icant
Member
Hi Pogo,
If you had equilibrium nothing would be moving and we would not be here because the universe would be frozen.
Enjoy,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
If you had equilibrium nothing would be moving and we would not be here because the universe would be frozen.
Enjoy,
Yes, rendered means to translate. You might want to try another word here.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Totally wrong. Einstein's famous equation relates mass (not matter) to energy. Both mass and energy are properties. Nothing is composed of either mass or energy.
The reason energy is conserved is that the laws of physics do not change over time. Change the laws of physics (or if the universe is finite in the past), and energy is no longer conserved. In fact its conservation is problematic for the universe as a whole anyway.
Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. In any physical theory that obeys the stationary-action principle, the theorem states that every continuous symmetry has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance, then the conserved quantity is called "energy".
....
General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form.
...
Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.
Any a conclusion drawn from false premises is going to be flawed.
Audie
Veteran Member
Nothing beats a bit of education.Totally wrong. Einstein's famous equation relates mass (not matter) to energy. Both mass and energy are properties. Nothing is composed of either mass or energy.
The reason energy is conserved is that the laws of physics do not change over time. Change the laws of physics (or if the universe is finite in the past), and energy is no longer conserved. In fact its conservation is problematic for the universe as a whole anyway.
Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. In any physical theory that obeys the stationary-action principle, the theorem states that every continuous symmetry has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance, then the conserved quantity is called "energy".....General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form....Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.
Any a conclusion drawn from false premises is going to be flawed.
icant
Member
Well blow me away I thought I was made of matter and energy and I have to keep adding fuel (energy) to my body and sometimes the mass grows or expands if you will. If I don't add energy to my body it will disintegrate and die. Am I wrong?Totally wrong. Einstein's famous equation relates mass (not matter) to energy. Both mass and energy are properties. Nothing is composed of either mass or energy.
The reason energy is conserved is that the laws of physics do not change over time. Change the laws of physics (or if the universe is finite in the past), and energy is no longer conserved. In fact its conservation is problematic for the universe as a whole anyway.
Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. In any physical theory that obeys the stationary-action principle, the theorem states that every continuous symmetry has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance, then the conserved quantity is called "energy".....General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form....Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.
Any a conclusion drawn from false premises is going to be flawed.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The word 'matter' has no precise meaning in physics. It can refer to various things depending on the context, but in this context, yes, it's reasonable to say that you're made of matter.
You are not made of energy, however, energy is a property. It is not 'stuff'. You do need energy to live, however.
The common misconception you seem to have is about the conservation of energy and a false view of what it is. This is understandable if your education is limited and/or you only see pop-science.
Energy is not eternal 'stuff'. It's like momentum, which is also a conserved quality due to the invariance of the laws of physics. Time invariance gives the conservation of energy, location invariance give the conservation of momentum, and direction invariance gives conservation of angular momentum.
Noether's theorem - Wikipedia
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
More information on this here:
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…
profmattstrassler.com
icant
Member
Sure willful ignorance beats it hands down.
There is an elephant in the room with those who believe in the BBT.
Where did the energy and matter come from that formed the universe when there was nonexistence at T=0.
Until that problem is solved there is no theory only a hypothesis.
For the past 100+ years science has spent billions of dollars trying to solve that problem until today it seems that it has been decided to just ignore that fact.
All the education in the world has not been able to solve that problem.
Anybody got any answers of where the energy came from?
Enjoy,
icant
Member
If energy is not eternal where did it come from?
Can energy be created?
I know you can take all kinds of mass and break it down and turn it into energy but something has to die to produce it.
Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing. But you can't have mass without both energy and matter.
If that is wrong please correct me.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That really is a non-question, based on ignorance of science.
And we don't actually know that time is finite in the past anyway. That's what General Relativity alone suggests, but we know that Quantum Field Theory will become significant near the big bang and we don't yet know how they work together.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
As I explained before, and linked to the wiki article, energy is only conserved because the laws of physics are constant over time, and my not be conserved at all for the whole universe because it is expanding and governed by General Relativity.
You also don't seem to grasp the nature of time, if it's finite in the past, then there was never a time at which there was no energy (unless the total is zero anyway, which is possible). It didn't, and doesn't need to, come from anywhere.
Yet again: no, they are not. They are not even in the same class.
Again:
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…
profmattstrassler.com
ETA: summary from the above page:
- Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
- Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
- Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
- The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
- Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
- The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.
Last edited:
icant
Member
Pretty good read.More information on this here:
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…
But nothing said changes my little finite mind.
My brain keeps sending signals to my fingers which keeps hitting the keys on my keyboard which puts all these things we call letters on the screen so I can post it and everybody can read my mind. The pulses from my brain causes my fingers to move which takes energy to take place. It is getting close to lunch time and my wife will fix me mass that she calls food and I will eat it. All the while expending energy and the food will end up in my stomach where that mass that is made of matter will be turned into energy that will then be transported by submarine's to to my body cells to replenish the used up energy and be taken to the dump where it will be discharged from my body. To make a long story shorter it will end up in a field or river where it will be used to replace the mass I ate in the first place.
He never did tell me what pure energy was and I looked hard.
I know one thing about energy which is that without it there is no life.
I also know that without the different parts of matter there would be no mass.
I also know that if there was no mass this 200 lb. body would not be, being held up by a chair while I sit here typing.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That's because it's not a thing (outside of Star Trek or Doctor Who), any more than "pure momentum" is a thing.
Energy is always a property of something else. As the article says "energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has."
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
As I (and the article) also pointed out, "matter" doesn't mean anything specific, it depends on the context. However, I can't think of a context in which force carrying particles would be considered to be matter, and the W and Z bosons, that carry the weak nuclear force, have mass.
icant
Member
As I explained before, and linked to the wiki article, energy is only conserved because the laws of physics are constant over time, and my not be conserved at all for the whole universe because it is expanding and governed by General Relativity.
You also don't seem to grasp the nature of time, if it's finite in the past, then there was never a time at which there was no energy (unless the total is zero anyway, which is possible). It didn't, and doesn't need to, come from anywhere.
Yet again: no, they are not. They are not even in the same class.
Again:
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…
ETA: summary from the above page:
- Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
- Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
- Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
- The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
- Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
- The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.
Who wrote the laws of Physics?
Energy is not conserved it is consumed. Everything runs on energy. No energy=no movement=no life.
I think I have a pretty good grasp on time.
What is time? Time is a concept of mankind that was devised in order to measure duration in existence. I know you think it is a dimension of the universe because someone said so. Base 60, is a numeral system with sixty as its base. It originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 3rd millennium BC This system is what our time today is based on.
Energy is life as it is what moves things.
Matter is composed of?
1. Atoms: The basic building blocks of matter.
2. Subatomic Particles
a. Protons: Positively charged particles found in the nucleus.
b. Neutrons: Neutral particles also found in the nucleus.
c. Electrons: Negatively charged particles that orbit the nucleus.
3. Quarks and Leptons
a. Quarks: combine and form neutrons.
b. Leptons: include electrons and other particles like neutrinos.
4. Molecules: When atoms bond together, they for molecules.
Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen at form a water molecule (H20)
All those consume a lot of energy in their movement. They man not be n the same class
but they sure are bed fellows.
Matter can exist in different states, such as solids, liquids, gases, and plasma,
Depending on temperature and pressure conditions.
Without energy nothing moves.
Since that little thingamagigger that began to expand it stands to reason that energy could produce all
those things that expanded into the universe we have today.
But none of that or the article you quoted gives a source for whatever it was that expanded into our universe. The only thing available is nonexistence.
You want to tackle that problem?
Enjoy,
cladking
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I'm merely saying that the original versions of all of these stories was lost.
Perhaps. But the Great pyramid could not have had casing stone with optical precision, perfectly straight passages, and the complex arrangement of stones in the ascending passage without math. How could they calculate how large a pyramid would be possible without math? Obviously they had experience but equally obviously they used math. They even had an overseer called a "Weigher/ Reckoner". He mustta been reckoning something.
Interesting.
But every theory has numerous anomalies which is how we know that we have it wrong and probably always will have it wrong.
Things are just much wronger today than the historical norm for wrongness.
icant
Member
But if that stuff don't have energy it don't exist.
So keep telling me energy is not alive.
icant
Member
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Pretty good for a HS education these days, and might even get you through some freshman physics if you have the math, but doesn't deal with most of what has been learned since the plum pudding days, and when germanium diodes started replacing 5Y3s etc.
Intuitive and common sense just doesn't cut it in physics anymore.