concepts we make, to explain easily, but it will not make it existent. All that exist is water and the water is in motion. The flowing water is used to move other objects and we can use it to get our work done. All that we do is transfer the motion of one object to another. The amount of work done that is the distance travelled by the object we take as “energy”. When you try to conserve energy all you do is trying to get mechanisms that efficiently transfer the motion!
So is the case with other concepts. But your problem is you treat concepts as objects. That is a grave error. Because no concepts interact, only objects interact. Only objects can act no concepts ever! Only objects can dilate or contract or expand, no concepts can, as concepts are just thoughts!
So all I can tell yo is this,
I know it will be difficult, as all the establishment has indoctrinated you in believing majority is always correct.
Think of Giordano Bruno, when he said, what he said, there was no peer-review to support him.The whole establishment was against him, but sill he was correct.
In science it doesn't matter how many support you, all it matters is whether you got a rational explanation.
It's gone from quirky to just downright weird! If you really want to read just how strange it is then check out Jomine's hub here and in particular the comments!
http://hubpages.com/hub/Nonsense-oops-R … or-dummies
Beware, I know you understand relativity; do not get sucked into it! You won't get a straight answer because they don't know what they are talking about.
I'm not sure you can flag a hub for talking nonsense. Although the writing's appalling too...
Staggeringly misinformed article. Too bad Hubpages allows such content.
"You won't get a straight answer because they don't know what they are talking about."
You don't even talk except that which make no sense!
Just one question. Can you RATIONALLY EXPLAIN 'space expanding', after telling the audience what you mean by space?
(Well, that is scientific method, explaining crucial terms before the dissertation!)
Don't forget, till now you only said energy is ability, yet you claim, ability has physical presence. Funny!
More like Veni, Vidi, Vici. You're statement might have some validity had my statements been derrived from one source, however; they are widely accepted.
There was a time, when the majority accepted earth as flat!
Yes, but what you're stating is your philosophy on physics with no actual scientific proof or example of experimentation.
In physics we don't prove, we only explain, go and understand it first. And don't parrot nonsense from beelzedad!
In science we prove and explain. For example, if you walk off the top of a building I can prove how fast you will fall to the ground. I'm not parroting anything.
Didn't they prove the Earth isn't flat?
(You're statement might have some validity had my statements been derrived from one source, however; they are widely accepted)
In the U.S. the vast majority of the population believes in god. Does that widely accepted belief validate the claim? Are the 12% who are atheists wrong because they are outvoted?
I fail to see what this has to do in regards to whether or not energy exists?
Religion is believed through faith, science is believed by observation, facts, and experimentation.
You and Jomine (lol, almost like 1 mind) are free to do any of the latter in the above statement to prove whether or not energy exists. Actually, save your energy (pun intended), the latter has already been done. News flash, turn your light switch on, energy exists. However, you are more than welcome to smother the results with your philosophy on science, and call energy whatever you want. For the rest of us, by a widely accepted definition, it's still just energy.
(I fail to see what this has to do in regards to whether or not energy exists?)
Me, either. There is either a naturally-occuring substance called energy or there is not - regardless of what either you or I think, believe, or have widely accepted as fact. But since you are the one who made the claim that wide acceptance provided validity, I wanted to see where this widely accepted line is drawn. Here, let me refresh your memory:
(You're statement might have some validity had my statements been derrived from one source, however; they are widely accepted.)
So, wide acceptance validated your claim. Isn't wide acceptance opinion? Are you not simply claiming your opinion is superior because it is shared by those whose opinion you value?
Isn't that the same reason believers value what their pastors have to say?
"Isn't wide acceptance opinion?"
No, by definition acceptance is not opinion otherwise they would be synonyms.
No, observation, facts, and experimentation have validated my claim. A wide acceptance is just the end result of the former. Not all believers have pastors, just like not all pastors are believers of the same thing.
yes it dos exist, yes it can be seen, yes it can be drawn, to those that can see ALL layers of the aura, there are negative ,pos, all energies we can pick up in all places, example on roads where there are danger spots, all peoples thoughts or near misses , like a sigh, releases energys in that area,,these spots to a trained eye can seen , when the energy gets to its darkest on the spirit webbing, then accidents or as i see things , incidents , happenings occur,, The same as we create on the astral, we leave tracks energies every where, we pass all the time without realizing, on all different layers of the worlds aura there are yet black scary balls of energy ,,and out of the worlds aura,,, these are all happenings,incidents awaiting to happen if its not your time you walk straight through them, or fly,, picking up thought forms of fear from it, if 5 million are to die of an earth quake in a week would that not be a large ball of energy that disapears on impact of so many deaths, The darkness gos into each individual , as we face the darkness of sudden pain , before seeing the light,,,,,,,,,,,,Is this dark matter,, or is that something solid,,my opinion anyway
Anybody who thinks energy exists, please draw a picture of it, or give a link to the picture.
You are a true scientist who must see to believe. Love.
As to information links, there are lots of university and government sites that could really help you. Good luck!
All i see is some clouds, a lightning, something that appear as a mountain.
Where is energy?
Thank you. I wondered if anyone would show this.
Thoughts are not a physical presence. Are you saying that your thoughts don’t exist?
Meanwhile, back to informational links; this search query in Google will give you what you need: physics energy site:.gov
Thoughts don't exist, If it did, when we think, the brain matter would have increased!!
Nikola Tesla had theories of pulling existing energy out of the ionosphere. Too much science for me to wrap my head around. But, that would mean that enery did exist.
lol energy and element are the only things that exist. Everything else is illusion.
Energy is the movement of electronics from one location to another though a medium. Electrons certainly exist. They have mass (very small) and affect an atom's properties such as its ability to bond. Mr. Einstein also showed us the energy-matter conversion. Energy is a form of matter and matter is a form of energy.
"Mr. Einstein also showed us the energy-matter conversion."
Mr. Einstein showed nothing. He was a guy who was good in novel writing and nothing!!
Obviously, Einstein showed us theories that have been working for over a hundred years. Of course, you have no understanding of those theories so to you they probably are just novel writing about nothing.
Before lecturing, find out the difference between technology and science!
One leads to the other, evidently. Do you have a point to that irrelevant comment or do we just guess?
Science is the RATIONAL EXPLANATION of consummated events, while technology is done by trial and error!!
what's wrong with rational explanations? Science had trial & error too - look at all those early chemists that did dangerous experiments with radiation etc. The 'rational explanations' of chemistry are good enough for calculating how much of different chemicals are needed to make a particular substance
(Mr. Einstein also showed us the energy-matter conversion. Energy is a form of matter and matter is a form of energy.)
No. Einstein presented the energy-mass equivalency. It had nothing to do with conversion of matter.
C'mon, just go read a friggin' physics book and go learn what energy is!
And what is it that is causing the matter to move?
Every atom in this world is in perpetual motion, from eternity.
Or are you for the unmoved mover?
According to yo energy is "ability" to do work.
What do you think, is it the "ability" that is flying off?
I'd like an answer to that specific question please, not a twist.
When elements interact, the attraction between them either reduces or increases. When the attraction reduces they move away from each other, as all matter is moving.
If the question is how they interact, I don't know, for nobody has satisfactorily explained the structure of atom. All I can say is, matter is in perpetual motion from eternity. Why it moves, its rather like a philosophical question, just like why matter is there in the first place!
This is ridiculous, you can't have an undertanding of physics without an understanding of energy. Similarly, you shouldn't try to lecture on physics if you don't have a clue what you're on about.
In what sense hasn't anybody adequately described the structure of an atom?! What is wrong with the description we currently hold?
This is all getting a bit weird now. There are people on here who can try to explain fundamentals of physics to you, but ultimately it's up to you. There are a lot of books out there which teach popular science - and physics - in a very enjoyable way without having to get too technical. A few I recommend are:
Marcus Chown - We need to talk about Kelvin
Simon Singh - Big Bang
Hawking - Grand Design/ Brief history of time
Brian Cox - Wonders of the solar system/ Universe
Cox/ Forshaw - Why E=MC2?
These will give you a grounding in what you need to know about physics in a much more fun way than a school lesson can. Read, enjoy and learn - then get more complex.
Please!, I have read most books available to me!
Can you tell me what are the available models of atoms and among which is the model that explain all the properties of atoms?
Bohr's planetary model is used to explain most properties, but is still inadequate, so other models are used, but one atom cannot be both things at the same time.
Why people are proposing new models, are in the hope to explain all properties, why all are inadequate because they cannot explain all properties. That is why I said nobody really know what the structure of an atom is! If we do not know the structure, how can we tell how it interact?
Did you watch the video you sent?
The first sentence is "the Ability to do work"
If you read carefully, you'll understand that energy is not what "is", but is what "does".
Roughly we calculate the distance traveled when one object in motion imparts its motion to another and call it work and for the purpose of unification call it "energy". So energy is a concept, conceived by humans. That is it "exists" only in human mind. So how can anything release a concept? How can object be converted to concept?
Before using each word, one should try to understand, what each word means, otherwise our mind will play trick on us, we will reify and start using words differently and irrationally.
Try to find the meaning of word "space" in dictionary. Common dictionaries contain upto 13 different meanings. So to use the word consistently, we define the word. We define it us formless/shapeless. It is synonymic of nothing. So "nothing" has no beginning nor end. It has no borders to expand, nor from which you can denote location.
If it is used like that it will be irrational, that is contradictory and can never occur in nature!
Bohr's model of the atom was devised about 100 years ago. It can pretty much be considered obselete since the discovery of quantum a few years after Bohr first set pen to paper on his diagram. It's still used to teach school children the basic concepts though. This is why I ask that you read a bit before coming on here spouting off.
So basically you're refuting energy exists because it isn't an object? This is ridiculous!
There are planty of different meanings of the word space in the dictionary because lots of things are meant by the same word. In physics this word has a use that everybody who knows their arse from their elbow uses it for.
As I said, do more reading.
All I can tell you is get your basics right. If it is not, all your building collapses, even if it is made of high falutin words
You just say these things without backing them up with anything. This isn't how science and progress works. You need to revise the way in which you go about explaining something. I understand that this isn't a scientific forum per se, but it doesn't mean you can just disobey all the laws of progressive debate.
If you claim something doesn't exist then you must say why (beyond an OED definition or semantic anomaly). You must also suggest something else with which to occupy the void left by removing something which was until you came along observably fine, measurable and happening.
Sorry, I had a long post before, though only the last sentence came, I don't know why!
What I said was Bohrs model is not used for teaching alone.
Your new model "quantum model", is wrong as the basic premise is wrong.
"So basically you're refuting energy exists because it isn't an object? "
Then you tell me what it is.
"You must also suggest something else with which to occupy the void"
But it is not me who decides what exists and what not, its mother nature.
You can, I think, agree with me that science started as a human need for explaining mother nature. Religion so can be considered as science, as it too attempted to explain. But why we reject it is because it is not rational.
So science should be rational. to know what is rational, we should know exactly what we are talking about. There is grammar in language to convey ideas properly. In science it is more important. All words should have consistent, unambiguous meanings.
For this particular reason we define.
Now can yo tell me
See if you don't clearly define these terms how can we form a debate. You might be saying something and I might be understanding something else.
Say, I say space is our conceptualization of nothing.
So rationally, something cannot be created out of nothing as it is an ontological contradiction. (But BIGBANG claim exactly that.)
Space is eternal. Nothing has already there irrespective of something is created or not. So you cannot say space was not there before bigbang, as it is akin to say, NOTHING was not there before nothing.
Space cannot expand. Only something with borders can expand. Nothing has no borders, it is omnipresent. So you cannot say space expanding.
You cannot say location of an object in space. Location is represented by co-ordinates and not dimension, and it is always with respect to another object. Space has no borders from which you can draw co-ordinates.
Similar is the case with energy.
Your own definition of energy is "ability". Ability is what something has, say I have the ability to lift weight. How do you measure my ability/ you measure the weight I lifted, and the distance i lifted. The distance moved by the object I lifted, you represent as energy. So where is the physical presence here. The matter exist, I exist, the matter moved, where is the energy?
What you are saying is that you are too smart to learn?
This is E=MC2 in action.
1 gram of Matter converted into Energy.
And you say Einstein is only good at novel writing. LOL
If you think you're cleverer than Einstein maybe you could point us towards some of your scientific papers?
"This is E=MC2 in action."
Erm... before you move 'energy' please draw 'it' on the board. I wanna see WHAT it is that is 'acting'.
"1 gram of Matter converted into Energy."
So you 'converted' the concept weight into the concept 'energy'???
What will you 'convert' next? Love into Intelligence?
"If you think you're cleverer than Einstein"
Ah, I see. The last resort of those who have no arguments, the Argument of Authority.
What did Pastor Al ever contribute to Science? Warped space? Photons?
"I can draw you an equation but I cannot draw a picture of energy. Just as I cannot draw a picture of gravity, the strong nuclear force, velocity, electromagnetism or a vacuum.
To insist that something that a physical force or a physical property possesses, must be drawn to be real, is just dumb. How would you draw velocity? Does velocity exist? Velocity is measured via mathematics, as is the energy contained in mass."
Can it be more hilarious?
"No I did not. These are not merely concepts, but physical realities that can be measured. The amount of mass a thing contains is directly proportional to the amount of energy it contains."
Can you differentiate between an object and concept?
Or do you know the difference between object and concept?
"No that's just dumb, we are talking about physics not emotions or brainpower"
Yet you talk nonsense!
"Not a last resort at all. In science when someone has a differing view they need to be able to show some very good evidence of why the current thinking is wrong (and show it in detail) and explain their own theory fully. As far as I can see Jomine has a philosophical viewpoint, but is showing no evidence for it in any meaningful way. In other words it's hot air"
Do you know what philosophy is?
Evidence of what? Murder?
"The chances are that if Einstein hadn't spent most of his life studying science we would not be having this conversation using our computers right now"
Wow! Great Einstein discovered computers too!
Glad you find it amusing. Rather than asking me stupid questions like if I know the difference between an object and a concept, how about providing some evidence to back up your claims?
If you have no evidence, mathematical or otherwise, then what you are talking is philosophy not science.
It is not evidence that make philosophy or science.
Philosophy is the study of concepts.
Science is the study of objects.
Now tell me whether you know the difference between object and concept or are you just parroting the "relativist" idiots?
I don't do parroting. Evidence is what makes science science. Repeatable experiments. Applicability. Your mobile phone is proof of the validity of E=MC2, so is the atom bomb.
Now tell me, are you trying to have a scientific discussion about energy or a philosophical one?
You claimed that energy does not exist and it is simply motion between objects, therefore you need to show evidence for that. Link to some papers on the topic that confer with your opinion. Show your own mathematical equations to illustrate your point.
If you can provide nothing to substantiate your claim, then it's just random thoughts.
"Evidence is what makes science science. Repeatable experiments. Applicability. Your mobile phone is proof of the validity of E=MC2, so is the atom bomb."
In science we don't do evidence. Evidence is for courts of law!
In science we try to explain consummated events and interactions of objects rationally. For that you should know what an object is. You claim velocity, force and such stuff exist! As you are the one claiming it, tell me what "exist" is!
"Now tell me, are you trying to have a scientific discussion about energy or a philosophical one?"
Tell me what energy is, before deciding whether it is science or philosophy!
"You claimed that energy does not exist and it is simply motion between objects, therefore you need to show evidence for that"
You are the one claimed energy exists. I explained myself in the OP. So tell me what is "energy" and what is "exist"
"Link to some papers on the topic that confer with your opinion. Show your own mathematical equations to illustrate your point."
Nicean council was also peer-reviewed!
What mathematics got anything with science?
"If you can provide nothing to substantiate your claim, then it's just random thoughts."
If your incapable of differentiating between objects and concepts, it is not my fault. Get educated!
Here is an exercise for you
- gravity exists
- an atom exists
- fission exists
- a rock exists
- god exists
- Jesus exists
- rain exists
- love exists
- absolute truth exists
- heat exists
- energy exists
Define the word exist consistently, you are the one who claim all these exist.
YOU defined the word exist as something which can be drawn. IE: something can only exist if it can be drawn as an image. This definition is fundamentally flawed. In fact nonsensical.
I would define exist as something which has the capacity to effect another system and/or parts of the same system. How's that for ya?
What has mathematics got to do with science? When talking about physics it has everything to do with it. You said yourself "In science we try to explain consummated events and interactions of objects rationally" - this is done through maths. So if you want to explain the interaction of objects rationally, as you have stated, then you need to be able to express it mathematically. Go ahead.
Failing that, provide a thought experiment or a logical sequence of steps that everyone can follow.
I did not claim that jesus or god exists.
Following your own definition of exist, God or Jesus cannot currently exist because they cannot be drawn.
At least we now know you have no evidence for your ideas.
"OU defined the word exist as something which can be drawn"
I defined "exist" as having physical presence, that is having shape and location. The drawing part is in consequence of that.
"I would define exist as something"
So it is "something". A thing is a synonym for object. It is always 'some'thing, never "NO"thing!
"which has the capacity to effect another system and/or parts of the same system."
A system is a collection of objects. Every objects can affect every other objects as they are connected by gravity. That is the property of object, not object. Again, if there is only one object, there is no meaning for this capacity, so by definition your object cease to exist.
So your definition of exist is "an object that can object other object". What definition is that?
"When talking about physics it has everything to do with it."
You can never explain any events with mathematics, you can only describe!
What you do in private is your business!
"God or Jesus cannot currently exist because they cannot be drawn"
God, I don't know for I do not know what is meant by god!
Jesus is supposed to be a human(all humans have physical presence), so can be drawn! Ask any christian they might draw you a god!!
"At least we now know you have no evidence for your ideas"
Now a days you have evidence for ideas too?
The "shape and location" part is what I disagree with in your definition of exist. Let's talk about love. Love has no shape, it has no identifiable location and it is not an object. Yet love can be measured via chemical changes in the body of the person who feels it, as well as in the body of the person that is the receiver.
The love itself cannot be put into a neat box, cannot be drawn or even seen, but the effects of it can.
It's the same with other physical realities such as gravity (since no gravitons have been discovered). Gravity in itself has no shape, you cannot put gravity in a box, but you can measure its effects very accurately.
Both of the above are "somethings" that are not objects and would fit well with my definition of exist.
BTW, Jesus is dead and his remains long gone. We cannot draw a picture of what he is now, if anything, lol.
"The "shape and location" part is what I disagree with in your definition of exist."
Please be free to come up with a consistent and rational explanation.
"Let's talk about love. Love has no shape, it has no identifiable location and it is not an object. Yet love can be measured via chemical changes in the body of the person who feels it, as well as in the body of the person that is the receiver."
Love is a concept. The chemical changes that occur in the body is not love. (Sorry, I can't explain all that you consider "love" here, as it will take hours. It is a feeling we human beings "feel". That is it is just an action of our brain just like any other emotion or thought. If love existed, I could easily make any girl fall in love with me, as I can take the love from them, or put the love in them.
"It's the same with other physical realities such as gravity (since no gravitons have been discovered)"
Gravity is a tension mediated between two objects. No gravitons are going to be discovered as bombarding an object with other objects will never cause attraction. And tension does not exist, it is an action that is mediated. See if I run, you will only see me, you will never see "the run".
"Both of the above are "somethings" that are not objects and would fit well with my definition of exist."
Neither are things. First is an emotion mediated by chemicals and the second is an action mediated by one object on another. it is the object that comes in the purview of your definition, not the action.
"BTW, Jesus is dead and his remains long gone. We cannot draw a picture of what he is now, if anything"
I doubt he ever lived, but if he did, certainly, he should have a human shape. Though we can't draw like DaVinci, still we can draw a human shape!
Also the matter that make a human exist, humans LIVE!
(The love itself cannot be put into a neat box, cannot be drawn or even seen, but the effects of it can.
It's the same with other physical realities such as gravity (since no gravitons have been discovered). Gravity in itself has no shape, you cannot put gravity in a box, but you can measure its effects very accurately)
It is truly remarkable to see this admission in print, as it captures the entire basis of the claims againt it. Love and gravity exist in the same fashion.
Let me ask you this: before the first amino acid formed in the primordial soup, where was love? Love had to wait for a human brain to come along and define it - when something requires a human definition, it is a concpet, not an object.
On the other hand, the planet earth itself existed regardless of whether or not there were human apes trodding upon its face.
Gravity is a description - mathematics is a description - a rock is a thing. Descriptions cannot be "physical realities" as you claim. It requires a human mind to define gravity and then to measure and calculate gravity: if it requires a human brain it is observer-dependent: a concept.
Physical realities are observer-independent: these we call objects.
The point of all this is that before human walked the planet, the effect known as gravity surely held the planets in orbit, but as the word and idea gravity is simply a description of what occured, it does not explain how it occured, what was the physical medium that was there that kept Mercury revolving around the sun.
If you say it was gravity, then please explain to me how this was done. Not what happened, but how it happened. (hint: when you simply say obects attract, that is a description. The key issue is what causes that attraction. If you then say gravity, it is being circular or begging the question, as you must invoke gravity as a cause in your premise. It is acknowledged that the effect called gravity occurs and can be described - now, what causes the action?)
Circular tautologies are the arguments religions make. Science should be above those kinds of arguments.
You sound just like Bill.
But, you don't mean 'you' when you say 'we'?
Energy is magic.
Energy is magic and does not exist. What fun.
Absolutely nothing. Scientists wave magic wands and cast spells. They have no use for mathematics.
It's all magic and none of those things exist without magic.
most of those can be demonstrated they exist, except god, jesus, absolute truth
No bailey, not all exist.
gravity exists - no gravity, by definition does not exist. gravity is an action mediated by one object on another.
- an atom exists - yes
- fission exists - Again an action. Fission occur, not exit.
- a rock exists - yes
- god exists - meaningless
- Jesus exists- he lived(?)
- rain exists -No, water exists. When it fall from sky, as drops we call it rain.
- love exists - no, its an emotion appreciated by human brain.
- absolute truth exists- - there are no absolutes, let alone exist1
- heat exists- No, what we call heat is vibration of molecules in an object. Heat is the comparison of this vibration with another object.
- energy exists ---- explained!
'science is the study of objects' - science is also about offering rational explanations for our observations - using concepts in our descriptions is unavoidable.
(If you have no evidence, mathematical or otherwise, then what you are talking is philosophy not science.)
It is interesting how the neo-scientist/physicist is so dependent upon previous knowledge (tests and mathematics) for establishing the relevancy of claims - one would think from the defensive posturing that Einstein wrote a holy book instead of his ideas about the universe.
We used to be just as certain of the geocentric model of the universe - and we even had a book that proved it true.
It appears the more we evolve the more we stay the same.
I don't believe that Einstein wrote a holy book, lol. And of course sciences evolve over time. The thing for me is that it ceases to be just ideas, when those ideas can be applied in a practical way. Unfortunately e=mc2 has been applied practically in the creation of the atomic bomb.
The photoelectric effect has been used in the creation of night vision goggles.
Understanding the photon allowed for the creation of the laser.
It has been proven experimentally that time slows down the faster one is travelling.
When we get onto worm holes, yes those are, at the moment, just ideas because there is no evidence for them existing.
(It has been proven experimentally that time slows down the faster one is travelling.)
Have you really thought deeply about what you said or are you simply stating your confidence in the knowledge you have been taught?
Seriously, think about this and determine your own answer. How can time - a scaler - possibly slow down? This is like saying that velocity shortens the ruler.
I've been reading that Einstein was an alchemist (I've been reading about the alchemists), so there are likely to be spiritual elements in there
"I can draw you an equation"
What a moron! Are you for real?
"I cannot draw a picture of energy…. I cannot draw a picture of gravity, the strong nuclear force, velocity, electromagnetism or a vacuum."
Did you ever ask yourself why? I mean, hopefully you’re not so stupid that you cannot draw a rock, a chair, a tree... But for some reason you can’t draw energy or mass or time. Hmmmm…
" How would you draw velocity? Does velocity exist?... Does the sun emit energy as heat? If so draw it."
You are a bird brain, aren’t you? You don’t even understand what side of the discussion you’re on. Let’s see if I can help you, Su.
If a moron says that he can ‘transfer energy’, then the onus is on HIM to draw this physical object that HE calls 'energy' and that HE pretends to transfer, not on his audience. Got that much so far? Hang in there, Su. Don't despair, I'm almost there.
Likewise, if a stupid idiot says that the Sun emits 'energy', the onus is on HER to draw this 'thing' SHE calls energy so that the crowd can get an idea of WHAT 'it' is that the Sun emitted. And if that same moron says that time can be dilated or that a force can be carried, then again, the onus to draw time and force is on HER, not on her audience.
Are you getting the hang of it, Su or is this stuff over your head?
It is the responsibility of those who claim that energy, mass, field, time, charge, black hole, dark energy, 0D particles, 1D lines, etc, are physical objects that can perform actions to draw THEIR proposals! In Physics, you can’t have dilation without the pupils. You need to see the pupil before and after to understand ‘dilation’. Those stupid idiots who claim that time can dilate are saddled with the burden of showing that a second or a minute can also dilate. The onus is on THEM to ILLUSTRATE a second and show how it gets physically bigger afterwards.
Are YOU now saying that 'velocity' is a physical object, too?
"1 gram... Energy... These are not merely concepts, but physical realities"
1 gram is a physical object? Energy is a physical object?
Then again, draw 1 gram. Draw energy. Just in case, this is YOUR claim, idiot Su. Don't ask me to draw a gram or energy. I don’t claim them to be objects.
Actually, if you truly believe that a gram is a physical object, they should lock you up. You are mentally incompetent. You are in need of a good shrink.
"The amount of mass a thing contains"
Amount of mass???
Is that like the amount of yarn or the amount of butter? Is mass an object or a concept, idiot Su? Did you ever learn the difference b/w an object and a concept? Did you ever play with blocks while in kindergarten or in elementary school? Do you know the diff b/w love and a heart, b/w brain and intelligence?
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess you wouldn't know anything about intelligence, now would you?
"we are talking about physics"
I am. I don't know about you, though.
Now, what does energy, mass, measurement and all the other poppycock you mentioned have to do with Physics?
It is axiomatic that you cannot do Physics unless you have a PHYSICAL OBJECT! Do you know what an object is? Did your mommy ever tell you? Do you still confuse the soul with the body at your Sunday School?
"In science... they need to be able to show some very good evidence"
In Science, we clean our asses with evidence. Evidence is what they use in religion. The ONLY purpose of evidence is to PERSUADE the juror. In Science, we don’t persuade, idiot Su. In Science, we merely explain. What you choose to believe after the show is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
"explain their own theory"
Exactly! That's what Science is ALL about.
So now, idiot Su. Please EXPLAIN.
a. Explain WHY this pen falls to the floor and not to the ceiling.
b. Explain HOW a magnet PHYSICALLY attracts another.
Let's see what you can EXPLAIN with your 17th C version of the Scientific Method.
"if Einstein hadn't spent most of his life studying science we would not be having this conversation using our computers"
What a moron! What a true moron! Is Su for real? Are there idiots like her walking the streets without supervision?
Science is about EXPLAINING a theory, just like YOU just said. Technology (computers) is about inventing gadgets. Technology has NOTHING to do with Science.
btw – what part of the Loony Asylum would you like them to house you in, Su? They have a cozy spot at the Padded-Walls Ward.
WAY CRUEL dude. He obviously needs a keeper, but you are poking a stick at a helpless animal, and I can't just stand by while you totally destroy him. Be nice.
so is most of physics pseudo-physics or alchemy?
You can worship your god as much as you please, none of my business!
'Matter converted into Energy"
It will be good if you can tell me what this "energy" thingy is!
As far as understand it is the ability/capacity to do work. May be matter is converted to capacity or ability! Great science, Keep it up.
Put your hand on a hot kettle and you will get a very real illustration of what energy is.
Maybe the question you meant to ask was not does energy exist, because clearly it does, but rather, where did energy come from?
"Put your hand on a hot kettle and you will get a very real illustration of what energy is."
So if i don't put my hand on a kettle, energy cease to exist?
What you call heat is the motion of atoms, the more the movement, the more the heat. And YOU should be there to APPRECIATE the heat. Heat is a concept. The fast thumping of atoms on your body is harmful to you, hence you have the "sensation" of heat. Nature don't recognize any heat, only motion!
If a car comes fast and hit you, do you say the "car" exist or "speed" exist?
pretty sure survivors of nuclear bombs would agree that energy exists
Yes, even though you can't see it. The word energy has a one to one correspondence to a concept by which Einstein defined, E=mc2. It exists in thoughts and can cause explosion and movements.
Don't be fooled, he is not arguing the existence of energy, he is arguing the definition of the word exist.
(he is arguing the definition of the word exist.)
That is not quite accurate. He is arguing that UNLESS the word exist is defined precisely and unambiguously, its use is valueless.
We can assert there must be something called dark matter because our latest mathematical calculations tell us our previous mathematical calculations were wrong - this is the neo-ptolemy at work with epicyclic dark matter.
We can assert that god did it - this is the neo-ptolemy at work with epicyclic god replacing dark matter
Both exist equally with common-use language.
To those of you posting here in good faith, I just posted this in another forum; it seems equally applicable here:
“Probably most teenagers go through their troll phase in about 6 months. It’s right up there with running over mailboxes, etc. Part of growing up I guess.“
In other words; consider the source, give up on this thread, and move on. And don’t be snuckered into a new thread…
Energy exists in the shape and form that our minds and thoughts give it.
(Energy exists in the shape and form that our minds and thoughts give it.)
This is the best thing anyone has said and it fits in perfectly with the OP. Our thoughts create the energy idea as a descriptive device - a concept, not a thing.
Did our thoughts flatten Hiroshima or was it a real physical event propagated by real physical contact between objects?
Every visible or invisible things are nothing but energy.If you ask where is the location of energy?I would say everywhere.Potential difference between two places cause energy to flow,just like electrical energy transmission.You never see any electrical energy, yet it exits,we all use this energy.
All atoms in this world are in perpetual motion.......
According to yo energy is "ability" to do work.
What do you think, is it the "ability" that is flying off?
When arguers are convinced of their arguments, and have no intention of hearing the opposition's side, any discussion is pointless, and they're better of not arguing at all.
On the topic at hand, these "mental constructions" such as the concepts of energy, work, etc. was never established in full certainty. That's the beauty (or ugly [rhyme > grammar]) of science. It's either you remain ignorant of them and live life, or you pretend to understand them and live life, or you try to really understand them and not live life.
"the ability to do work" is not a requisite of energy.
Look up Potential Energy to see the difference between possessing energy and having potential to do work.
I can't be bothered finding a picture, but any object has the potential to move due to gravity if a hole opens up beneath it.
My Gran has energy. Mostly potential, occasionally kinetic, with an underlying dash of chemical.
When you raise something from the ground, its Potential Energy increases.
So what exactly is increasing?
'potential to do work'
Which of that is a noun, to exist?
"object has the potential to move due to gravity"
Because of gravity, not because of energy!
You are confusing yourself. Gravity is a form of energy as it does work. You essentially just said that "objects don't move because of energy, they move because of energy"
Not the best argument I have seen
sounds like you need to get a basic education
don't bother trying to become a scientist - it's obviously not your thing
Hope it is yours!
but I haven't seen you explaining anything rationally!
if you don't get anything I've said, then I'm wasting my time (and energy
"if you don't get anything I've said"
For that you have to say something worthwhile. So far you have just changed from one religion to another. Previously it was Christianity, now it is relativity!
I'm not actually an expert in physics & I haven't studied relativity. I studied chemistry at university, with some biology. Every field has jargon. If we were talking about economics, would you call that a religion? Consider science a religion if you want - don't know what god you expect me to serve?
If you don't consider anything I've said worthwhile, then I won't waste my time dialoguing with you trying to explain.
BTW, the stuff I told you is what most 12-year-olds know - seems you are lacking in really basic concepts, which makes it hilarious that you are arguing against something you clearly don't understand
gravity is the attraction between two objects that have mass. The reason we get pulled towards earth is because the earth is so huge & has a big field of gravity (pulling forces).
No, you aren't energy, but energy is transformed eg the food you have eaten is transformed into chemical energy to fuel your body which ultimately get transformed into movement and heat. So really your 'work' is just mostly ending up in a whole lot of heat. Some of that energy might have been directed into doing something useful, like building something. (which then has potential gravitational energy because it can fall)
"between two objects that have mass. a big field of gravity"
What is this mass you are talking about?
What is this field?
"energy is transformed eg the food you have eaten is transformed into chemical energy to fuel your body which ultimately get transformed into movement and heat."
I studied a good physiology, but has never found any enrgy that is transformed!
What is "heat"?
"energy might have been directed into doing something useful, like building something."
I know that the glucose and amino acids you eat are converted to proteins, glycogen etc in the body and used to build tissues. What is this "energy" that is used to build?
energy is needed to break bonds, energy is released when bonds form. Energy is needed to for complex molecules to form. Ultimately this energy comes form the sun.
If you carry out the reaction with the same number of particles (atoms), they rearrange (but no of atoms doesn't change), and the whole thing gets hotter or colder. Bonds forming, breaking is really about electrons moving.
I'm still not sure what your ultimate point is? I'm happy to call it energy. What would you rather call it? Something predictable and measureable happens and it is used practically to make your computer go etc
Mass is just 'stuff' that takes up space & is made form atoms. Forces are pushes/pulls/twists that act on object. Forces are invisible, but they can be demonstrated eg one can show the force fields of magnet by sprinkling iron filings on paper over magnet
Bailey, you yourself stated energy is a concept. A concept is conceived by human mind. Such stuff don't exist in nature. So if it is non-existent how can you use it, to make or break bonds?
Conceding it as a concept, how is that it comes from sun? I mean, energy is what we conceive here in earth, how can the sun a non-living thing can conceive that?
"Mass is just 'stuff' that takes up space & is made form atoms. Forces are pushes/pulls/twists that act on object."
No, that is matter. Mass is a mathematical concept, which nobody has defined yet. You ask any person who claim to practice science, what mass is, they will only tell it as weight in kg, which is not a satisfactory definition, as this KG, is not a constant!
'Something predictable and measurable"
What you usually measure is the distance traveled. My ultimate point is most of what is called modern science is irrational. It is just reification of concepts, and hence is just another form of religion, NOT science!
If science were merely a set of beliefs, as religion is, then it would have no practical applicability.
Understanding the elements in the periodic table, for example, prompted the creation of LED's, solar cells, thermometers, plus a myriad of other products that we use everyday.
Don't confuse engineering and technology with science.
And I didn't say science is a set of beliefs, but they way it is today, it is. Reifying concepts like time, energy and space and treating them as objects is irrational and is religion, not science.
mass is a given amount of matter ('stuff'). Your mass is the same whether you are on the moon or on earth. You weigh less on the moon though, but you are still made up of the same amount of matter. The units for mass is kg. Unfortunately, non-scientists confuse this with weight. Why should kg be a constant? It depends on how much matter (atoms, molecules, compounds etc there is).
Were you raised in a religious institution? You're the only one here that sounds irrational
(mass is a given amount of matter)
Maybe I can help clarify this discussion. The words mass and matter and kilogram are scalers, i.e. comparative measurements against some standard unit. The kg is defined as the mass of a litre of water - but unless you weigh the water on scales to establish a comparison, the claim has no value. You cannot define mass by saying it is equal to mass - mass is first determined as a weight, and then the kg is used to describe two different concepts - weight and mass.
Mass cannot be an intrinsic property of an object. As example, suppose we could show you two equal-sized rocks, painted to be indistinguishable from each other, and then asked you two questions: what is the mass of each object, and is their mass equal?
First, you would have to weigh the rocks to determine their comparative weight against a liter of water (kg), and then use that number to state the mass.
But what if one rock were a piece of sandstone while the other was a lump of gold? The weights would be completely different, and the mass would be completely different, although we could not know this until the objects were weighed and compared.
To use your example in reverse, when an astronaut picks up a moon rock, he cannot know its mass until he lands back on earth and can weigh the rock under the conditions of earth gravity - if he used scales on the moon he would find a kg 1/6 of that on earth, and thus the conversion to mass would be incorrect.
Mass is a concept to describe the amount of "oomph" necessary to overcome the inertia of an object - to get the object to alter its condition from static to being in motion.
Scaler comparisons are ideas that express the concept of motion - and as such they cannot be intrinsic properties of objects.
This is not to say these concepts are unimportant - but to reify a concept into an object and say, "the mass of this rock is..." makes no sense as a rock has no intrinsic property of mass.
Mass is an expression of motion, which inanimate objects do no possess.
AKA - could a rock on the moon have its mass determined by multiplying by 6 to give mass on earth? Yet density (mass in a given volume) is an intrinsic property?
Of course mass can be calculated - that is the point. But before the calculation can be done, it must be scaled by its weight, i.e., compared to determine its kg.
Mass is a conceptual description of the amount of "oomph" that must be applied to overcome the inertia of a given amount of matter. This is certainly valuable information and can aid us in determining how much TNT to use to blow up the mountaintop, but it is not an intrinsic property of matter.
Even Einstein's famous E=MC2 is a description, a comparison. Equivalencies are comparisons: something = something else. All Einstein said is that Oomph-power (energy) by comparison is the same thing as the kg measurement converted to mass tines a constant number. It showed that IF an atomic bomb could be created, it would produce a lot of bang for the kilogram..
Einstein himelf admitted he had never thought of the chain reaction of an atomic explosion .Einstein's greatest contribution to the atomic bomb was signing a letter urging one be attempted.
It was the Germans who first split the uranium atom. It was the fear that the Germans would produce an a-bomb that prompted FDR to initiate the Manhatten Project.
Bailey, as Winston has explained it beautiful, any addition will be superfluous!
Thought is energy. It is electromagnetic pulses that is generated in your brain. by definition they alpha, theta, and beta waves.
Since thought influences behavior and behavior influences matter (you think eat eat, you gain weight. you think run run, you lose weight)thought exists, energy exists.
does G-d exist...
Thought, energy and waves don't exist!!
Thought may influence behavior, but behavior is not going to affect matter.
waves exist, because waves influence matter. matter is a wave under different observation tools.
You think hungry, you eat. You eat and eat, you get fat. Basic biology.
I already told you. Energy is manifestation. Numbers are abstracts--they are concepts.
"waves exist, because waves influence matter. matter is a wave under different observation tools."
Wave is the vibration of object, not object.
Matter is always matter, whether yo observe it or not.
"You think hungry, you eat. You eat and eat, you get fat. Basic biology."
So what? Does it change any of the atoms that constitute me. I'll be just accumulating more matter!
"I already told you. Energy is manifestation. Numbers are abstracts--they are concepts."
Manifestation is "the act of showing". The object that does the act exist, not the act.
so what are you saying is making the particles move faster/slower? We've given our view, which you dissect. What's yours? Magic?
"so what are you saying is making the particles move faster/slower? We've given our view, which you dissect. What's yours? Magic"
If you want the answer magik ask some religionists or relativists.
it is naturally other objects!
Matter is eternal, and all matter is in perpetual motion.(As a chemist you might be knowing that the atoms in even a solid is vibrating).
In science there is nothing called a creator, or unmoved mover, that is irrational.
All matter in these universe is interconnected by gravity. So it is the medium of gravity that makes any object move faster or slower depending on the location.
couldn't respond below. You know it was frustrating trying to communicate with you at first. Yes, a chemist is taught that all atoms are vibrating, even when an object is at rest. Now you might need to write some hubs in plain english to explain how gravity makes an object move faster when I heat it up - and to explain where the lines of science are blurred (probably more when it comes to physics, I suspect)
If you are really interested, you search for Bill Gaede and fatfists hubs, are explained beautifully!
About heating up...
You first do something called combustion(which I don't have to tell you). The molecules combine and dissociate[CH4+2O2=CO2+2H2O) which makes it vibrate faster.The vibration is conducted to the pot directly(the molecules directly going and hitting and imparting its motion) or indirectly(by the medium of EM rope).
The faster vibration of the molecules of the pot is transmitted to the water molecules in the pot. When you touch it, the same is transmitted to the your body, which stimulates your nerves which you perceive as heat.
it's like saying you don't know what the word means to exist.
did I not explain to you that mass IS energy? So if mass exists, it is like saying energy exists.
A physical presence does not mean you can SEE IT.
"did I not explain to you that mass IS energy? So if mass exists, it is like saying energy exists."
What is this mass, you claim to exist?
"A physical presence does not mean you can SEE IT."
Did I say anything about seeing anything. The question is can you EXPLAIN it?
The thing is, i already did. existence means in affects matter, occupies space, is felt. electricity is the way energy moves through - and +. If there is - and + there is charge and charge is electricity, and that is all in all energy when it is functioning as wave. It can be measured, identified, quantified. it exists.
"existence means in affects matter, occupies space, is felt. electricity is the way energy moves through - and +. If there is - and + there is charge and charge is electricity, and that is all in all energy when it is functioning as wave"
Can you see the fallacy in your argument?
"means in affects matter"
I presume you meant "it", So existence is "something" that matter. The something in general is called an "object". It exists irrespective of whether it affect other matter or not(all matter is connected to other matter through the medium of gravity).
"through - and +"
These are only in maths. In nature there is no + or -.
"functioning as wave"
To function as a wave, there should be "something". Only an object can have wave, for there SHOULD be a medium for wave. Energy, by definition, is a capacity. A capacity is the function of the object, not the object.
excuse me, but, brainwaves can be manifested on graph paper. That is what happens when you get an electro encephalogram (EEG), and can also be manifested using an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) Thought does exist. otherwise we wouldn't be having this silly discussion.
"brainwaves can be manifested on graph paper. That is what happens when you get an electro encephalogram (EEG), and can also be manifested using an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) Thought does exist".
What you get is a wave like drawing in a paper.
In MRI all you get is the imaging of brain. Or you meant F(functional)MRI?
It tell you which all ares of brain are active. When we think some nerves get activated, it then release some chemical substances(choline, dopamine) across synapses, which stimulate the next nerve, which carry the signals. It is done by the influx and out flux of atoms/ions. These activity is what is recorded in FMRI and EEG. EEG the activity is electrically recorded in a wave format, in FMRI, we get the picture of active areas of brain, not thoughts!
Neither a sine wave(a mathematical concept), nor thought "exist" in nature,
or define "exist"!
that's all tied in with your thoughts attract etc? Field of metaphysics?
yes, concepts are conceived by the human mind. I still don't see how you say science is a religion. Science is a rational way of understanding the universe. What's religious about that? I don't worship the concepts, pray to them or anything
"concepts are conceived by the human mind. I still don't see how you say science is a religion. Science is a rational way of understanding the universe"
Yes, science is the rational explanation of interaction of objects. Science deal with OBJECTS, Stuff that EXISTS.
Religion is the IRRATIONAL explanation of nature.
I specifically said "modern science"
Only in modern science you get 'expanding' space(space is our conceptualization of 'nothing', so they say nothing expand), time dilate(time is a concept denoting two locations of an object), bigbang(creation-ex-nihilo in disguise)and such......
Now tell me which is rational?
Get your fundamentals right, before advising. A bomb cause destruction because of the rapid motion of objects, it is not energy that is destroying structures.
You have to define two words before lecturing,
Clarify this, then we will talk!
You've forgotten to mention radiation. Where does that come from?
check out this shockwave from explosion - slow motion video
You mean you can see energy?
Then what is the problem in drawing it?
You could see the shockwave. Energy is a concept to explain why things move etc. You said earlier that heat is from rapidly moving particles. Now what makes the particles move & get hot? The scientist calls that energy. What do you call it? Magic?
Some types of energy are electrical, sound, light, heat, kinetic (movement), potential (stored), chemical. Yes, there can be moving particles. The particles have energy. Take electricity - there are moving particles (electrons). The electrons are transmitting energy which we measure in Joules. If we can get it to move or heat up or cool down or make a noise, there's energy involved. Change in temperature is an indirect way of measuring how much energy was involved.
You can see what energy does - lights up your light bulb and gives out heat, burns a hole in your hand if you leave it under an x-ray machine
"Energy is a concept to explain"
Exactly, that is my point!
"Some types of energy are electrical, sound, light, heat, kinetic (movement), potential (stored), chemical."
How do you store concepts? How do concepts move? Only objects can move or can be stored!
Heat is vibration of molecules. The heat part is your perception. If you plot the expansion in a number line, you call it temperature.
All atoms in the universe are in constant motion, whether it is solid, liquid or gas. That is by definition. Just as matter is eternal, motion too, is eternal!
well that's why energy isn't measured directly. We know that there's energy, because something predictable & measurable happens. What would you rather call it?
electrical, sound, light, heat, kinetic (movement), potential (stored), chemical
Nobody has really defined what electricity is!
Sound is a form of wave, a vibration of molecules in a medium(usually air).
Heat is again an increase in the motion of atoms in matter!
There is nothing called kinetic or potential energy, that is just concepts we use to quantify the work done by gadgets! Mostly measured as distance traveled by some object.
Even our thoughts, I believe, are moved thru synapses in our brains. Therefore I think yes there is energy. I am not however a physicist
Through our synapse it is molecules that move, commonly it is acetyl choline, but there are others called dopamine, noradrenaline, etc but not thoughts
Does energy exist?
Yes it does because I can feel it draining from me when I read this thread
Define 'exist' and then maybe you'll understand what you've just said.
What a curious forum. So many otherwise intelligent people defensively arguing their belief in the knowledge taught them is gospel but no one taking the time to constructively address the points made by the OP.
For the record, the M in E=MC2 is not matter, but mass. Mass and matter are not interchangeable terms.
I seem to have wandered into the cathedral of mathematical physics where everyone worships the god Al - and all because it is written in some book somewhere.
Has authority replaced thinking? Can anyone actually consider what is being asked rather than defending a belief?
It seems the answer is no. Curious.
Pretty broad brush you're using. Curiosity brought me here. Couldn't believe the question! I'm sure we could convince the fellow that energy exists once we get him strapped into the electric chair.
Sarcasm does not address the question - it shows disdain. One must have utter faith in his own beliefs to have such utter disdain for the questioner.
You are an energy-theist. The OP asks why you believe. Saying, "It's a ridiculous question" is what one would expect to hear from a fundamentalist religious perspective when asked why believe in god.
Concepts are thoughts and they define relational functions of things that are not tied to the physical form.
for instance the concept of beauty. Beauty is an attribute that you can assign to various forms but it itself is just a matter of proportion, specifically, Phi, or the golden mean. But beauty is also a mathematical phenomenon.
Energy is not a concept. Energy is not an attribute but manifestation. A manifestation is observable by how they impact matter, as in air.
(Energy is not a concept.)
All words are concepts.
Some words resolve to objects - tree, rock, house.
Some do not resolve to objects - gravity, energy, love, truth.
The latter are classified as abstractions or abstract concepts.
(A manifestation is observable by how they impact matter)
So you are saying energy and poltergeists are the same thing - a belief in an asserted cause of motion?
AKA - would you say that an abstract concept like energy can be measured & demonstrated? Or only measured indirectly? Do you consider energy to be more "real" than an abstract concept like god?
I'm afraid quantum physics gets rather too abstract for me to understand - I've read recently that it's considered modern alchemy
(Do you consider energy to be more "real" than an abstract concept like god? )
In the sense that energy is an attempt to describe a natural event, it is a better description than simply saying god did it. In that sense, it is certainly less delusional than belief in magic as long as you understand it is not a thing but a description.
When you start reifying it into an object, then it is as delusional as reifying any abstract concept. Abstact concepts cannot interact with the physical world - thoughts cannot push or pull objects.
first of all I have not seen a poltergeist, that the concept exists yes. But does it exist, it exists as a concept.
The tree is not a concept it is a manifestation. It can become a concept if you consider the framework of a tree in a way that it branches out from a source.
Like the family tree, in that respect a tree becomes A concept. But a specific tree itself is not a concept but a manifestation. Trees can become concepts depending on the attribute of the tree.
But concept is the essence. Manifestation is how it appears.
Poltergeists or Playful Ghosts are localized and probably caused by a person close to the activity. It is evidence of telekinesis, but is uncontrolled and even the subject may be unaware that they are the cause. Actually seen it.
I'm talking about being rational and you want "beliefs"?
Energy is defined as force multiplied by distance. Hence as used in mathematical physics is an abstract mathematical concept. The mathematical physicist use it as a subject of a sentence merely to condence description. When asked wether it exist anambiguously like in this thread, the answere is definately NO because it is not a stand alone object. i am amazed that people cannot answer such simple questions.
I think what people confuse here with the jomine's question is the question; do molecules actually vibrate? Is force being realy excerted? Do things ACTUALLY have a potential to do work? Which is of course yes. Why? Yet to be fully explain. do energy exist? As per how it is defined, no!
One which is mostly misinterprated is
correct statement in words:
the amount of energy in an object is directly proportional to the quantity of matter in the object.
With respect to jomine's language:
The total force a compact object will exert when brocken apart is proportional to the quantiy of matter in that object
this is because each small push exerted by subsubatomic particle will be summed up in the overal force. So for every small matter added, a force is added due to perpertual motion of matter hence amount of energy is proportianal to the amount of matter. A particle confines the constant collitions to a location with no stoping due to frictionlessness of subatomic world much like gas molecules in a preasurised container. This results in potential energy. Hence potential energy can be explained in terms of kinetic energy.
Now, it is clear that when two particles of certain nature collide in what is called matter and antimatter, they must not be thougth to unihilate one another. They break into subsubsub atomic particles which a fool knows that we cannot be certain about their existence and photons Thereby releasing the potential energy. Photon at rest is massless merely in that it cannot be affected by the force of gravity. The Newton's equation:
has a subtle flaw in that physicist then started to beged the question and measured mass by the amount of acceleration or gravitantional force instead of counting matter but this is of course understandable. What if some tiny particles donot obey equations above? Chanses are we can erroneously conclude that they don't exist! 'they will have no mass' hence no quantity of matter hence donnot exist. What if particles changes their nature and started attracting one another the more without actually increasing its contents like when we merely magnetise a material? We will interprate it as an increase in mass but there is actually no more matter added! It is just magnetisation! Just re alignment of molecules!
you have said it out of your own lips! Let us all stop thinking and bow to Einstein, Hawking etc! Then you critisize those who worship God! So they say it themselves! I thought that the skeptics are being unfair to relativists when they say they worship Einstein! What else can anyone teach you against what your god has told you? Nothing! It is not me who say this i don't dis people. You have all heard it yourself. Sorry, guys let us present logical arguments on why something is correct. Quark, you boast that you are a logician but don't you see that merely saing that Einstein was smatter hence he is correct is a logical fallacy? Just proof a claim and i will cross the floor. Say it is correct because of A,B,C and not because Einstein dedicated his life to studying reality. Wher is your logics?
You say energy exist. Now conceptually 'exist' is said (by some people) to be a static concept. What this mean is exist is like the concept of 'being' which is contrasted with the concept of 'happening' which they, not me, call it dynamic concept. You are entitled to your definition of energy but the mathematical physicist define it as a phenomenon that happens as opposed to something that is.
Perhaps you take energy as an invisible substance that drives all things. This makes perfect sence but then energy should not be defined mathematically as
or in words as an abstract ability. an abstract ability, according to jomine, cannot act as a couse because ability is not something that is in itself. 'ability of something to....' remove 'something' and the 'ability' becomes a meaningless term. You can as well be plaing word game with jomine.
Well I imagine there is a fine line at times in that they can both be a study of ideas. I wasn't sure if you were taking a scientific complexity to make a philosophical point.
There is a major distinction.
Science- a study of objects
Philosophy- study of concepts.
The present day scientists are doing philosophy and accuse others of doing it.
You will understand if you know the difference between an object and concept. Or are you one among those people who claim concepts like time exists.
Asking questions is a virtue only if it causes one to learn. I am not seeing a lot of evidence of that.
Getting Indoctrinated and believing nonsense is not learning.
Try to use words consistently, you will find that the so called science is all BS(present day science of QM and Relativity).
Stephan Hawkings and Einstein uses magic and other supernatural explanation. Space is considered a 'thing' by them. Hardly natural and don't qualify as science. Science as you rightly said is the study of nature. A scientist job is to EXPLAIN nature, not creating 'unreal' realities. Mathematics can maximum DESCRIBE, can never EXPLAIN.
See you won't get a price for telling an apple falls to ground(description), you get the price for explaining why or how it fell to ground instead of going up.
(Have you ever bothered to check how the QM and relativity explain gravity? Do you know that, they have no idea,the only two forces in nature are push and pull.)
There is a Creator and there are His creations in many and multiple forms, visible or invisible, of which we have consciousenss and of which we lack consciousness, sometimes in proximity and some times remote and sometime beyond our access. Everything has a name. a thing is that which the Creator said be and it became, becomes and is becoming. Names are sometime of a unit and sometimes of a combination, thus both refer to the various phases or stages as the case may be. Finding of the existence energy, its formula, its uses all speak of its existence and being their and also located in time and space and within the Control of the Creator.
The debate is certainly interesting and being all round useful and creative.
May God Almighty bless all every where.
This is not the first time someone has tried to get him to understand this. He just isn't going to.
"Dose energy exist"...after last night,I'd have ta say...Hell No!...anybody got a little extra they can send my way?
Molecules represent only a miserable human's attempt to materialize non materializable.
Again, somebody said that energy and matter are one and the same thing. Now mass is defined not as matter(object) but as quantity of matter (concept). Friends, let us be carefull when dealing with equations. They donnot tell us what a thing is but HOW MUCH it is. It begs the question that we know what the variables are and what remains is just how much.
does not tell us what a,b and c is but just how much they are. Much les does it tell ur WHY the L.H.S is equal to the R.H.S without knowing what a,b and c are, the equation is simply meaningless. like wise, the equation
Neighther tell us what E,m or c is. Just how much they are. Without interpratation, we only have the mathematics not the physics!
I suggest two reasons why E=mc2.
1) matter is made up of very small fundamental particles that are in constant motion and collition. They happen to be confined like in a preasurised container Each of the particles travel at c. If momentum is conserved, the velocity remains c for all particles. If a mkg object has n such particles, we can define the mass of such a partical as 2m/n kg. Using equation
The energy of one such a particle is
hence the total energy in the object is the sum for all the n objects is mc2.
Jomine, it has been explained to you repeatedly by a number of different people. Try re-reading the answers you have already been given.
You say explained?
May be, but what am I to understand when people use same words to mean different things. Without semantics language carry no meaning. You tell me "energy exists", and tell me energy is a capacity or ability. When I tell you ability or capacity is what something has and not something is, you tell me something else. When I ask how capacity exist, Qwark tells, because Einstein, or Hawking or some god of his told that. You tell me 'exist' is something that can affect another thing, That is a "noun" that can affect another "noun" and tell me as example "thoughts"(which in reality is a verb for physics - to think. You do not use your words consistently and tell me all is explained!!
2) because of Newtons law that
Physicists then said that mass of an object is the measure of an object's resistance to change in its velocity. Again forgeting that equations merely tells us how much of a thing. We are supposed to know what the thing is to begine with! There can be logically possible way to make an object resist change in its velocity without necessarily changing the quantity of matter in it. For instance a charged object in a magnetic field, offers resistence to change in its velocity due to opposing magnetic force.
Now I beleive that there is a reason why an object resists change in velocity. Most likely, it has something to do with gravitantional field all around everywhere.That this resistance is proportional to the quantity of matter has more of something to do with the sumation nature of forces than on the quantity of matter. The total resistance is the sum of individual resistances offered by each particle hence is proportional to the mass. The hypothesis is that changing the mere rate of motions of subsubatomic particles making an object affects the object's resistance to change in velocity and its gravitational attraction in much the same whay that the mere motion of charged particles in a wire causes the wire to be attracted by the magnet. Since we had no way of changing the velocity of subsubatomic particles, we discorved only the change in resistance to change in velocity and weight of the object due to the increase in the matter (the one due to mere sumation). Hence changing the energy of an object can logically change the weight of the object and its resistance to change without changing the quantity of matter but we erroneosly call it change in mass(quantity of matter) because we gave Newton's law of motion, F=ma, and his law of gravity too much authority! Much less we didn't try to understand why the equations work.
Everthing that exists is made up of energy. So if you want to know what it looks like, look at yourself, your home, the night sky. Matter and energy are the same thing, but energy works at different frequencies, so can make up gas, liquid or solid and whatever other elements make up the universe. Energy is at its basic level composed of light, so therefore everthing that exists is in some way made up of light. Not that I understand any of this, because it is mind-blowing.
"Not that I understand any of this, because it is mind-blowing."
Not that it is mind blowing, but it is nonsense.
What is light?
What is energy, if it is not a concept?
What is matter, if it is not an object?
How do you convert objects to concepts and back?
It was explained. Yes energy does exist. If after 19 pages you still don't get it you probably never will.
"It was explained. Yes energy does exist. If after 19 pages you still don't get it you probably never will"
If you still cannot differentiate between object and concept, do not try to talk physics.
If light and energy are concepts only, I cannot imagine what that thing is that comes from my lamps when I turn them on at night. Without these concepts, I would be walking into things and stubbing my toe. All I can say is, thank goodness for concepts which do not really exist.
"If light and energy are concepts only, I cannot imagine what that thing is that comes from my lamps when I turn them on at night. Without these concepts, I would be walking into things and stubbing my toe. All I can say is, thank goodness for concepts which do not really exist."
Talking nonsense? Is it energy that comes out of your lamb or is it light?
Can YOU tell me what light is? Light is an object. Can you describe light, its structure?
Concepts exist???? Be careful, you may stumble upon love and justice walking around in your house!!
I really think there is little point in anyone trying to explain further what energy is, because it is obviously something you will never be able to understand. I don't need to understand something to know that it exists. Gravity exists, I know this, because if I drop something, it will always fall down to the ground rather than up. I cannot explain exactly what gravity is, but the evidence of its existence is obvious. Perhaps you don't believe in gravity either though. And by the way, here is something to really blow your mind - the Earth isn't flat.
As to my being careful not to stumble upon love and justice walking around my house, I have to say, I can't understand this statement at all. Is it one of your concepts?
Try to define "exist" you will understand!
You don't understand gravity, but you know it exist, paradoxic!
Things that exist, you visualize. Concepts you understand.
Belief is for the religionists, not for a scientist.
Earth is not flat, understand that. Just because majority says so, does not make energy an object, its always a concept, conceived by humans. If theret no humans, there is no energy.
To exist. To be. Is. (See Bill Clinton for a definition of "is") And no, there is no energy until after my first cup of coffee. Unless I have no energy to make it. NOOOO EEENNNEEERRRGGGYYY! To lift a finger requires it, to chew, to swallow, to move the ocean in waves, to ignite a star, to warm a planet. To move from point a to point b requires it.
by jomine5 years ago
1. God exists2. God does not exist3. Theist believe 14. Atheist believe 2[Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to betrue.]Everybody understand the first two. So I'll be...
by jomine6 years ago
To define means, to describe clearly, to convey a word's proper meaning.So I define "Exist" as having shape, a physical presence.Relativist say they never define, and hence can use words ambiguously and...
by Paula3 years ago
What is necessary to prove whether or not absolute truth exists?This is a hotly contested topic of debate for many, and has been for centuries. Can you think of anything that would help shed light on this...
by DK6 years ago
Following a debate with AKA Winston on his forum "If you subtract mankind from existence, what is left?" http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89816It is clear that the question is not as obvious as it may first...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar8 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by JeremysStuff6 years ago
I had originally posted this as a question in the "Answers" section, but it was taken down because it "invoked a conversation rather than a Q&A.... So that's why I brought it here! I want you guys to...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.