|
|
|
|
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 12:59:44 PM | | Yes matter could be construed as a form of energy, and yes matter can be "destroy" by converting it to energy. But the law you refer to is actually the law of conservation of mass AND energy. In a nuclear reaction approximately 1% of the matter is fully transformed into energy. And in an antimatter reaction all the matter is turned into energy. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:29:53 PM | When I said creationism...
I wasn't leaning towards the religious views that on the 7th day god made man out of clay or something like that..
lol.. And then he rested.. he was tired.. After the earth made 7 rotations he couldn't do any more work because he was so tired from working and thus we have sabbath day and calendars have to be 7 days to a week.
It goes like this:
(GrRr...) Creationism.
That the universe merely exists because of an external force that set it up into being. Not because of what the bible says or the other religious texts that I'm happily unfamiliar with. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:40:13 PM | FrOgEyes...
Some matters are very difficult to understand and even more difficult to prove. The logic in my head says the universe is a medium adopted by an external "being" or case 2, that the universe is, of itself, a being and to know anything outside of the universe is impossible, but worth consideration.
And your logic?? THere was this big bang and shit keeps expanding... uhhh i think its gonna implode one day or something. I think ur dumb. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:42:39 PM | | In any case, are we beings? We're not enemies, in my mind. Your thoughts are welcomed, your disagreeance is helpful in some regards. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:48:35 PM |
And your logic?? THere was this big bang and shit keeps expanding... uhhh i think its gonna implode one day or something.
This is logic based on evidence, although you make it out to be a random guess. The "logic in my head", as you say, IS just a guess, based on your assumptions. Either could be right, but logic supported by evidence beats logic with no support every time.
I think ur dumb.
I rarely even THINK this, much less say it. If I say it, then someone has done an excellent job of proving their incompetence to me. I haven't even thought it in regards to you, though I find your perspectives odd at times, and I hold no grudges.
Please resume regularly scheduled topic... | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:54:17 PM | Religion is the term for defining the consideration of beliefs relating to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Since I'm strictly against every form of popular religion that I've ever encountered, I have nothing to share with religious fanatics nor atheists aside from reversing the brainwashing.
Aren't most, if not all, scientific endeavors started on a belief that something might be possible or true?
I think that string theory and all that big bang stuff actually falls under the category of religion by definition.
Although the dictionary added this clause to the main definition "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
I think those "superhuman agencies" suck and they cheat and lie to people. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:58:51 PM | | Science can do good to an extent to bring about a definition of the nature of the universe, but when it comes to the origin of the universe, I think its dumb to believe in anything but some sort of unclassified creator. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 3:43:58 PM |
I think that string theory and all that big bang stuff actually falls under the category of religion by definition.
These things are supported by observations of reality, and by mathematics. They are not matters of belief or faith, but of scientific method. If you wish to consider them matters of faith or religion, you'll have to go a bit further to prove they are.
but when it comes to the origin of the universe, I think its dumb to believe in anything but some sort of unclassified creator.
Your prerogative. Mine would be to say it is "dumb" to believe in anything for which there is no definition and no proof. I prefer not to say it, though logically and scientifically, I'd be justified. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 5:05:10 PM |
...In fact, where did the science of chemistry originate? From alchemy... a metaphor for transforming our own base metal into gold...
...I am simply saying that science and spirituality IMO (notice that is all one can offer here?) are not incompatible.. that they CAN and imo do complement each other...
This example doesn't prove your thesis that science and spirituality are compatible, though. You claim that they are compatible because chemistry originated from alchemy, but I don't think your reasoning is sound.
To use an example, we can say that men evolved (or "originated") from single-celled organisms living way back in the Pre-Cambrian. Does this mean the term "human" means the same thing as "single-celled organism"? No. Are single-celled organisms and humans sexually compatible? No.
The point, basically, is that whether science may have originated out of non-scientific ideas, this does NOT show that spirituality complements or coheres with science. And notice, my friend, that science explained away alchemy. No one would say alchemy is "compatible" with scientific thinking, because it obviously isn't science. Alchemy is totally incompatible with modern chemisty, in both methods AND content!
Besides, this seems to undermine what you've been claiming. If science is only compatible with "spirituality" in the way that science is "compatible" with alchemy, then all you're claiming is that sometimes silly, spiritualists make correct guesses...but this does not vindicate spirituality at all.
Suppose, for instance, that someone claims they know that evolution is true because God told them so. Now, in this case, they'd be correct, because evolution is true. But this wouldn't vindicate their spirituality in any way! In the sciences, evolution is justified through evidence and observation, not appeals to unobservable entities in the heavens. Science totally excludes any sort of "spiritual" components because of its naturalistic methodology. If the "spiritualist" makes an empirical claim, he could be right or he could be wrong, but this doesn't mean spiritualism is compatible with science anymore than random guessing is.
Yes.. I comprehend that once something is proven, certain ideas held before often DO go out the window, however... it can go the other way as well.. proving something that before was just a concept...
No, it cannot go the other way. Science cannot vindicate spirituality because spiritual ideas transcend observation and testing. When science is capable of addressing a phenomenon, it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim it is a spiritual matter because the mere fact that science even applies to it proves that this is not the case!
Anyone who knows me in here knows that I don't think faith equals proof... but I do think one needs faith in the unproven in order to have the motivation to prove it.. that is just common sense to me...
Your previous statements make no sense if you conceive of faith in a non-epistemic manner, though. It's also downright wrong. Believe it or not, I don't need to BELIEVE a theory in order to set out to test it! In fact, many scientists actively DOUBT a theory and that is precisely why they go out to test it, to see if it will fail the test!
In the end, science is not a system of "faith" as you have defined it. A scientist who believes in something untestable is not practicing science. Faith has as much to do with science as eating bacon for breakfast. Yes, even though it is true that some scientists eat bacon for breakfast before making a major scientific discovery, it would be foolish to imply that somehow eating bacon is a part of the scientific method. And this is exactly what you're doing with "faith" and "spirituality". Yes, a scientist can have faith and believe in spiritual things--but those things would not be part of his science, in just the same way that his breakfast is not a part of the scientific method. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/3/2008 5:20:37 PM | | If you ever wake up alone on an island, don't bother wondering if anyone put you there, science will prove that you're exactly where you are, nothing more and nothing less and thats all that matters. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/4/2008 12:00:30 PM | Aknightrmor:
I think ur dumb. Did you seriously just say that??
I am no psychic, but I guarantee you will end up eating those words one day, lol..
Handled with class too Frog0Eyes :)
Saint:
This example doesn't prove your thesis that science and spirituality are compatible, though. You claim that they are compatible because chemistry originated from alchemy, but I don't think your reasoning is sound. I simply twisted YOUR example used to prove YOUR thesis, so if my reasoning is faulty what the heck does that make YOURS? Lol....
And this example is not the only thing I base my opinion on... thesis, please, lol...
Alchemy is totally incompatible with modern chemisty, in both methods AND content! You missed my point entirely.. though I am not surprised.. alchemy led to chemistry... the ideas that chemistry was originally founded upon gained its imeptus in alchemy.. and what the alchemists of old conceptualized- turning base metal into gold- was realized.... how is that incompatible?
Are theorists and experimentalists incompatible then?? They feed off of each other, no??
If the "spiritualist" makes an empirical claim, he could be right or he could be wrong, but this doesn't mean spiritualism is compatible with science anymore than random guessing is. See above.
No, it cannot go the other way. Science cannot vindicate spirituality because spiritual ideas transcend observation and testing. See above.
I already stated that I don't think alchemy and chemistry should be rejoined.  I must say, debating with you is tiresome due to your (imo) delibrate obstinacy..
To use an example, we can say that men evolved (or "originated") from single-celled organisms living way back in the Pre-Cambrian. Does this mean the term "human" means the same thing as "single-celled organism"? No. Are single-celled organisms and humans sexually compatible? No. THAT is your counter example? Omg...
It appears that you can only see the process as going one way... and I do not.. I see it as a dialectic relationship.... just as theorist/experimentor... or energy/matter....
When science is capable of addressing a phenomenon, it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim it is a spiritual matter because the mere fact that science even applies to it proves that this is not the case! Does string theory fit into what you have just stated??
What is spiritual to some is not spiritual to another... are you capable of defining what is spiritual for everyone? No you are not.
Are you able to say that ALL spiritual ideas are left out of scientific experiments? Careful there....
Impossible is a very big word...
Your previous statements make no sense if you conceive of faith in a non-epistemic manner, though. It's also downright wrong. Believe it or not, I don't need to BELIEVE a theory in order to set out to test it! In fact, many scientists actively DOUBT a theory and that is precisely why they go out to test it, to see if it will fail the test! Are you seriously so closed minded that you cannot see that it can go both ways??
In the end, science is not a system of "faith" as you have defined it.  OMG! When did I define science as such? Wow..
A scientist who believes in something untestable is not practicing science. Who said anything about untestable??
I think it notable how you did not bother responding to my atom example.. as I said, the observer is of extreme importance.. in fact, cannot be removed from any experiment.. which has an undeniable effect upon the experiment, no??
Faith has as much to do with science as eating bacon for breakfast. Yes, even though it is true that some scientists eat bacon for breakfast before making a major scientific discovery, it would be foolish to imply that somehow eating bacon is a part of the scientific method. And this is exactly what you're doing with "faith" and "spirituality". Yes, a scientist can have faith and believe in spiritual things--but those things would not be part of his science, in just the same way that his breakfast is not a part of the scientific method. That's quite a correlation you have come up with there... does eating bacon have an effect upon how a scientist views things? Particularily in how he formulates ideas and seeks to prove them? Oh my...
http://www.pantheism.net/
^^ever heard of scientific pantheism???
Sounds like a contradiction in terms to you? Not to many other scientists... scientists who perform experiments and who write books... who offer their expertise to the world... interesting, no? | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/4/2008 4:42:58 PM |
What happens if you break a bunch of matter down to the atomic level and then break it down further and you just bottle up all these broken atoms? Is the law of conservation of matter preserved? I imagine the answer is no and that some of the matter is "turned into" energy. Well, from my understanding, when you explode a nuclear bomb, you break the U-235 atoms down into smaller atoms and neutrons and some energy. That would be very difficult to contain, but if you only contained the mass, and you released the energy, that would be a lot of energy. If I remember it right, the new mass would weigh a little bit less than the old mass, that would be equal to the increased energy.
So in essence, is matter a form of energy and is it possible to do the opposite by "constructing" matter from energy? Yes, and yes. Matter is changeable to energy and back, by Einstein's formula E=mc^2. If I remember it right, there is an experiment that allows energy to be formed into an electron and a positron. A positron is the same mass and spin as the electron, with an equal but opposite charge. Positrons don't survive very long, because when a positron collides with an electron, they change back into energy, and there are lots of electrons in our universe, so it's not long before it hits an electron and converts into energy. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/4/2008 5:18:48 PM |
You missed my point entirely.. though I am not surprised.. alchemy led to chemistry... the ideas that chemistry was originally founded upon gained its imeptus in alchemy.. and what the alchemists of old conceptualized- turning base metal into gold- was realized.... how is that incompatible?
Alchemy is incompatible with modern chemistry in many ways. It is incompatible in its methods, for instance. Alchemy posited some sort of untestable "magic" mechanism to produce gold from all sorts of other matter. It is also a bit of a stretch to claim chemistry arose out of alchemy. Chemistry arose out of careful observations of various elements, and the mere fact that alchemists played a role in collecting some of these observations doesn't mean that chemistry is therefore compatible with alchemy. If anything, all this shows is that empirical observations are compatible with chemistry.
Are theorists and experimentalists incompatible then?? They feed off of each other, no??
A theorist who theorizes about SPIRITUAL, IMMATERIAL, and fundmantally UNKNOWABLE mechanisms or entities is indeed incompatible with an experimentalist. How would one generate predictions with empirically observable data if the theory is spiritual and thus could produce no measurable observations? You are confusing legitimate theory-building with the wild, untestable conjectures of spiritualists. Either that or you are misusing the word "spiritual" to apply to empirical realm. Or you're just equivocating all over the place, which I'm beginning to suspect.
Does string theory fit into what you have just stated??
String theory is not "spiritual" in the slightest. Basically, it's a mathematical model built up to explain the origin of the universe. The mathematical model may or may not apply to reality. IF string theories model CANNOT be tested against reality, then it is not science. If it can, then it is not spiritual. Either way, your claims about spirituality being comapatible with science in any meaningful sense is ludicrous.
What is spiritual to some is not spiritual to another... are you capable of defining what is spiritual for everyone? No you are not.
In order to have a rational discussion about something, it is absolutely necessary to have a concrete definition of something. I define "spiritual" as an immaterial, and hence unobservable and unknowable, realm. If you disagree with this definition, then please define it for me. It may turn out simply that you are simply using the word erroneously. (Your link to the pantheism site seems to betray this, as there is NOTHING spiritual in the conventional uses of the word in believing that the natural universe exists.) Perhaps the problem, then, is not that you think unobservable phenomena can be incorporated into scientific theories, but that you are simply using a word in an unconventional manner. I sincerely hope it's the latter, and not the former.
Are you able to say that ALL spiritual ideas are left out of scientific experiments? Careful there....
Impossible is a very big word...
Impossible is not such a big word if the very definition of "spiritual" in its most conventional use is logically incompatible with science. Granted, you can always attack my definition of the word spiritual, but that's a sort of pyrrhic victory. It would be as if you were saying 2+2=5, and then explaining that you define five as meaning four when I point out that this is not correct given conventional uses of the word five. It would be an exercise in semantics for you, in other words.
I think it notable how you did not bother responding to my atom example.. as I said, the observer is of extreme importance.. in fact, cannot be removed from any experiment.. which has an undeniable effect upon the experiment, no??
I did not respond to this example because it does not demonstrate anything remotely spiritual is going on. All you seem to be talking about is the observer effect present in experiments of quantum physics like the "slit test". And I can assure you that quantum physicists do not chalk this up to "spirits" of the observers somehow interfering with the atoms like poltergeists, but instead chalk it up to complex mathematical formulas that make quite accurate probabilistic predictions on a quantum level. In other words, they make testable predictions about observable entities rather than making mind-numbing appeals to untestable spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Contrary to what films like "What the BLEEP Do We Know" claim.
To sum up:
Science is not compatible with the spiritual because the spiritual realm is unobservable and unknowable, and hence unaddressable by the scientific method. IF you do not agree with this definition of "spiritual" and would, like the pantheist site listed above, call something entirely natural and observable "spiritual", then I must insist we do not have a disagreement and the only problem is a poor choice of words on your part. But if you DO agree with such a definition of spirituality, then you're just flat wrong that it is compatible with science in any meaningful, informative sense. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/4/2008 8:18:26 PM | alchemy led to chemistry... the ideas that chemistry was originally founded upon gained its imeptus in alchemy.. and what the alchemists of old conceptualized- turning base metal into gold- was realized.... how is that incompatible?
Just for the record, chemistry has NEVER succeeded in turning base metal into gold.
Only nuclear physics has done this (transmutation of elements by bombardment of a base element with high-energy subatomic particles in a particle accelerator), and this has not resulted in mass production of gold from lead nor realized the wealth/economic gain alchemists were after in their attempts to make gold. Only small amounts of radioactive gold can be synthesized this way, with limited applications in fields such as nuclear medicine. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:37:58 AM |
Yes, matter and energy are interconvertible, governed by this equation: E = mc^2
where E is energy (in Joules), m is mass of the matter (in kilograms), and c is the speed of light in vacuum (in meters per second).
Energy can be converted to mass and mass can be converted to energy.
I agree with matter and energy being interconvertable, and granted emc works for the most part but we have a minor problem with how to handle waves that travel at 1.5*c. Hence which c do we use?
Sort of changes things a bit on the heaviside.
. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/5/2008 2:10:34 PM | Hence which c do we use?
There is only one definition in physics for c.
299,792,458 m/s .
c in physics is defined as the speed at which all electromagnetic waves propagate in vacuum. That's a constant value. There are no other values for "c" in physics.
The mass-energy equivalence equation is very specific on the relationship it is mathematically describing. You don't use any other number in place of c. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:14:48 AM | mass is best described as 'static' energy.
the law of the conservation of mass and the law of the conservation of energy were discovered separately by experimentation. einstein pulled the two laws together as one law when he found that the energy held by mass (E) is equal to the mass times the square of the speed of light.
once einstein had shown that mass and energy were related in this way it solved an ages old problem in chemistry---that is---since protons repel one another how do they exist in the nucleus of an atom side by side without flying apart?
if one proton weighs 1, experimentation shows that two protons together in a nucleus weigh less than 2. the difference in mass is exactly explained by E = mc^2, where through transformation m = E/c^2, where m is the amount of mass lost that has been converted to energy to overcome the force of repulsion.
if this wasn't true, we wouldn't have nuclear weapons, or nuclear generating stations. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/7/2008 12:19:38 PM | Saint:
Alchemy is incompatible with modern chemistry in many ways. That was never my point.
A theorist who theorizes about SPIRITUAL, IMMATERIAL, and fundmantally UNKNOWABLE mechanisms or entities is indeed incompatible with an experimentalist. How would one generate predictions with empirically observable data if the theory is spiritual and thus could produce no measurable observations? Many theories/experiments begin that way, whether considered spiritual or not...
This is dumb Saint... we don't share the same opinion.. I doubt I am affecting yours and you are definately not changing mine...
And that is all we have.. our opinions on the matter. I didn't want to get into all of the specifics and scientific method.. my whole point at the start of this is that science and spirituality IMO complement one another...
This thread is about matter and energy... one is easy to quantify, measure and study.. the other? Not so simple... yet matter IS energy...
Just as science and spirituality are separate but both attempt to understand the universe we find ourselves in. You can turn a blind eye to what cannot YET be proven, but I will continue to gain knowledge and wisdom from both... as I said before.. I see the overlap all over the place.. and I don't need to prove that to you for it to influence my thinking and make me smile :) | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 6:57:04 AM | Saint--- I have a question for you... What do you think Max Plank (The father of quantum physics) meant when he said this:
"Science means unresting endeavor and continually progressing developement toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but which the intellect can never fully grasp."
I fully appologize to anyone who thinks I quote Sassy too much but this was just too perfect to ignore!
Just as science and spirituality are separate but both attempt to understand the universe we find ourselves in. You can turn a blind eye to what cannot YET be proven, but I will continue to gain knowledge and wisdom from both... as I said before.. I see the overlap all over the place.. and I don't need to prove that to you for it to influence my thinking and make me smile :)
Gods, you're beautiful!  | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:26:34 AM | Defining our terms
So necessary
Hmmmmm,,,,some would define 'Spiritual' as,,,'spooky'
Wondering now what Einstein meant when he used 'spooky'
in reference to Quantum entanglement
If it's emperical evidence,,,something uuuummmm,,,,'concrete' that you want
Check out Dr Dean Radin's 'Entangled Minds',,,and,,,or
the Noetic Institute of Science | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 11:08:01 AM | | I wish someone would initiate a science and spirituality thread before this one gets irretrievably hijacked.... we are getting so far away from the opening post.... sigh.... | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 11:36:06 AM | I was coming here to post the same kinda thought
I 'did' refer to two sources who 'are' more specifically 'on topic' ,,,but,,,ummmmm,,,ok that doesn't really count
ok,,,on topic,,,in ahem,,,'laywoman's' terms
Matter is conglomerated energy,,,moved around ,,,squeezed together
Energy that is manipulated long enough in a particular way,,,becomes matter
Like attracts like,,,birds of a feather flock together
When an gigantic incomprehensible amount of similar energy adheres to eachother
then clumps of matter are formed
That's the best I can do,,,''''psi'''(sigh)' | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:38:55 PM | What happens if you break a bunch of matter down to the atomic level and then break it down further and you just bottle up all these broken atoms? Is the law of conservation of matter preserved? I imagine the answer is no and that some of the matter is "turned into" energy. So in essence, is matter a form of energy and is it possible to do the opposite by "constructing" matter from energy?
When you break matter down to the smallest we can get, you are left with subatomic particles... What's in between them? Space? Nothing?
The law of conservation says that energy cannot be lost... So far that implies this universe cannot lose energy... I disagree with that because although I concur that energy cannot be destroyed, I don't believe there is just one universe... I believe in a multiverse so energy could indeed pass between universes without the multiverse losing any energy.
Matter isn't turned into energy... Matter is energy... Just as ice isn't made from water... Ice is water... It goes through changes which turn a form into another type of form, but energy and matter are just variations of form just as vapor and ice are variations of water(and form, lol).
When people tried to turn lead into gold, they were,nt practising magick... At least not exclusively... They were trying to rearrange and remove particles in the lead atoms... When some look at the periodic table, they see alchemy... A book of spells.
Alchemy and todays chemistry may be far removed from one another, but both started with curiosity and intuititive motives... And they both use(d) the table of elements as their guide.
If you remove the intuition from the science, you are left with nothing to speculate on. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 4:47:44 PM | hey Georgygirl ~
ok,,,on topic,,,in ahem,,,'laywoman's' terms
by all means, please use scientific terms.... with all the chemistry, physics, biology and medical course credits I've got under my belt, I assure you, it won't be a problem.... my education in clinical sciences served me well when I did research and taught at a major medical centre in Michigan....
furthermore, I did not single out or refer to your post specifically.... but that was the second incorrect assumption you made.... | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 5:05:34 PM |
This is dumb Saint... we don't share the same opinion.. I doubt I am affecting yours and you are definately not changing mine...
I'm not trying to change your mind. Why do people assume discussions must inevatibly have the purpose of changing minds? I discuss because I like to discuss, whether you change your mind or not.
This thread is about matter and energy... one is easy to quantify, measure and study.. the other? Not so simple... yet matter IS energy...
This is just nonsense. I assure you that scientists HAVE quantified and measured energy, nor is it anymore difficult than doing the same with matter. Or do you think all those equations in thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics somehow don't incorporate calculations for energy? I can show you numerous textbooks that have plenty of measurements of energy used in fundamental scientific equations. E=MC^2 is just one. If matter is easy to quantify and measure, and we KNOW what energy is equivalent to, and all we have to do is multiply it by the constant squared, that is NOT such a difficult concept or calculation to comprehend. Unless, of course, you are using the "new-age" sense of "energy" ala healing-, crystal-, or soul-energy which has nothing to do with physics or anything scientific.
Just as science and spirituality are separate but both attempt to understand the universe we find ourselves in. You can turn a blind eye to what cannot YET be proven, but I will continue to gain knowledge and wisdom from both
You are correct that both ATTEMPT to understand the universe. The only difference between science and spirituality is that spirituality always fails to understand anything. Spiritual explanations are absent of any meaningful, testable empirical content and are thus worthless. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
