[JoeT777]

Your right I defined the law of conservation of energy which leads into the first law of thermodynamics.

Regardless of what you call it. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Point remains.

The point doesn’t stand. You missed the fact that there is a loss of energy.

The energy necessary for work includes a quantitative loss of energy as well as a loss in energy usually dissipating in the form of heat into surrounding systems, which in turn gains entropy in the adjoining systems, which in turn gains entropy in surrounding sets of systems, and finally entropy increases throughout the entire universe of systems. Universal heat death is the result. Without input from the outside the universe cannot gain energy. Without God, the universe is never created.

Matter cannot create matter. Matter like energy can only decay. Thus, we return to my original statement; empirical evidence shows the existence of God in the first cause/motion; universal perfection/order; and exists outside the material universe. Thus God exists, and God created heaven and earth.

JoeT

[Tj3]

That is a lie, and you know it!! The current discussion is precisely accordingly to what was stated in the topic starting question.

Anyone can clearly read the OP at the bottom of each page, so your attempts to claim otherwise won't work.

Till next time : I'm going to a Mensa meeting tonight !

Are you going to tell them about your "west pointing compass" :D :D :D :D :D :D

[michealb]

Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin.
Which as far as we know has always existed.

[Tj3]

Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin.

The point is energy and mass are two different things, and that the amount of either mass or energy may and will vary constantly, but the total of the combination of mass and energy in the universe remains constant. The belief that the amount of energy in the universe never changes was known to be error back before either you or I was alive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one time, scientists thought that the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy were two distinct laws. In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter. Einstein's discovery required a restatement of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. In some instances, a tiny bit of matter can be created or destroyed in a change. The quantity is too small to be measured by ordinary balances, but it still amounts to something. Similarly, a small amount of energy can be created or destroyed in a change. But, the total amount of matter PLUS energy before and after a change still remains constant. This statement is now accepted as the law of conservation of mass and energy.
(Source: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ci-C...tion-Laws.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which as far as we know has always existed.

Man's direct knowledge goes back only so far as we could measure the amount of mass + energy, which is in reality no more than several decades. At best if you argue that it goes back as far as man has observed nature, that may takes us back a few thousand years. Your sampling is therefore inadequate to justify that matter and energy has always existed.

[JoeT777]

Energy is not matter. Energy is not a physical thing.

Energy is a scalar attribute of matter usually used to describe work or generated heat. It takes several forms depending on the matter being disucssed, including kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound energy, light energy, elastic.

You cannot say that energy turns into a rock any more that you can say a 6 pound mass turns into a rock.

Come to think of it, you can say that a man named Simon turned into a Rock becoming the first authoritative head and foundation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church

JoeT

[michealb]

So lets get this straight from TJ3's posts

If mass were energy, then it would be E=M.

In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

First you say they aren't the same thing then you say they are. Since you latest post agrees with me that they are the same thing. Are we settled on that?

As for the second part where you say that our knowledge of energy/matter not being created or destroyed is limited. I already said I agree however that it is still pure speculation to say that before the big bang energy/matter did not exist and speculation is not evidence. Until we have evidence to the contrary physics would dictate that energy/matter exist forever.

So in summery energy/matter same thing different forms. Saying that god had to form energy/matter pure speculation because we do not know what the conditions were before the big bang. It could just as easily be explain in a number of natural ideas.

[Tj3]

So lets get this straight from TJ3's posts
First you say they aren't the same thing then you say they are. Since you latest post agrees with me that they are the same thing. Are we settled on that?

This is where most problems in understanding come from. Someone grabs one phrase or sentence out of context, ignores the rest and then says - "see?"

The sentences that follow the one that yopu took out of context explain what is meant and disagree entirely with your claims:

"He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter. Einstein's discovery required a restatement of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. In some instances, a tiny bit of matter can be created or destroyed in a change. The quantity is too small to be measured by ordinary balances, but it still amounts to something. Similarly, a small amount of energy can be created or destroyed in a change. But, the total amount of matter PLUS energy before and after a change still remains constant."

And you once were making demeaning comments about others on here not understanding science. This is such a basic and well understood principle of science that it is taught in grade schools. How you have come this far without having become aware of this is beyond me.

As for the second part where you say that our knowledge of energy/matter not being created or destroyed is limited. I already said I agree however that it is still pure speculation to say that before the big bang energy/matter did not exist and speculation is not evidence.

Once again, you might want to examine what evidence there is - or rather is not.

Until we have evidence to the contrary physics would dictate that energy/matter exist forever.

I got a laugh out of this. In one line you said "speculation is not evidence" and in the next sentence you tell me that in the absence of evidence, we should believe that for which no evidence exists. That is worse than speculation, and is most assuredly not science.

[michealb]

Still way off base TJ3...
Matter and energy are the same thing. What Einstein is referring to is the change of matter to energy and energy to matter. Nothing is lost, it's only been changed. Still equates to the total amount of energy that is available today was around for the big bang and probably forever.

I got a laugh out of this. In one line you said "speculation is not evidence" and in the next sentence you tell me that in the absence of evidence, we should believe that for which no evidence exists. That is worse than speculation, and is most assuredly not science.

Physics does currently dictate that energy/matter can not be created or destroyed the level remains the same. So this isn't speculation this is based on evidence. So until we have evidence to the contrary. When we discuss what might be we should use the knowledge we have. That is how science works. If we didn't we could just assume all things in science are wrong and make up anything we wanted because we could just say we don't know for certain if that's true or not. What you are suggesting is absurd.

So still no evidence of god unless your god is energy.

So to recap no evidence for god in chemistry, biology and physics. Any other subject you might want to bring up to try and prove god?

[JoeT777]

Still way off base TJ3....
Matter and energy are the same thing.

Eath to Michael!, Eath to Michael...!


Repeat: matter and energy is not the same thing in different forms or different states. Energy is nothing more than a scalar (measurable-having magnitude but no direction) attributes of matter.

When is the last time you saw energy turn into an apple, a falling apple, an apple about to fall?

JoeT

[Capuchin]

Eath to Michael!, Eath to Michael...!


Repeat: matter and energy is not the same thing in different forms or different states. Energy is nothing more than a scalar (measurable-having magnitude but no direction) attributes of matter.

When is the last time you saw energy turn into an apple, a falling apple, an apple about to fall?

JoeT

So what's a photon? It doesn't have a mass (strictly, a rest mass, which is what you are talking about here), but does have energy...

Mass is, put simply, a form of energy, you can create pure energy from annihilation reactions (say an electron and positron colliding), and the amount of energy is perfectly predicted by special relativity. ()

Also, when Tj3 talks about there always being a loss of energy - this is not true. There is only a loss of useful energy. There will always be energy lost from a system through heat production or sound production or friction, but this energy is not destroyed, it is simply not useful to use and thus decreases the efficiancy of the system.

Please stop spewing about things you don't understand. You're only spreading the ignorance and making it difficult to clean up.

[JoeT777]

So what's a photon? It doesn't have a mass (strictly, a rest mass, which is what you are talking about here), but does have energy...

Mass is, put simply, a form of energy, you can create pure energy from annihilation reactions (say an electron and positron colliding), and the amount of energy is perfectly predicted by special relativity. ()

Also, when Tj3 talks about there always being a loss of energy - this is not true. There is only a loss of useful energy. There will always be energy lost from a system through heat production or sound production or friction, but this energy is not destroyed, it is simply not useful to use and thus decreases the efficiancy of the system.

Please stop spewing about things you don't understand. You're only spreading the ignorance and making it difficult to clean up.

See the following: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Capuchin]

See the following: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, that cleans it up well. You'll see that it also refutes your point.

[michealb]

Joe your article is correct but it is missing the next part here is the rest that goes more into more detail of what we are discussing

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically
The concept of mass–energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing rest mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light) while still retaining mass. Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass. The total amount of mass/energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.

[JoeT777]

Thanks, that cleans it up well. You'll see that it also refutes your point.

While there may be a mass–energy comparative equivalence, it remains that energy is a measured quantity of an attribute of mass. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy, but there is no conversion of energy to mass. This is exactly what Michael's reference says, you can confirm the mass, by the energy. It doesn't say energy converts to mass. (Beam me up Scotty!)


There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. —The Feynman Lectures on Physics (My emphasis) Source

JoeT

[michealb]

I think what your missing is that mass is a state of energy and that mass energy can be transferred to other states of energy such as light or heat.

Which means you can take an apple and convert it directly into heat or light. Then technically convert it back again. This conversion is the bases for E=MC2

[JoeT777]

I think what your missing is that mass is a state of energy and that mass energy can be transferred to other states of energy such as light or heat.

Which means you can take an apple and convert it directly into heat or light. Then technically convert it back again. This conversion is the bases for E=MC2

Let me try to make myself clearer. You can change inertia mass or gravatational mass in an existing object, but energy canot produce matter.

As I said - beam me up Scotty

When is the last time you've seen energy change into an apple?


JoeT

[classyT]

Guys,

I got to admit all this energy, iertia mass and gravatational mass is over my head.

BUT... I still say that there is a God and he himself says you should be able to look around and know it.

[Capuchin]

energy canot produce matter.

Yes it can, and does, such as in pair production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

[Capuchin]

While there may be a mass–energy comparative equivalence, it remains that energy is a measured quantity of an attribute of mass. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy, but there is no conversion of energy to mass. This is exactly what Michael's reference says, you can confirm the mass, by the energy. It dosn't say energy converts to mass. (Beam me up Scotty!)

So again I ask you, what is a photon?

[Credendovidis]

...Are you going to tell them about your "west pointing compass" ...

Well : as you well know I proved you wrong when I stated that although a compass normally points "somewhere" northwards, there is quite an area on earth where that is NOT so.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc. but not northwards.

All you do is show your frustrations by trying to bring this dead horse to life again with your lies !!!

:D :rolleyes: :p :) :rolleyes: :D

.

.