Is there a GOD? Or a continuous recycle process of life? Or does everything cease to exist in death? (translation, believing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good explanation. Should be required reading for anyone espousing new agey beliefs about our "energy" within. But then, basic science in school should have also been required......
In all fairness when I was first being introduced to these Laws in college physics I also held a few misconceptions about the First Law. However my misconceptions were not applied to new age beliefs.
I think it was Deepak Chopra who started the new age spin on physics.
Where in the world is anyone asking you to believe anything?
I mean, seriously, this is pretty simple basic English.
its a little trickier than if there is or is not a god. I first question is "what traits does this god have? Then it becomes clear that many religions have it wrong.
the question is "what is going on around us?"
And, lets be honest, many people aren't asking us, they are telling us. They are telling us deny observations and believe what they believe. from the "deny everything" types to the "my god only" types. They are forcing nonsense beliefs on us.
we die, our bodies don't go on any more. The memes that make us up? yeah, that information is still going on around us, being expressed by the human animal. but they are not the individual. The individual stops.
why be so afraid of that, that people need to believe in an after life. I am even ok with people thinking that, it relieves angst. I am not ok with forcing an after life belief on the rest of us.
Good explanation. Should be required reading for anyone espousing new agey beliefs about our "energy" within. But then, basic science in school should have also been required......
I recall it was pointed out (By Matadora to Mystic as i recall) that matter and energy was the same thing. We tend to regard them as different because the stuff is doing different things or doing things that look different to us.
I believe that Mystic's liking for the Chophraesque word "Vibration" which should automatically discredit any argument made in anything context other than massage -gadgetry, pretty much debunks any claim he makes to be talking "Science".
I recall it was pointed out (By Matadora to Mystic as i recall) that matter and energy was the same thing. We tend to regard them as different because the stuff is doing different things or doing things that look different to us.
I have been telling people that matter and energy are the same things since I started posting here. They are manifestations of a field, and, Yes, they are vibratory.
Quote:
I believe that Mystic's liking for the Chophraesque word "Vibration" which should automatically discredit any argument made in anything context other than massage -gadgetry, pretty much debunks any claim he makes to be talking "Science".
If you want to debunk Chopra be my guest, but it has nothing to do with me or my views. The most basic components in String theory are "vibrating strings" so any claim that it is somehow not scientific to talk about vibrations is nonsense. What you call "particles" are nothing more than packets of vibrations at specific frequencies. Either your ignorance about such things is increasing or your bias is driving you to more and more extreme false debunking claims.
I have been telling people that matter and energy are the same things since I started posting here. They are manifestations of a field, and, Yes, they are vibratory. If you want to debunk Chopra be my guest, but it has nothing to do with me or my views. The most basic components in String theory are "vibrating strings" so any claim that it is somehow not scientific to talk about vibrations is nonsense. What you call "particles" are nothing more than packets of vibrations at specific frequencies. Either your ignorance about such things is increasing or your bias is driving you to more and more extreme false debunking claims.
I don't mind at all (unlike yourself) admitting if an when I am wrong.
If you say that matter and energy are the same thing and you always did, I stand corrected. And I will at least consider this 'vibration' aspect with regard to string theory and atomic particles, though as I recall, 'Vibration' is not a term I heard used, I'll check.
But as i predicted, and asked people to remember when I debunked you on bio -origins, you'd be denying that I ever do a couple of days later. And here you are denying it. Selective memory.
"Within a few months, string theory’s unified framework took shape. Much as different vibrational patterns of a violin string play different musical notes, the different vibrations of the tiny strands in string theory were imagined to yield different particles of nature. According to the theory, the strings are so small that they appear to be points—as particles had long been thought to be—but in reality they have length (about 10−33 cm); the mass and charge of a particle is determined by how a string vibrates. For example, string theory posits that an electron is a string undergoing one particular vibrational pattern; a quark is imagined as a string undergoing a different vibrational pattern. Crucially, among the vibrational patterns, physicists argued, would also be the particles found by experiment to communicate nature’s forces. Thus, string theory was proposed as the sought-for unification of all forces and all matter." (some sorta site on string theory)
Ok. Given that string theory is still just a theory in the sense of a hypothesis 'vibration' (whatever that actually means in the theory) is part of string theory in respect of particle -creation.
You won't hear me object to the term in that context again.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-13-2018 at 03:25 PM..
No, they are NOT. They are manifestations of the same field that can be measured and expressed as mass, energy, or momentum depending upon which measurement event we use.
Good grief. I must have it really wrong. I could have sworn that it was the other way around.
The difference between matter and energy is that energy is produced from matter yet has no mass and is the capacity to do work while matter is the physical "stuff" in the universe. ... Matter can obtain energy in two different ways through either potential energy or kinetic energy. (again off the net) but explain that one has mass but not work and the other work but not mass.
In fact I am sure that, when you dig down, they are the same stuff doing different things. Matter can not only produce energy but can become energy and can indeed turn from energy back into matter. Rather as gas can turn into ice and back into gas.
Same stuff.
No, they are NOT. They are manifestations of the same field that can be measured and expressed as mass, energy, or momentum depending upon which measurement event we use.
This relation E=mc2 does not mean that energy is always equal to mass times c2; ***only for an object that is not moving (and therefore has zero momentum) is this true.***
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However my misconceptions were not applied to new age beliefs.
