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.
I can see that your perspective is the common view that energy is what does work. That is why you think the wax and wick are not energy, but they are.
You are confusing things here and ambiguously fusing everything together.
All matter is made up of what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of positively charged protons, neutral neutrons, and negatively charged electrons. Therefore matter is made up of "atomic stuff"; BUT which "atomic stuff" depends on context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have not learned the Einstein perspective that energy/mass/momentum equivalence means that energy is all that exists.
Sorry but I think you are gravely misunderstanding what Einstein meant. In fact I learned in my freshman Chemistry course during lectures about the atom, mass and energy...is that energy is locked inside mass, which is termed rest energy, since the object is not moving or performing work. Again I'm describing resting energy not potential energy.
***Rest energy is what Einsteins E=mc2 describes.***
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Everything we consider substance is just bundled energy.
Energy is not itself "atomic stuff", instead energy is something that all "atomic stuff" has. For example: Photons are "atomic stuff"; energy is not. Energy is a property, just as mass is a property, that objects in our Universe can have.
You are also confused about Dark Energy as well as it's not even energy...it's not really even "atomic stuff" even though certain types of "atomic stuff" might be responsible for Dark Energy...but we really don't know at this point in time.
The post 1973 viewpoint in physics is that the "atomic stuff" that makes up the Universe is all made from electromagnetic fields and their particles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The energy that you associate with work or process or motion etc. is simply released from the transformation of substance, like wax and wick and gasoline and dynamite and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, etc.
This article written by Matt Strassler, theoretical physicist, might help clear up the ambiguity that non-scientists tend to ascribe to the concept of Energy.
mass is energy in a confined space. like holding a fan motor in a box. when its running its harder to hold, more mass. a proton is the net average of the soup of particles interacting. It works to call the net average a proton or neutron for us. those particle are a result of the energy doing work. ... added ... we don't know what that "energy" is past it does stuff.
I will stop there, she started wrong and there is no need for me to go further. I am not debating you maddy, I am telling you. reread article and then ask somebody near you, like your astrophysicist brother you told me you had.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-21-2018 at 05:57 PM..
Although I don't quite believe MPhD's thesis (and I can't really even say that I understand it), I will take a moment to speculate on a way in which I think dark matter (and maybe dark energy?) could conceivably play a role.
And, finally, I've been emphasizing the non-local/holistic nature of consciousness. A brain is not conscious. A brain is just a mechanism by which Reality takes a particular perspective ("me, here, now, in this particular situation"). If that is correct, then it is possible that little, if any, of the mass of consciousness is in a specific brain. It could be that Reality Itself has a sort of intrinsic mass that physics has not yet catalogued and incorporated into current theory. (Or, perhaps, it is just some variation of, or some aspect of, "zero-point energy", conceptualized in a different light?) I'm sure MPhD will want to point to his Universal Conscious Field aka God at this point, and I am in no position to tell him that he can't do that. I'd just be more likely to call it a Universal Unconscious or Proto-conscious Field. My best guess is that this would be a field that makes sense, somehow, of the delayed-choice experiments. Vast threads of "the past" are probably "soft" (i.e., indeterminate to a significant degree) until some present or future experience "sets certain portions in stone", so to speak. Basically, instead of unfolding with a purely objective sort of abstract mathematical precision, Reality would be "feeling" its way into mathematically possible futures, and this free-will-driven growth process could have some measurable (albeit mostly non-local) weight to it.
explain why 90% of the universe plays a role? that has to be explained? of course 90% play a role. the problem is we don't know what it is.
this is important gey,
how would you misrepresent whats going on in a cpu, just the "hard parts", not knowing the voltage changes were 1's and 0's? let alone the langue that is using it.
This is about the most obtuse statement I have ever heard. Again you demonstrate you have absolutely zero scientific knowledge.
WOW just wow! You lack serious basic science literacy. I'm not surprised though...you've never demonstrated competency with respect to discussing science concepts.
OK Einstein put some kinetic energy in a box and tell me how much it weighs.
Or better yet put a tightly coiled 1 kg spring (potential energy) in a box and compare this to an uncoiled spring of the same mass. Will they weigh the same? LOL
Also explain to us why a mass-less particle (photon) possesses the property of energy and always travels at the speed of light (c)?
Also explain what rest-energy is and where does it come from?
The thing you don't get is: 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.
That comes directly out of the link I posted....perhaps you need to go back and re-read it and if you don't understand it you can email the Theoretical Physicists and have him explain it to you...but he already does an excellent job of explaining it in the link that I posted.
Time to up your knoweldge so you don't post such nonsense.
It would not be so bad if you did not proclaim to know what your talking about when it comes to science. Nothing in your post is accurate. I suggest you start taking science basics at a community college and work your way up to Theoretical Physicists websites who teach at major Universities so that you can understand what they post.
You are confusing things here and ambiguously fusing everything together.
All matter is made up of what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of positively charged protons, neutral neutrons, and negatively charged electrons. Therefore matter is made up of "atomic stuff"; BUT which "atomic stuff" depends on context.
Sorry but I think you are gravely misunderstanding what Einstein meant. In fact I learned in my freshman Chemistry course during lectures about the atom, mass and energy...is that energy is locked inside mass, which is termed rest energy, since the object is not moving or performing work. Again I'm describing resting energy not potential energy.
***Rest energy is what Einsteins E=mc2 describes.***
Energy is not itself "atomic stuff", instead energy is something that all "atomic stuff" has. For example: Photons are "atomic stuff"; energy is not. Energy is a property, just as mass is a property, that objects in our Universe can have.
You are also confused about Dark Energy as well as it's not even energy...it's not really even "atomic stuff" even though certain types of "atomic stuff" might be responsible for Dark Energy...but we really don't know at this point in time.
The post 1973 viewpoint in physics is that the "atomic stuff" that makes up the Universe is all made from electromagnetic fields and their particles.
This article written by Matt Strassler, theoretical physicist, might help clear up the ambiguity that non-scientists tend to ascribe to the concept of Energy.
You remain focused on the terms as USED in physics, NOT as used to philosophically understand the composition of our reality. There is nothing but field and manifestations of a unified field that are mass/energy/momentum equivalence. You incorrectly told Arach that mass is not bundled energy (bound energy) but he is essentially correct.
Existentially, there is no such thing as matter -- just "energy events" of varying vibratory states in a unified field. Molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates). Photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest." Clearly, you are not used to thinking philosophically about these issues.
Energy is ALL that exists in a universal field that establishes the parameters for the aggregation of "energy events" into mass of varying "spherical standing waveforms" we interact with as matter. Einstein's equation reveals this mass-energy-momentum equivalence that leads to the philosophical implications for the composition of reality I have tried to explain in my Synthesis.
To understand this philosophical significance of E = mc^2 (and E=hf as the vibratory clue) as regards the nature of reality we need to understand the meaning of the symbols. Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless, a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system. (Note my use of quotes is to emphasize the importance of measurement in all these speculations. See my synthesis for a discussion of the implications of such measurements.)
When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest, the mass is called the inertial rest mass or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.
The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:
1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?
The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:
E = (m − q)c^2 + K,
K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter because q = 0 rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can NOT be “converted” into energy (bound energy). This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%. Hence, q = 0 FAPP and mass IS bound energy (or Arach's bundled energy).
What can we take away from this equivalence philosophically about the structure of reality and the nature of matter? Actually, Einstein's classical distinction between matter and fields has given way to an ontology entirely comprised of fields (unified field). This makes questionable the preferred view of 'particle" physicists that the "same property" is physical mass (Lange, et al. such physical bias is to be expected from physicists I suppose). But Einstein's ontological field view (universal field) requires that energy be the "same property" rest state (basic "substance") NOT mass.
The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of time-space must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of time-space is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "time-space" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."
You remain focused on the terms as USED in physics, NOT as used to philosophically understand the composition of our reality.
Now you are moving the goal posts.
What terms would you use to philosophically understand the composition of our reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is nothing but field and manifestations of a unified field that are mass/energy/momentum equivalence.
Mass/energy/momentum/unified field are ALL physics terms!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You incorrectly told Arach that mass is not bundled energy (bound energy) but he is essentially correct.
You both are incorrect as mass is a property that gives an object inertia. The net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration of the object.
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.***
Energy is a property not an object. Mass is a property not an object.
Answer the questions I asked Arch which will debunk that mass is nothing more than bundled energy.
Put some kinetic energy in a box and tell me how much it weighs.
Or better yet put a tightly coiled 1 kg spring (potential energy) in a box and compare this to an uncoiled spring of the same mass. Will they weigh the same?
Also explain to us why a mass-less particle (photon) possesses the property of energy and always travels at the speed of light (c)?...i.e. it has momentum.
Also explain what rest-energy is and where does it come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Existentially, there is no such thing as matter -- just "energy events" of varying vibratory states in a unified field.
Just wow at trying to claim matter does not exist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates).
Photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest." Clearly, you are not used to thinking philosophically about these issues.
Why would I? Just listen to the false claims you are posting here...I am truly stunned by it.
Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.
At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.
The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.
The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.
Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Energy is ALL that exists in a universal field that establishes the parameters for the aggregation of "energy events" into mass of varying "spherical standing waveforms" we interact with as matter.
You're going to have to do better than this. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Einstein's equation reveals this mass-energy-momentum equivalence that leads to the philosophical implications for the composition of reality I have tried to explain in my Synthesis.
Einsteins equation reveals rest energy. The m in the equation E=mc2 stands for the rest mass.
The equation relates the total energy of an object to the rest mass for a stationary object.
For objects in motion, the total energy is not described by this formula, it is described by the extended formula, E = √( p2c2 + m2c4 ) where p is the momentum. As you can see, substituting p with zero causes this equation to reduce to E=mc2.
Thus 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***. Look up Lorentz Factor.
The link I provided for you explains this in great detail.
Please read and understand what Einstein's equation really means. Mass and Energy
This Theoretical Physicists who's research involved working with the Large Hadron Collider has dedicated much time and effort to explain these concepts to non experts.
I find it odd that your "synthesis" is reliant upon trying to make up falsehoods about E=mc2 and making claims that matter does not exist or that mass is nothing more than bundled energy...those 4 questions I asked you debunk that claim.
It's saddens me seeing intelligent people clinging so tightly to their religious/spiritual belief system that they try and distort or dismiss the discoveries that science has brought us. The unbiased knowledge of how the Universe works as well as what the composition of our reality is was brought to us by science not philosophy or religion.
Now you are moving the goal posts.
What terms would you use to philosophically understand the composition of our reality?
Mass/energy/momentum/unified field are ALL physics terms!
It is not the physics terms is it your understanding of them ONLY as they are USED in physics, NOT what they signify about the composition of our reality. Clearly, your erroneous belief that I do not know the physics or the science colored your reading of my post because you blew past the relevant discussion. Some of my statements seem to have triggered your uncritical attempt to rebut things I did NOT say and miss what I DID say.
Quote:
You both are incorrect as mass is a property that gives an object inertia. The net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration of the object. 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.***
Energy is a property, not an object. Mass is a property, not an object.
QED. I covered the rest mass issue and completely justified the bound energy (bundled energy) assertion.
"When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest, the mass is called the inertial rest mass or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.
The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:
1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?
The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:
E = (m − q)c^2 + K,
K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter because q = 0 rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can NOT be “converted” into energy (bound energy). This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%. Hence, q = 0 FAPP and mass IS bound energy (or Arach's bundled energy)."
Quote:
At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knowledge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.
The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.
The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day, they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on its own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point, Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.
Of course, Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact. Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.
Nothing you said here about science as the source of knowledge is controversial or in dispute except for your egregious philosophical naivete'. Philosophy addresses the fundamental (hard) problems that science does NOT address that involve understanding the composition of our reality. Science addresses HOW things seem to work based on our measurements NOT what that ultimately says about the underlying composition of our reality. You display a surprising lack of understanding about the role of Philosophy in using the knowledge derived from science to understand the composition of our reality.
Quote:
It saddens me seeing intelligent people clinging so tightly to their religious/spiritual belief system that they try and distort or dismiss the discoveries that science has brought us. The unbiased knowledge of how the Universe works as well as what the composition of our reality is was brought to us by science, not philosophy or religion.
It saddens me to see intelligent people read so uncritically because they are triggered by seeming challenges to their understanding of the composition of reality.
You remain focused on the terms as USED in physics, NOT as used to philosophically understand the composition of our reality. There is nothing but field and manifestations of a unified field that are mass/energy/momentum equivalence. You incorrectly told Arach that mass is not bundled energy (bound energy) but he is essentially correct.
I would like to make some cautionary points:
Practically anyone can call themselves a philosopher and/or write a philosophically-oriented essay and claim practically anything. Within the halls of academic philosophy, there is a wide range of views on almost any topic, and if you add all of the people who take stands on philosophical issues with or without credible education in the relevant fields they are dealing with, you get a total mess. This is why I keep asking for source references. You are obviously putting together lots of ideas from lots of sources, which is perfectly fine, but for any specific claim - especially if it involves critical scientific terms - you really, really, really, really need to be able, upon demand, to reference respected professionals (even if they are just professional writers who explain science for popular audiences).
Of course, if you are making a claim that you thought of by yourself and, so far as you know, no one else has said any such thing - then clearly state that this is the case. The problem with so many of your posts is that you say "scientists say" or "philosophers say" and then you say something that I am skeptical about. That is were source references become import. Where are you getting these ideas from? If they are, in fact, respectable thinkers publishing in respectable formats, then I want to go to them to see what they are actually saying for myself. (Just to be clear: Certain types of logical claims or arguments can stand on their own merits without references, but specific claims involving science terms or technical philosophical terms need source references.)
Here, for example:
Quote:
Existentially, there is no such thing as matter -- just "energy events" of varying vibratory states in a unified field. Molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates). Photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest." Clearly, you are not used to thinking philosophically about these issues.
This sounds like something that some scientist or philosopher could more or less say, but I want to know exactly who you think is saying it.
And then there is this:
Quote:
The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system.
This is just plain and simply wrong. Maybe it's a couple of typos or a temporary brain spasm? If you really meant to say: "The symbol (m) represents the mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with zero velocity relative to the system," (aka "rest mass") then all is well. But if you want to stick to your formulation, then we have a problem. In any case, my point is that you are going to keep spinning your wheels until you can start referencing some respectable scientists and philosophers who you believe are supporting your specific claims.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-22-2018 at 09:04 AM..
mass is energy in a confined space. like holding a fan motor in a box. when its running its harder to hold, more mass. a proton is the net average of the soup of particles interacting. It works to call the net average a proton or neutron for us. those particle are a result of the energy doing work. ... added ... we don't know what that "energy" is past it does stuff.
I will stop there, she started wrong and there is no need for me to go further. I am not debating you maddy, I am telling you. reread article and then ask somebody near you, like your astrophysicist brother you told me you had.
The above word-salad reminds me of History According to Jeff Spicoli.
... but for any specific claim - especially if it involves critical scientific terms - you really, really, really, really need to be able, upon demand, to reference respected professionals (even if they are just professional writers who explain science for popular audiences).
Slight addendum: I know this is a casual forum for casual conversation, so you don't really "need" to do anything. But you seem to genuinely want us to understand with what you are saying, and learn something that might change our minds about certain assumption we have, etc. Given that this is your goal, I'm trying to suggest a way that you can help us out so that none of us are just going in circles.
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.
