Energy x2

[Maze1125]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

 

[Hades74]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

 

[lostclause]

Seriously what IS gravity???? It's attraction of matter sure but what MAKES is work???? 0_0?

The elusive Higgs Boson, the thing we set up the Large Hadron Collider in the hopes of finding it. It theoretically gives particles mass, which translates to gravity. More I cannot tell you until I get a Phd in physics and read the result of the LHC's experiment (assuming the bloody thing ever works, so many delays).

 

[Private Custard]

The sun owns all with its heat. If it weren't for the sun, absolutely everything on this planet would be dead in a matter of hours.

Whether you notice it or not, heat from the sun is being used every second of every minute of every day by everything.

 

[Hades74]

Seriously what IS gravity???? It's attraction of matter sure but what MAKES is work???? 0_0?

The elusive Higgs Boson, the thing we set up the Large Hadron Collider in the hopes of finding it. It theoretically gives particles mass, which translates to gravity. More I cannot tell you until I get a Phd in physics and read the result of the LHC's experiment (assuming the bloody thing ever works, so many delays).

thanx, I'm looking forward to the results of that experiment

 

[lostclause]

thanx, I'm looking forward to the results of that experiment

Apparently, if successful, it proves the big bang, though I'm not sure how. To be honest, I doubt anyone will understand the results unless they've taken university physics (I know I don't understand it in any depth).

 

[Private Custard]

I doubt anyone will understand the results unless they've taken university physics (I know I don't understand it in any depth).

That's why people like Stephen Hawking exist. They have the huge mental capacity to not only understand, but to also manage to explain it to us simpletons!

 

[lostclause]

I doubt anyone will understand the results unless they've taken university physics (I know I don't understand it in any depth).

That's why people like Stephen Hawking exist. They have the huge mental capacity to not only understand, but to also manage to explain it to us simpletons!

Indeed, the quirks you get when you get into some serious physics are quite insane, string theory (which only works in 12 dimensions), the uncertainty principle and many more. Frankly I doubt I'll ever understand a fraction of it.

 

[headshotcatcher]

What about zero point energy drawn from dark matter in space?

Kinetic energy would have to be used to generate electrical enery that could be stored in batteries. I can see no way of storing pure kinetic energy

Isn't having a spring thats pushed down storing kinetic energy?

Anyway I still miss nuclear energy and gravity on that list.

 

[Maze1125]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

Well your definition disagrees with reality.
Primarily because there is absolutely no difference in behaviour between mass and energy, only an apparent difference.

 

[Hades74]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

Well your definition disagrees with reality.
Primarily because there is absolutely no difference in behaviour between mass and energy, only an apparent difference.

Can energy be touched? I thought not

 

[Booze_Hound]

Since there are only 4 forces - Electromagnetism, Gravitation, Strong Nuclear and Weak Nuclear, the only forms of energy can be expressed in terms of their interaction. I.e by gauge bosons, and since these interactions are mostly exchanges of these particles, the only form of energy is, essentially, its transferrence. At least that's the way I see it.

 

[Booze_Hound]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

Well your definition disagrees with reality.
Primarily because there is absolutely no difference in behaviour between mass and energy, only an apparent difference.

Can energy be touched? I thought not

Of course it can, it's coursing through you all the time in the form of neutrinos and photons. Your keyboard is also energy, lots of it. With very high density.

 

[Gerazzi]

You guys are forgetting about potential gravitational energy.

Thank you 6th grade science class.

 

[ataristarr]

> What about zero point energy drawn from dark matter in space?

Kinetic energy would have to be used to generate electrical enery that could be stored in batteries. I can see no way of storing pure kinetic energy



me too and dark matter is a theory, I'm not saying that people who developed it are neccesarily wrong but they are basing their theory through the "spaggetti monster" technique

The easiest way to store pure kinetic energy is in a spring. Kinetic energy to compress it, it stores potential energy until it has enough room to expand again.

 

[Hades74]

> What about zero point energy drawn from dark matter in space?

Kinetic energy would have to be used to generate electrical enery that could be stored in batteries. I can see no way of storing pure kinetic energy



me too and dark matter is a theory, I'm not saying that people who developed it are neccesarily wrong but they are basing their theory through the "spaggetti monster" technique

The easiest way to store pure kinetic energy is in a spring. Kinetic energy to compress it, it stores potential energy until it has enough room to expand again.

By pure I meant without matter, just the energy, but yea I thought of that too...

 

[Hades74]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

Well your definition disagrees with reality.
Primarily because there is absolutely no difference in behaviour between mass and energy, only an apparent difference.

Can energy be touched? I thought not

Of course it can, it's coursing through you all the time in the form of neutrinos and photons. Your keyboard is also energy, lots of it. With very high density.

Photons do not course through me (and if so please explain), and unless you mispelled neutrons I don't know what that other thing is...

 

[Booze_Hound]

Neutrinos - subatomic particles created from nuclear decay and reaction (fission & fusion). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Most X-rays pass through the soft parts of the body, as does gamma, radio, VLF and ELF.

 

[Maze1125]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

Well your definition disagrees with reality.
Primarily because there is absolutely no difference in behaviour between mass and energy, only an apparent difference.

Can energy be touched? I thought not

Define "touched".

 

[Hades74]

I can.
The equation E=mc^2 is an equation of mass-energy equivalence, not transference.
Mass and energy are one and the same, they don't turn from one to the other, they are each other.
When a particle meets its antiparticle and they turn into photons, that isn't the creation of energy, it's the release of energy that was already there, just in the form of matter.

Indeed but that matter must be broken up or at least modified in SOME way for it to be actual energy rather than something common like a sandwich, we can't just lay it down and wait for it to blow, electrons/protons/neutrons must be set loose but altogether they do not act like an energy particle but rather a physical thing therefore they aren't trully enregy.... yet

Atoms have to be broken down to get usable energy, yes.
But, nevertheless, anything with mass also has energy equivalent to that mass.
Equally, anything with energy, also has mass equivalent to that energy.

Energy is not created or destroyed in nuclear reactions, only released.

It all depends, in my definition energy and matter are separate things regardless of their relation due to their huge difference in behavior.

Well your definition disagrees with reality.
Primarily because there is absolutely no difference in behaviour between mass and energy, only an apparent difference.

Can energy be touched? I thought not

Define "touched".

Well moving or moved by a physical object ex: rather then soaking into a brick wall it would push it without dying out and transfering into it