Universe Code

[ChristineM]

See post 23.

Energy is a property of a physical system of some kind, not a physical entity or substance in its own right. Matter on the other hand is an entity - a substance. A given material system has properties, one of which is its energy.

So one can't say "matter is energy" any more than one can say "matter is momentum". It's a category error.

See
How are Energy and Matter the Same? - Universe Today

 

[j1i]

Ramble, ramble, ramble. Even a Muslim propaganda youtube video. I looked through your post and didn't see a single equation to support your silly assertion:


Not one. Actually there were no equations at all in your post. There were a lot of things wrong in your original post. There are many things wrong in quoted post. However, you can't even defend the one I chose to look at. Why would you post a comment like "All equations reject self-creation or evolution" if you cannot defend it? Do you just make up stuff to post and hope no one will question you?

Well, I want to learn from you what is the theory of evolution, Doctor, explain to me the evidence

Give me the empty evidence you have, my dear, to minimize it and scale it in a dramatic way

I have technical methods in denial science

Wishing you to spend the most beautiful times

hug

 

[exchemist]

See
How are Energy and Matter the Same? - Universe Today

This is terrible tosh. You won't find any serious physicist saying things like this.

The writer confuses matter with mass for a start. That's the same category error as the one I was referirng to. Mass is, again, a property of matter, an attribute, not an entity. You can't have a jug of mass. You can have a jug of something that has mass. Quite different.

And then he goes on to talk bilge about mass being frozen light. Light has energy (not is, please note, has) and yes, if you annihilate, say an electron by reacting it with a positron, you get a burst of radiation (call it light if you like, though I think it is generally γ-rays). But light is not energy, any more than mass is. Light is a travelling disturbance in the electromagnetic field that has energy, as one of its properties. Light has other properties too of course, frequency, momentum and spin. The physical entity is the disturbance in the field and energy is one of its attributes.

Rest mass implies energy, according to Einstein's formula, but that energy does not have to be radiation energy. If you charge up a torch battery you increase its chemical energy and its mass also increases (though not enough to be detectable). So it is not "frozen light".

Here endeth the rant.

 

[exchemist]

Well, I want to learn from you what is the theory of evolution, Doctor, explain to me the evidence

Give me the empty evidence you have, my dear, to minimize it and scale it in a dramatic way

I have technical methods in denial science

Wishing you to spend the most beautiful times

hug

Yes I'm sure you do, habibi.

 

[ChristineM]

This is terrible tosh. You won't find any serious physicist saying things like this.

The writer confuses matter with mass for a start. That's the same category error as the one I was referirng to. Mass is, again, a property of matter, an attribute, not an entity. You can't have a jug of mass. You can have a jug of something that has mass. Quite different.

And then he goes on to talk bilge about mass being frozen light. Light has energy (not is, please note, has) and yes, if you annihilate, say an electron by reacting it with a positron, you get a burst of radiation (call it light if you like, though I think it is generally γ-rays). But light is not energy, any more than mass is. Light is a travelling disturbance in the electromagnetic field that has energy, as one of its properties. Light has other properties too of course, frequency, momentum and spin. The physical entity is the disturbance in the field and energy is one of its attributes. Rest mass implies energy, according to Einstein's formula, but that energy does not have to be radiation energy. If you charge up a torch battery you increase its chemical energy and its mass also increases (though not enough to be detectable). So it is not "frozen light".

So Einstein was not a serious physicist?

BTW Brian Koberlein is an astrophysicist, pretty serious eh?

 

[j1i]

Yes I'm sure you do, habibi.

thanks habibi hahaha

 

[exchemist]

thanks habibi hahaha

fi maan il-lah.

 

[exchemist]

So Einstein was not a serious physicist?

BTW Brian Koberlein is an astrophysicist, pretty serious eh?

Please give me some credit here. Is it likely I am going to take issue with Einstein over E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²? Come on! My point is that Einstein did not say what this article says.

I have no idea who this Koberlein guy is or what he is playing at here. Perhaps he thinks he is doing the public a service by offering a dumbed down version of science, for some reason. But I stand by my comments - at least until someone on this forum with better physics credentials than mine tells me I am wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Please give me some credit here. Is it likely I am going to take issue with Einstein over E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²? Come on! My point is that Einstein did not say what this article says.

I have no idea who this Koberlein guy is or what he is playing at here. Perhaps he thinks he is doing the public a service by offering a dumbed down version of science, for some reason. But I stand by my comments - at least until someone on this forum with better physics credentials than mine tells me I am wrong.

I believe it was David Bohm who said matter was frozen light.

I say matter is stuff with mass, mass and energy are interchangeable hence my reference to the 1st law.

 

[exchemist]

I believe it was David Bohm who said matter was frozen light.

I say matter is stuff with mass, mass and energy are interchangeable hence my reference to the 1st law.

Yes matter is stuff and mass and energy are both properties of that stuff.

I admit I was puzzled by your reference to the 1st law. What do you think that says about mass and energy? The versions I know are all to do with conservation of energy and do not mention mass at all.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes matter is stuff and mass and energy are both properties of that stuff.

I admit I was puzzled by your reference to the 1st law. What do you think that says about mass and energy? The versions I know are all to do with conservation of energy and do not mention mass at all.

The first law is also know as the law of conservation of energy "Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. Energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

 

[exchemist]

The first law is also know as the law of conservation of energy "Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. Energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Exactly. But what has that to do with mass and energy equivalence?

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly. But what has that to do with mass and energy equivalence?

See nuclear power.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So then, what is to stop humans from say... rearranging some atoms to ghost through a brick wall, lighting a stove, or heck just gathering hydrogen and oxygen out of the air to make water?

Technology. We have had some success in sucking out carbon di oxide from the atmosphere.

 

[exchemist]

See nuclear power.

What does this mean? Look, face it, the laws of thermodynamics say nothing at all about the equivalence of energy and mass.

 

[ecco]

You're blaming the wrong person for the wrong thing.

(Btw, it's Buddhist not Christian, so it gives another perspective on the whole flood thing)

Basically, humans are washed away to reincarnate them en masse, in an attempt to start over when humans were at risk of all becoming evil.

Judging by your comments, your beliefs are no better than the beliefs of Christians. Any god that destroys humans, regardless of the motivation, is not worthy of worship. Hitler also had good intentions when he set about exterminating Jews.



I don't watch propaganda videos.

 

[ecco]

It really should be a crime to teach that stuff to children.

 

[ecco]

THE PURPOSE FOR ALL THAT HAS GONE BEFORE IS TO CREATE -FROM US -UNDER GOD -THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW -UNDER WHICH THE FORMER THINGS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "sedition"? Is this why you are a Trump fan? Do you believe he will continue on his journey to become a full-fledged dictator and then to establish a "Government of Tomorrow"?

 

[ecco]

THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF "HUMAN" EXPERIENCE (AND ALSO ANGELIC)
-LIMITED TO THE EARTH AND CLOSE PROXIMITY WHILE STILL NEW, IGNORANT AND DESTRUCTIVE! NEW CREATURES DO NOT KNOW GOD FROM ADAM (HUMOR INTENDED)!

<snip>
"That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other;
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’

Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

What good is trust to a dead person, anyway?
When all the dead from Adam onward awaken -they will definitely trust that God is God!

THE PURPOSE FOR ALL THAT HAS GONE BEFORE IS TO CREATE -FROM US -UNDER GOD -THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW -UNDER WHICH THE FORMER THINGS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.

"YOU MUST MASTER IT" .

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Afterward, we will inhabit the entire creation (perhaps beyond)!

If all that was directed to me, it fell on deaf ears. Does your need to shout stem from your deep-seated insecurities?

 

[ecco]

What branch of Christianity believes/teaches this nonsense?