|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery Channel - "the top 10 unexplained mysteries" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
quote: Then why do scientists use it in a sentance?
quote: Again, this quote is from Discover Magazine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
MTW
It would likely be that they are writing to the general public and try to write to that audience rather than be more accurate and confuse the issue. Also they may not be specialists in a given field but rather science writers with a general knowledge of the field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
They're physicists. So, you may be right they may not want to complicate things for the general public, understandable, but I think by saying 'pure energy' they mean exactly that only probably more complex. I don't see how pure energy could mean something else totally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I don't see how pure energy could mean something else totally.
Well perhaps you don't see. That and an article in a light weight popular magazine have very little to do with anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
Perhaps someone can translate for me then what really happened at the start of the universe and what was really there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
As to "pure energy", it is somewhat of a colloquial term, a term for the masses. I am not a physicist, but I have heard the term loosely used when describing matter/anti-matter, as in "If one atom of matter hits another atom of anti-matter the result is pure energy". In this case, the resultant is only energy and no mass, so maybe not exactly what you are talking about. Energy itself is not directly observable, but it's effects on matter can be observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If I could I would win the Nobel Prize. My understanding is at the very start of the universe there was positive energy, negative energy, matter, and anti-matter. At the very, very start of the universe, there was just energy because the heat involved did not allow the formation of matter (or anti-matter). However, most theorize that the overall energy content was zero, being that gravity is considered negative energy. Just a slight increase of matter over anti-matter (through some undiscovered mechanism) allowed the formation of the physcial universe. Again, I am not a physicist, so don't take this as the final word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
quote: True enough! Well, whatever pure energy is, whether it's real or just a form of measurement, etc. it's an interesting concept from the viewpoint of the after life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
MTW
it's an interesting concept from the viewpoint of the after life. I do not see the connection.Could you explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Well which version of the beginning do you want? Hindu, Islam, American Indian, I believe every culture has they're creation stories. Science does not pretend to know. All one can say is that something did in fact happen. Science lets religion fill in the gaps.
It is only when religion contends to KNOW is there a conflict. There is no way to know for sure pre big bang. just as there is no way to see your own eye,(without a mirror) or feel you own thumb with your thumb.(same hand) "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
"Pure energy" cannot be directly observed. Energy is the ability to do work (as in work in a scientific sense). We can only observe the effects of energy on other things.
In other words, the phrase "a being of pure energy" doesn't make sense at all, unless we are talking about an alien with a technology so advance that it generates some kind of field to literally trap energy in some kind of form without mass. You often see that in some science fiction show. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: More than likely, when people claim that the person they see is "pure energy" they are equating their visions with stuff they watched on Star Trek. Previous cultures might have called it a "Ball of Fire" or "St. Elmo's Fire". I think pure energy is meant as a descriptive tool instead of a diagnostic tool. It isn't like people are measuring the being with their tricorders or anything
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Lam
Energy is the ability to do work Work involves transfer of energy. Energy can be unavailable for work {hence entropy}.When something is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings then energy will not flow or do work.
alien with a technology so advance that it generates some kind of field to literally trap energy What is this field though?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024