Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 136 of 357 (545610)
02-04-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 1:51 PM


well now you're just being an ass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 1:51 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 137 of 357 (545613)
02-04-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 1:53 PM


Gravity
CS,
cs writes:
No. They're both stationary to the Earth. Neither one is falling.
Incorrect. The rocks and I would be falling toward the earth WRT the ENTIRETY of the cosmos.
CS writes:
No, assume they're the same mass.
The one above your head can be used to do work, say drop it to drive a nail, but the one laying on the ground can't do that.
Again you fail successfully. p. I realized that actually the rock held above my head can be used to do a little more work but only because its further away from the earth. That is only relative to the earth though. Say they were floating toward the sun(technically they are too).. It would depend on the distance of the rocks from the sun now. The one further from the sun would be the one that could do more work... I THINK.. p
Edited by Sasuke, : edit
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 2:08 PM Sasuke has not replied
 Message 139 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:16 PM Sasuke has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 138 of 357 (545616)
02-04-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 2:03 PM


Re: Gravity
cs writes:
No. They're both stationary to the Earth. Neither one is falling.
Incorrect. The rocks and I would be falling toward the earth WRT the ENTIRETY of the cosmos.
Ummm, no. To be falling towards the earth you'd have to be moving relative to it, which you are not. The rest of the cosmos is irrelevant.
I realized that actually the rock held above my head can be used to do a little more work but only because its further away from the earth. That is only relative to the earth though.
And that is all that matters for this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:03 PM Sasuke has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 139 of 357 (545617)
02-04-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 2:03 PM


Re: Gravity
Rahvin,
Rahvin in another thread said writes:
Incorrect. If your concept were accurate, it would be impossible to use a waterfal to perform work, as both the water at the higher and lower elevations are "falling towards the Earth."
The ability to perform work is all about differences in energy states. Work is performed when a higher energy state is moved to a lower energy state; when entropy is increased.
When you drop a rock, it moves from a (literally) higher energy state to a lower energy state. Entropy increases, and work is performed.
When an electron moves to a lower energy state within an atop, it typically releases a photon.
Radioactive decay is the process by which unstable elements achieve a lower, more stable energy state.
A battery stores chemical energy, and its energy state is lowered as that chemical energy is lowered to perform work with electronic devices.
It's all the same thing, in different forms.
The fact that the amount of energy involved in a falling rock is inconsequential compared to the motion of the Earth around the Sun, or the Sun's orbit around our galactic center, or our galaxy's movement in our galactic cluster, etc is irrelevant - the energy state is still different between a rock on the ground and a rock held a meter above the ground.
Ok. I realize that energy is all about moving from higher energy states to lower energy states. I also realize electron orbitals and the shedding of electrons to create light/photons... bla bla bla. p.. Though I don't think if you drop a rock it is actually shedding electrons just like a waterfall is not actually shedding electrons, or are they? I would think the hydrogen bonds would hold the water molescules together fairly well.. p
My point with the rocks is that they are both falling toward the earth and the earth is falling toward the sun.. The rock above my head does have more energy than the rock at my feet but this is only relative to the earth. That was my point. p
Edited by Sasuke, : p
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:03 PM Sasuke has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 2:22 PM Sasuke has replied
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 2:45 PM Sasuke has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 140 of 357 (545618)
02-04-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 2:16 PM


Re: Gravity
I also realize electron orbitals and the shedding of electrons to create light/photons... bla bla bla.
Shedding of electrons... No.
The electron will emit a photon when it moves from an outer shell to an inner shell (higher to lower energy state). Its almost the opposite of "shedding".
My point with the rocks is that they are both falling toward the earth and the earth is falling toward the sun.. The rock above my head does have more energy than the rock at my feet but this is only relative to the earth.
They're not both falling to the earth as neither one is moving relative to it.
And its not just relative to the earth. Earth's gravity is what is causing it to have the potential energy so even relative to Alpha Centauri, the rock above your head has more potential energy.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:16 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 141 of 357 (545620)
02-04-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Gravity
CS,
cs writes:
Shedding of electrons... No.
The electron will emit a photon when it moves from an outer shell to an inner shell (higher to lower energy state). Its almost the opposite of "shedding".
I think that electrons are actually shed. Its the atoms that the photons are shed from. Its the atoms that are moving from higher to lower energy states.
CS writes:
They're not both falling to the earth as neither one is moving relative to it.
Is this because the rocks are in the earths atmosphere? I am a little confused by your response. I always thought the sun creates our gravity which is why gravity can be different in different areas of the cosmos. Such as the gravity on the moon, its different than here on earth.
CS writes:
And its not just relative to the earth. Earth's gravity is what is causing it to have the potential energy so even relative to Alpha Centauri, the rock above your head has more potential energy.
The potential energy here is really relative to what the rocks are falling/moving toward, no? Obviously the rock above my head is further from the earth so its potential energy is higher because both rocks are falling toward the earth(EVEN if the rock at my feet is only divided by my foot or sitting against the earth it is still falling toward the earth).
Edited by Sasuke, : edit
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 2:47 PM Sasuke has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 142 of 357 (545621)
02-04-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 2:16 PM


Re: Gravity
Ok. I realize that energy is all about moving from higher energy states to lower energy states.
Good. The natural tendency to seek lower energy states is what we call entropy. Entropy always increases in any interaction in a closed system. All work increases overall entropy.
I also realize electron orbitals and the shedding of electrons to create light/photons... bla bla bla. p.. Though I don't think if you drop a rock it is actually shedding electrons just like a waterfall is not actually shedding electrons, or are they? I would think the hydrogen bonds would hold the water molescules together fairly well.. p
They are not shedding electrons. They are however moving to lower energy states, which is all that is relevant for this discussion. An electron moving to a lower orbital and emitting a photon is the release of potential energy to perform work in the same way that dropping a rock releases energy and performs work.
My point with the rocks is that they are both falling toward the earth and the earth is falling toward the sun.. The rock above my head does have more energy than the rock at my feet but this is only relative to the earth. That was my point. p
And that's all that is relevant. A rock falling from a meter or two isn't going to be a very energetic event, but it still is a demonstration of energy.
Do you agree, then, that bindign energy is in fact energy? Do you understand more of the difference between matter and energy, and what mass is in relation to both?
Both energy and matter have mass. Most of the mass of any object you pick up is actually just binding energy, not actual matter; that binding energy is not only in chemical bonds, but also in atomic and subatomic bonds. The energy of these different bonds is demonstrated by burning gasoline, by splitting atomic nuclei, etc.
Molecules can also form lower energy states than individual atoms. A water molecule has a lower energy state than two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom alone; this is why heat is released when water forms from its components (think the Hindenburg), and why it takes energy to split water into its component atoms (electrolysis, for example).
Matter is not mass. Matter has mass. Energy is not mass. Energy has mass. You could say that mass is a measure of the total excitation in the quantum field, and that mass warps spacetime; this warping is what we call gravity.
Don't think about mass and gravity in terms of weight. Yes, we're essentially saying that energy can "weigh" something in a gravity well, but that's not an accurate concept of what mass is. It's based too much on human perception, and we exist at a scale where neither the subatomic nor the cosmic are intuitive.
Gravity is the warping of spacetime. It literally alters the "shape" of both space and time. The closest analogy would be to represent spacetime as a blanket, and the Earth as a basketball. The mass of the Earth (which is a result of both matter and energy, the total excitation of the quantum fields in this part of the Universe) bends spacetime in a manner analogous to the way a basketball will make an indentation while resting on a blanket.
We can directly see this warping of spacetime when we see through a gravitational lens - immense cosmic structures like galactic clusters bend space so that light (which always moves in a straight line in space) is "bent" like a lens, and sometimes lets us see farther with our telescopes than we could otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:16 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 3:28 PM Rahvin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 143 of 357 (545622)
02-04-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Gravity
I think that electrons are actually shed. Its the atoms that the photons are shed from. Its the atoms that are moving from higher to lower energy states.
Photons are shed from electrons when they move from an outer shell to an inner shell:
That's the Bohr model of an atom. The concentric rings represent electron shells. When the electron goes from the outer shell to the inner one, a photon is emmitted.
Is this because the rocks are in the earths atmosphere? I am a little confused by your response. I always thought the sun creates our gravity which is why gravity can be different in different areas of the cosmos. Such as the gravity on the moon, its different than here on earth.
All mass creates gravity. The earth, the moon, and the sun all have their own gravitational pulls. It is reletive to the amount of mass so the suns is greater that the earths is greater than the moons. You'd weigh less on the moon because there is less mass beneath your feet pulling you towards it (take it easy on that one nerds, I know about the bending of sapcetime and the lack of an actual "pull" of gravity). Also, the effect of gravity get less as distance from the object is increased. The moons pull isn't going to send you flying off the planet but interestingly enough, it can cause the tides.
The potential energy here is really relative to what the rocks are falling/moving toward, no?
The rocks are not moving. Once the rock starts falling, it has kinetic energy.
The potential energy comes from the gravitational attraction to the earth, it is not "relative to it".
Shit, i gottta go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 2:32 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 151 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 5:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 144 of 357 (545627)
02-04-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 2:47 PM


Re: Gravity
CS,
WRT our discussion on electrons and photons. I always thought that this is what is happening when photons are shed. You have two atoms. One atom is in a higher energy state than the other atom. The higher energy state atom sheds an electron and that electron is absorbed into the other atom(moving it from higher energy orbital to lower energy orbital) and a photon is shed during this process. This photon is then absorbed and reabsorbed over and over again through the same process. This process is how light travels(I realize my verbage is not perfect but essentially that is what happens).
CS writes:
All mass creates gravity. The earth, the moon, and the sun all have their own gravitational pulls. It is reletive to the amount of mass so the suns is greater that the earths is greater than the moons. You'd weigh less on the moon because there is less mass beneath your feet pulling you towards it (take it easy on that one nerds, I know about the bending of sapcetime and the lack of an actual "pull" of gravity). Also, the effect of gravity get less as distance from the object is increased. The moons pull isn't going to send you flying off the planet but interestingly enough, it can cause the tides.
Yah. Totally. I get that much. In terms of our ROCK discussion though. The rock further away from the earth has more potential energy because of the distance from the earth. However, they are both still falling toward the earth or sun.... Whichever you prefer in the verbage of this discussion(technically it is the sun though).
CS writes:
The rocks are not moving. Once the rock starts falling, it has kinetic energy.
moving/falling same difference. I don't know if it is kinetic energy or not but it certainly is some sort of energy.
Edited by Sasuke, : edit
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by DrJones*, posted 02-04-2010 3:27 PM Sasuke has replied
 Message 154 by lyx2no, posted 02-04-2010 5:59 PM Sasuke has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 145 of 357 (545631)
02-04-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 3:10 PM


Re: Gravity
I don't know if it is kinetic energy or not but it certainly is some sort of energy.
Of course it has kinetic energy, it is moving.
KE= (1/2)mv2

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 3:10 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 3:32 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 146 of 357 (545632)
02-04-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
02-04-2010 2:45 PM


Re: Gravity
Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
Good. The natural tendency to seek lower energy states is what we call entropy. Entropy always increases in any interaction in a closed system. All work increases overall entropy.
Right.
Rahvin writes:
They are not shedding electrons. They are however moving to lower energy states, which is all that is relevant for this discussion. An electron moving to a lower orbital and emitting a photon is the release of potential energy to perform work in the same way that dropping a rock releases energy and performs work.
One of us needs to read a little more on this I think. I always thought of photons as a product of electrons being shed at higher energy states and being abosrbed into other atoms at lower energy states. This process both reduces the energy state, lowering the electrons orbital axis and also sheds a photon. This process happens over and over again which is how light travels.
Rahvin writes:
Do you agree, then, that binding energy is in fact energy? Do you understand more of the difference between matter and energy, and what mass is in relation to both?
Totally. Matter is binded energy. Just like the rock is bound above me in your prior example. Once the rock falls/is pushed the energy is being released. WRT Mass, mass is just a measure of d/v. So mass depends on the material as the density is different per material. Then you have to figure out the volume of material. Then you just simply divide to determine in g's or kg's, depending on the quantity, the mass. There are even formuls to determine how many molecules or atoms are in a specific amount of matter. I remember this much from chemistry.
WRT spacetime, I already realized the idea of matter bending spacetime, this is why we fall toward the sun. The blanket concept you use is actually one I use regularly with my friends when we discuss this sorta thing.
Rahvin writes:
We can directly see this warping of spacetime when we see through a gravitational lens - immense cosmic structures like galactic clusters bend space so that light (which always moves in a straight line in space) is "bent" like a lens, and sometimes lets us see farther with our telescopes than we could otherwise.
Interesting WRT to the telescopes... I never knew this was the case but it does make perfect sense.
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 2:45 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 3:58 PM Sasuke has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 147 of 357 (545633)
02-04-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by DrJones*
02-04-2010 3:27 PM


Re: Gravity
DrJones*,
Thanks for the formula. I will TRY to remember that. Course, I could always google that if I don't. I was just a little confused cus I always thought KE was simply random or chaotic energy and I always visualize a rock falling/moving as being directional and not random.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by DrJones*, posted 02-04-2010 3:27 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 148 of 357 (545637)
02-04-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 3:28 PM


Re: Gravity
One of us needs to read a little more on this I think. I always thought of photons as a product of electrons being shed at higher energy states and being abosrbed into other atoms at lower energy states. This process both reduces the energy state, lowering the electrons orbital axis and also shedding a photon. This process happens over and over again which is how light travels.
Electrons don't need to be "shed" to lower their energy state. They can simply fall to a lower electron shell. The energy difference is emitted as a photon. The atom in question doesn't lose a photon in the process.
Totally. Matter is binded energy.
...no. Matter is not energy. Energy is not bound. Energy is "contained" in the bonds that hold matter together, at the chemical, atomic, and subatomic scales.
Matter is that which has mass and takes up space - it obeys the Exclusion principle.
Energy has mass, but does not take up space. It does not obey the Exclusion principle.
WRT Mass, mass is just a measure of d/v. So mass depends on the material as the density is different per material. Then you have to figure out the volume of material. Then you just simply divide to determine in g's or kg's, depending on the quantity, the mass. There are even formuls to determine how many molecules or atoms are in a specific amount of matter. I remember this much from chemistry.
This is both completely correct and completely wrong.
Mass can indeed be calculated if you know the volume and density of a given bit of matter. But that doesn't mean that mass is solely a function of volume and density.
Mass is that which warps spacetime. Mass is a measurement of the total excitation of the various quantum fields in a given location.
Chemistry only applies at the appropriate scale. Everything you learned in chemistry class is irrelevant when discussing quantum physics. Chemistry deals with interactions at the atomic and occasionally nuclear scale; physics includes the atomic scale, but also the scales of quarks and gluons and even galactic clusters.
The Universe doesn't exist solely at the macroscopic human scale.
Density isn't something we need to consider when we calculate the potential energy of an elevated rock, or an electron's orbit, or the binding energy of a Uranium nucleus. it's simply irrelevant. Mass, however, is relevant.
WRT spacetime, I already realized the idea of matter bending spacetime, this is why we fall toward the sun. The blanket concept you use is actually one I use regularly with my friends when we discuss this sorta thing.
Matter does not bend spacetime. Mass bends spacetime. Mass is one of the properties of matter, but it is also one of the properties of energy. Mass is the total excitation of the various quantum fields in a given location. That excitation of the fields is what bends spacetime.
Remember also that the blanket analogy is grossly oversimplified. To be perfectly blunt, neither you nor I have a very good grasp of what we're discussing. We cannot possible do so without engaging in some pretty complicated mathematics. We're trying to convert very specific, very accurate subjects in theoretical physics and translate them into plain English, which flat-out doesn't work very well. Worse, neither of us has actually done the math - we're operating on what others who have done the math have translated into English, and then trying to communicate what each of us understands based on those inaccurate simplifications. It's like playing telephone with physics, and we're taking the easy and inaccurate path because we don't have time to take a few dozen physics and math courses.
Read what cavediver and Son Goku say very carefully. They're usually pretty careful to be as accurate as they can while translating physics mathematical concepts into English we can try to understand. But the most important thing to realize is that, until you can understand the math and observations that spawned current Field Theory and quantum mechanics, you do not really understand. Arguing against them in their own field is like telling an aerospace engineer that he's wrong about how airplanes fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 3:28 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 4:32 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 149 of 357 (545646)
02-04-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rahvin
02-04-2010 3:58 PM


Re: Gravity
Rahvin,
The entirety of your post is another 5. (FYI: when I say energy I typically mean charged particles. So, matter is binded energy or rather binded charged particles..-try to reread what u posted above now and see if you think we are on the same page at all)
Rahvin writes:
we're operating on what others who have done the math have translated into English, and then trying to communicate what each of us understands based on those inaccurate simplifications.
Right. The communication portion even complicates it more because we have different ways of perceiving all of this and also very different ways of attempting to communicate it(words have different meanings to each person). So I have to hope I understand you based on the sole idea that we are speaking english but even within our own language there are barriers too...
Edited by Sasuke, : edit
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 3:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 4:59 PM Sasuke has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 150 of 357 (545649)
02-04-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 4:32 PM


Re: Gravity
when I say energy I typically mean charged particles. So, matter is binded energy or rather binded charged particles..-try to reread what u posted above now and see if you think we are on the same page at all
But energy is not just "charged particles." What "charged particles" carry the energy of an elevated rock?
Matter is not bound energy. Matter is not simply bound charged particles. Remember, neutrons have no electrical charge, yet are still bound to the nucleus of an atom. Matter does have its own rest mass that does not involve binding energy in any way - it's simply a minuscule portion of the total mass.
I'm sorry if i sound like I'm nitpicking. Well, not really - I am nitpicking. But that's because in science topics you have to be extremely accurate in what you say.
To use another analogy, saying that "energy is charged particles" is like saying that mutants are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. You might be hitting the same building that contains the wall the target is mounted on, but you're nowhere close to a bullzeye. I try to at least hit the target
The price of inaccuracy is the propagation of more misunderstandings, false conceptions, and eventually strawman arguments. How many Creationists do we see here who argue against Evolution because we don't see a dog give birth to a fish? How many times do we hear "it's just a theory? Those are the result of inaccurate usage of terminology, something the mass media is unfortunately addicted to. We hear scientific terminology being thrown around in fiction like Star Trek, and people actually think that there is some level of truth to the technobabble simply because the terminology is real.
Try to be accurate when discussing scientific terminology. It helps you convey what you're actually saying, and it keeps you from misunderstanding what others say as well.
An alpha particle is a Helium nucleus; it's a form of radiation. When some elements decay, they emit an alpha particle. The particle is, in fact, a charged particle, and the transaction does involve the transfer of energy. But the alpha particle itself is not energy. It's still matter - it takes up space and obeys the Exclusion principle.
A neutron is also a particle that can be emitted in radioactive decay. Yet it has no charge, and is not itself energy. It's still matter, it takes up space, and obeys the Exclusion principle. The atom that emits the neutron still loses energy in the process, even though the neutron itself is not energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 4:32 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 5:26 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 155 by Sasuke, posted 02-05-2010 3:35 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 02-05-2010 6:59 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024