Jump to content
Science Forums

layman

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

layman last won the day on August 26 2015

layman had the most liked content!

About layman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. from wikipedia so by some definitions matter is anything with a rest mass and volume. And energy and matter are interchangeable. if "equivalent" means that I can do anything with 2+2 that I can with 4. then why wouldn't the "=" sign in E=Mc2 mean the same thing? to me is says that if a mass had the same amount of energy equal to the amount of c2 you could do anything with it you could do with plain old E. conversely if you could remove the same amount of energy from energy(i know what that sounds like, but there isn't another word) you'd have matter.
  2. i know what you mean, like if we increase the mass of an Orange to the same as a bowling ball, the Orange doesn't become a bowling ball, it's just equal to a bowling ball. however i distinctly recall hearing physicists say during lectures that energy can be "transmuted" into matter and vice versa and that was one of the profound implications of E=Mc2. I've always been under the impression that a tiny fraction after the big bang, there was nothing but pure energy and that all matter was created in the ensuing time. is it more correct to think of the universe as having native fields, that we
  3. thank you for a really informative and comprehensive reply. i was thinking the units of measure weren't important in such a simple example because i was thinking of matter and energy as being different forms of the same thing, such as water and ice. but if i'm understanding, you're saying an inch of wood is not the same as an inch of water. they each have to be measured in units relative to their own properties and then find a way to equivocate the two. I really appreciate you breaking down matter and energy. I didn't know the difference between a boson and fermion and how the particle
  4. lets say: 1 unit of matter equals 1G 1 unit of pure energy equals 100Gs c2 equals 100Gs 1 unit of matter plus 99Gs = pure energy. thus: 100Gs of pure energy minus 99Gs = matter. i don't understand why that doesn't make sense.
  5. there are definitely problems in my reasoning. i can understand it superficially like most everyone else and there by not sound so dumb. but i'd rather admit to myself i don't quite understand the underlying principles even if it means making myself look stupid. i know in reality we can't accelerate a particle to that speed but on paper we can. matter is energy but it's not energy in it's native state. E=mc2 is saying matter at that speed is equal to energy's pure state. at least that's how i think of it, energy has to have a native state for it to have variant states. if you have to in
  6. if one removed the higgs boson for example, reality as it stands would no longer stand. i really had to say that.
  7. you may as well say "prove anything exists". if anytime someone says something and you only reply with some form of "how do you know that?' then it seems like you're not even trying. i can just take the same tact and say nothing you say is correct because you don't even exist. but there's no point to it.
  8. if you 2 take balls, each one with 1unit of inertial energy and accelerate them towards each other by adding 10 units of energy each, the amount of energy at the point of contact would be 20 units of accelerated energy.....lets leave out the original inertial energy, why wouldn't it be the same if they were moving away from each other? it seems like common sense that if i were looking out the rear window of a car going 55mhp at a car moving away from me at 55mph it would look to me as if that car were moving at 110mph. the contraction at the front of the car is countered by the elongation at
  9. ok, were we supposed to come up with things not already thought of? we could shoot it at dark matter to accurately determine it's topology?
  10. if you could harness light you could make things invisible. you could produce enormous amounts of electricity. you could dump it into a particle and blow up the solar system. a whole bunch of fun stuff.
  11. energy is equal to mass accelerated to the speed of light x the speed of light. so if we took a particle, say an electron and accelerated it to c(the speed of light) it would hit the light speed barrier, we then keep dumping in energy until we reach the equivalent energy of c2, at that point the particle would transform into pure energy. as it's accelerating it's gaining mass, just prior to becoming pure energy it would be very large. what material could represent the "largeness"? the electron can't just keep swelling up, there has to be matter forming there. if there is matter forming
  12. My statement speaks for itself. I've read those definitions and I don't see a conflict. It's covered at the least by #3. "meaning" is a word meant to convey........a particle has a special significance, in that if you remove it from the universe, the tapestry that is reality falls apart. it's not extraneous, it has meaning to the system.
  13. drive by comment. anything that exists has intrisic meaning. it is self evident. it's intrinsic propeties give rise to it's meaning. example: gravity exists, that means bodies can orbit one another. that's not somantics. when something exists it displaces non esistence, it occupies a place in spacetime, it has an effect on the whole. it has it's meaning in relation to the reality it is part of. even when we say "there is no meaning" that in itself is a meaning.
  14. you my friend are awesome. thank you so very much!
×
×
  • Create New...