America is doomed

I wasn't aware that mentioning it was a theory was a bad thing. Most advanced science is theory.
And energy->mass is a theory in that, as with evolution, it's been displayed on the micro but not macro scale. (Last time I followed, at least.)

 

Is a nuclear detonation macro enough for you? How about thermonuclear? How about the sun?

 

Sure, that's true to a point. If we burn firewood, then the wood (matter) turns into heat (energy) for a while. But then the heat dissipates.

 

some bone chilling statistics in that article

 

Ha. I understand that mass turning into energy has been done on macro, but energy turning into mass has not. Unless in my complete ignorance your examples refer somehow to energy into mass.

 

See my post above. It's not visible in everyday life, but energy does convert into matter.

 

Some people in Hiroshima might disagree with you there.

http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/emc2/emc2.html

 

dissipates does not equal disappears

 

Yah. To quote:
"Both these nuclear reactions release a small portion of the mass involved as energy. Large amounts of energy! "

These cause mass to convert into energy. NOT the reverse.
Energy converting into mass has only been done on a micro level, in supercolliders, AFAIK..

 

Hi, there was something. There has always been something. Material was contained for The Big Bang Theory. It all has existed before. This planet might have humans before. We have been hit with huge projectiles. This is not disproven, which created catclysmic events. That destroyed all life and with water frozen. The world ceased to function. It took time for things to regulate and metamorphism preserved rocks. However, transformation aided cells for better. I just bought book by Bill Bryson A Short History Of Nearly Everything. I have not read it but it is supposed to go it to detail. We just had $3000 worth of doors installed at home. I watched Discovery Science Channel and it had alittle about Earth (theosophy and theanthropism not displayed on the hour). There were about ten differnet claims. One popular one was the Earth was a sun. Just like the other. They collided and the one sun survived. Earth's mass was lost. It cooled for today. On another topic, The sun spun a glob off with formation of Earth.
There is so much more. I wish. I did know. I guess. This is why "Challenge Everything!" exists. I just don't agree with dates alot. I need help here.

 

and disappears is not eradication

 

Fair comment. I did not read your original post carefully enough. Off of the top of my head, however, I believe that this is part of the mechanism of the black hole which captures different types of energy and converts it into the mass of the black hole itself. I am not positive on this and will do some more research.

 

Okay, if you insist. But what's your point?

 

Actually combustion is a simple chemical process converting energy from one state to another. http://www.jimloy.com/physics/combust.htm
There is no mass/energy transformation in combustion. All of the energy is conserved.

 

My point is that I said "theory" and now seem to have to defend myself against people who insist on arguing about my use of the word. Why, I dont know. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in God right now. I believe evolution and the big bang are responsible for humanity and the creation of the universe respectively. There are no ulterior motives to my saying the word "theory".

 

---
that's an interesting opinion, based entirely on the conceit that there is no such thing as a miracle.

the crux of this situation is this as i see it: it is counter-intuitive to postulate that matter, stuff with substance, is eternal. empirically we know that everything we observe, except for the natural world itself, has been created, and we generally accept a priori that every effect has a cause.

the natural world either has existed from eternity or it was created. we generally accept as reasonable -- from a pure science perspective -- The Big Bang Theory, or we believe that something roughly akin brought the Universe as we know it to the shape it's in. what we do not know, and we have little hope of knowing, is where the matter came from. i say that we have little hope of knowing because it is virtually inconceivable that we would be able to track back billions of years of geologic time and figure out the etiology of the components of physical matter, let alone understand how the forces that govern them came to develop.

it is a curious idea that science might ferret out explanations to phenomena of cosmic proportions that occurred billions of years ago ( if our concept of geologic time is proportionate ). i suggest that you ask a scientist where he has been searching for the crucial clues. what i think you will find is that this is a needle in the haystack kind of venture. people who raise science above all things want scientists to be unfettered in their search for TRUTH, as if all scientists were interested in TRUTH.

what is more likely is that there are scientists who cringe at the idea that something supernatural is at work in the mechanics of the Universe, because they would have to find real work, instead of wobbling about in a protected environment spinning yarns that are no less phantasmagorical than that God created all things.

 

AFAIK, the mass of a black hole is the super dense point of mass that was a star, or bunch of stars which collapsed to that pinpoint. The energy, i believe, is just a result of the mass, not vice versa.

 

You may be right, I am still looking some things up. I seem to recall that a black hole will suck up mass AND energy around it and convert the energy to mass, thereby increasing it's own mass.

 

Most scientists dont "cringe at the idea that something supernatural is at work in the mechanics of the Universe". They just dont think that possibility should affect their work in looking for answers we can touch, hear, and see. Tell me, we know science has held up so far in many areas - electricity, hydraulics, biology, chemistry, etc. If there is a God, he obviously worked through science to make all this stuff, otherwise why would there be any laws and rules of science at all? Things would just happen with no rhyme or reason otherwise. If this IS supposable, why then would the creation of humanity or the universe not be done through science which we'll be able to understand at some point (hopefully) as well?

 

Did you get a new dictionary for Thanksgiving? Why do I always hear voodoo drums and weird wailing when you show up? The notion that scientists rather than theologians are afraid for their livelihoods is absolutely laughable.
I don't seem to remember Copernicus excommunicating the Catholic Church because it was dangerous and heretical. How many people have been killed by the church for beliefs that were not consistent with their hocus-pocus view of the world? In comparison, how many gangs of outraged scientists, fearing for their lives and livlihoods range the countryside?
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

 

The word "eternity" does not work. Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's five miles north of the North Pole.

So I was talking with someone at NASA/JPL, and she told me they've observed the Big Bang, at least up to the point where it's possible to with visible light telescopes. I told her that news had not generally filtered down to the non-scientific population, and she seemed surprised.

In so many words, they might be closer than you think.

What lab or university do you work at, again?

"Real work"?

Just because you don't understand it - hell, I sure don't - doesn't mean it's made up. I don't understand how gravity works, but you won't see me taking a stroll off the top of Half Dome anytime soon.

 

---
and you're clear on this because...???

you guys kill me with your vacuous definitions. anytime you get pinned down, penned up, you redefine terms so that the playing field is tilted again.

one of the Stevies said so, so it must be right ( fill in Hawking/Gould ).

 

The question is not whether one can believe in god without being a moron, the question is whether one can truly be open to reality while philosophically believing in the supernatural? God is a crutch that allows those who to believe to not have to question the reality around them and allows them to escape when the questions become either too uncomfortable or difficult.

 

It's very easy for intelligent humans to both believe that at the end of science one will find an Uncaused Cause who set it all in motion AND be open to the possibility of being humanly fallible, of being totally wrong. Pursuing either end of that can be what the best of science is often about.