Washington
Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You
- Posted in the Washington Forum
Comments (Page 750)
|
I alwys SAY "IF" he died...bye....
|
|
|
Judged: 
1 We cannot define origins (of energy) but it doesn't mean the idea is meaningless. We cannot define death with any degree of certainty but it certainly is not meaningless, it's real, whatever it is. I think you better let that one go, it's not working anymore. How can existence be meaningless. The fact is that what we perceive cannot be "nothing". Even "nothing" might have meaning, we've been through this before. Existence is real just as death is but we can't define either. Just because you die doesn't mean you don't exist anymore. How can we know? Matter stays , life (the organization of matter)is temporary. We define things within the bounds of our mortal perceptions, as best we can. True meaning attainable? probably not Meaningless? no way. |
|
|
“I'm not retarded, I'm special!”
Joined: May 5, 2007
Comments: 6918
Springfield
ISP Location:
Columbus, OH
|
Blah, blah, blah, you morally bankrupt nitwit. You've been saying the same idiocy for over a year now.. "I try to forget Bush even exists". Yet every post you have ever made on Topix is a hate-filled diatribe against him, wishing him dead. You're a totally addled piece of crap. Have fun trying to figure out the next target of your psychotic hatred illness once Bush is out of office, you mentally diseased skank. |
|
“I'm not retarded, I'm special!”
Joined: May 5, 2007
Comments: 6918
Springfield
ISP Location:
Columbus, OH
|
Yes, but you wish it with every fiber of your being. Hundreds, if not thousands of your sick posts prove it. You're a disgusting person. |
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
Comments: 1570
|
I wrote: "If we can't define it, then how does it keep from being a meaningless concept?"
It appears that you're confusing concepts with specific facts. Certainly, we can define the concept of an "origin" (whether or not we can apply that particular concept to a particular entity, such as energy). The issue is whether we can define the *concept* of "existence". *** Actually, we define the *concept* of death based upon the *concept* of life (in other words, when a thing that was once a living thing is no longer a living thing). This is true even if the exact moment in which a living thing becomes a dead thing is impossible to define. *** You appear to be confusing perceived things with existence itself. The issue is the concept of "existence" itself. Can you define it? |
|
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Comments: 1223
|
Hmmm... What kind of mentality would be "trying to forget that Bush exists" while at the same time posting anti-Bush rants?!? If you really *are* a Christian (and I really have a hard time believing it), please write the following verses on a Post-It and put it where you'll see it often: Jesus said to his followers: "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions." (Matthew 6: 14f) ... Pray and meditate on *that*!!! |
Have a good life creep for what it’s worth. adios.. |
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
Comments: 1570
|
Is there any chance that your use of "adios" means that you're actually leaving this forum (which has nothing to do with your political rants)? |
|
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Comments: 1223
|
As for E=mc^2 don't forget that c, the speed of light, is a constant. So c cannot "increase." So, all this equation tells you is that energy is directly proportional to a given mass. I shouldn't even try to get into your atomic physics question, but think of an atom as something like a superconducting electro-magnet where,*if* its coil is perfectly conducting (no resistive losses), its magnetizing current, once established, will flow forever and its magnetic field will never weaken. Now you may say, that magnetizing current must have "had a source," and you would be correct. But once you got that current flowing, you could remove the source (battery or whatever), and it would continue to flow. In the same way, an atom is a lossless entity... The nucleus is held together by binding forces and normally not radiating energy, so it's lossless. The electrons are "orbiting" (or occupying energy levels as standing waves) and not normally radiating energy, so they too are lossless. Yes, that energy (stored potential energy) also had a source, required to put the atom together in the first place, but it will remain stored at the same level until an external effect (radiation, atomic collision, etc.) either adds to it or subtracts from it. Just think of the atom as a perfect, lossless way to store energy until released. Am I making any sense yet? |
|
Lily..you seem to have a one crack mind ?
If you have an issue regarding Bush or his policies take it up with him. I can't see where you are accomplishing much that will prove beneficial to you here.... |
|
|
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Comments: 1223
|
I believe your assumption of increased particle speed is wrong. You talk about taking mass away, but how that happens is crucial. Visualize an asteroid travelling through space. Now suppose there's a crack in that asteroid, and suppose that asteroid begins to come apart (maybe it was rotating, and centrifugal force causes the separation). What do you think will happen?... Will the velocities of the two pieces change?... After all, both pieces are now smaller in mass. Even your intuition will tell you that the two will proceed at the same speed as before. Capiche? |
|
“My Life Is A Shell Game”
Joined: May 18, 2007
Comments: 4477
ISP Location:
Caro, MI
|
Very well stated. C is held constant which means that E and M directly affect each other in a constant manner. E/M could conceivably rise to infinity and always remain in the same ratio(C^2). E and M are joined at the hip. That's why, as a particle approaches lightspeed, its mass increases. Why? Because its energy is increasing (kinetic) so E/M demands that M increase along with it. From that point forward, if we wish to increase the particle's speed, we need more energy input because of its now increased mass. But when we do input more energy, the mass again increases. It's like a dog chasing its tail. I believe this is called an asymptotic relationship where you try chasing an infinite goal but never attain it. Therefore, lightspeed of a particle is not attainable because it would take all the energy in the universe inputted to that particle to do so. The particle's massive butt will continually suck up more energy. |
I actually hope I am wrong about that because it makes no sense. We both have to be careful here though, I am not talking about macroscopic matter like an asteroid. I agree that an asteroid coming apart in flight would not result in a change of velocity of the resultant pieces, at least not more than can be accounted for by conservation of momentum, and of course it all depends as you say on how it comes apart, the particular players involved. The world of particles is apparantly not anything like the macro world of matter. Photons have to obey E = mC^2. If you reduce mass, either energy has to drop or C has to increase in order to maintain the equality. At least that's the way it seems to me, I am a novice. I really don't have too many vices. |
|
I didn't see this post before I answered your latter one. It seems you have a point. But why can the speed of light be unchanged? Isn't it because the "mass" of the photon remains unchanged? If we were somehow able to make them lighter (even though they are considered massless for practical purposes, they have to have some mass although not measurable) THEN maybe their velocity would increase? |
|
Sure you should and I'm glad you did that was a very good answer. I would have to tend to agree with you on that but there are still shady constructs at hand. Like we don't even thoroughly understand charge I don't think enough to know if it is a direct result of subatomic motion, and of course the biggest problem involves what kick started it in the first place? A Bang, sure but that is not enough information. God's idea of an M-80 July 4th firework? grand finale, grand beginning all in one Perfectly conducting? That's a tall order, no? That's my problem, how can it be perfect? You turn the motor off and the alternator stops too, even if you were to cut the drive belt at the instant you turn the key off. Don't forget Poly says that electrons are constantly radiating and receiving photons, so they must be radiating. And even without that you would figure they would exert some kind of force on surrounding particles just from the nature of polarity, repulsion and attraction, those are forces and should conceivably take away from a perfect lossless "generator". |
|
Well now wait a minute, I am trying to rationalize what you just said. I agree with E and m being attached at the hip. But I am guessing you go astray after that. We need Poly here. More mass means more energy if all the mass in question has the same energy density. BUT the velocity of a single particle (don't forget, everything sub atomic is a particle or group of them, that includes individual photons), no such thing as being too small to be a particle, there might be a destinction between mass and massless though even though technically I would have to say any particle would have to in reality have some mass even if it was approaching a negative infinity value. If energy remained constant, more mass might translate into less speed. And in order to acheive such a thing you would have to have more 'lower energy' mass (as opposed to less 'higher energy' mass) in order to leave E unchanged. I mean photons are incredibly smaller masswise than electrons and they travel incredibly faster. A photon is a smaller 'higher energy' mass. Maybe THAT's how it maintains E. I'm getting lost again. I'll post this and regroup |
|
Especially in "solid" matter. How are the electrons in Osmium (the densest element) not exerting a force of repulsion? I thought that was the reason they form a solid in the first place. And any exertion of force would imply a "drag" or friction |
|
|
I know I will catch hell for saying a photon is a particle. I apoligize. I shouldn't have said "there's no such thing as too small to be a particle". The reason I said it was from the discussion we had about a particle always having to be attached to energy, that you can't have energy by itself. Now if a photon cannot technically be considered a particle then it has to be considered something physical. "A standing wave of particles"?
This should not change the content of what I was trying to get across in that post |
|
|
A neutrino isn't far off a photon in mass therefore not far off in velocity either. However they are considered nonzero mass and the funny thing is that they can penetrate most matter with little to no attenuation, but a photon cannot. Maybe I'm glad I didn't study Physics
|
|
|
Maybe I should have used the example of adding mass to a photon. If you add mass to a photon (don't ask me how) then the velocity would decrease. This should be confirmed just by comparing velocities of smaller and larger particles.
|
|
Judge it!
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 'The War Is Not Over' (from Sep '06) | 6 min | Likearock | 135185 |
| The Russian Georgian Conflict Must Cease | 1 hr | Conner | 290 |
| Letters to the editor | 14 hr | Hallelujah | 9 |
| Washington ranks 2 in outdoor marijuana growing | Sat | LEAP | 4 |
| Washington State Senator Introduces Resolution ... | Oct 6 | Andrew Yu-Je... | 1 |
| Ralph Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachme... | Oct 6 | Andrew Yu-Je... | 1 |
| Websites Link Cash To Politicians | Oct 6 | joe | 11 |
Related Topix Forums:
Family
Taurus
Most Popular