How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?

You're wrong. An atomic bomb relies on all that energy that is stored up in the mass of the material. Through the process of fission, an atomic nucleus is split into two smaller ones and releases a shitload of energy that is "in there".And mass does not equal matter. Matter has mass, but not all mass is matter.

Does mass not contain energy? Or what would be a better word for the relationship between mass and all the energy required to keep it together as such?

Thanks, yes this is how I understand it too. Its quite different from what you posted in Message 86 though.I see the energy of the bonds as being "contained" by the matter, and that's why I said that mass "has" energy.

It looked like were changing from your position that matter has no capacity to do work to matter being able to do work by breaking the bonds.From Message 86:

quote:

---

I also think the problem with considering mass to be energy is that matter its self has no capacity to do work its just simply inanimate. I can see the point cavediver is making though I still fill like matter is simply taking energy and binding it with chemicals or atomic particles that make it inanimate in the form of matter.

---

From Message 92:

quote:

---

Subatomic particles(protons, neutrons, electrons) come together to form different types of bonds. These bonds form matter. In these bonds the energy is being used to form these bonds. So therefor the capacity to do work is being used at the moment. Since energy is defined as the "capacity to do work" matter can't be energy because the energy in the atoms of matter at the moment is being used to form these different types of bonds/matter. Break the bond/NOT THE MATTER = Release the energy.

---

But now I see my mistake in that your saying that breaking the bonds and doing work is not the same as the matter doing work. But the matter is the bounded up particles. I think breaking the bonds is the matter doing work.And the bonding is the doing of the work, not the using up of the capacity to do work, I think... maybe.Hey, that's one of the great things about this place, I can just through that out there and be sure that someone will be quick to tell me if I'm wrong

Yeah, the wording has become akward.From Message 86, Sasuke:

quote:

---

I also think the problem with considering mass to be energy is that matter its self has no capacity to do work its just simply inanimate.

---

I don't think matter is just simply inanimate and has no capacity to do work, but I'm not trying to consider mass to be energyI repied: So by "containing energy", I'm talking about that ability to do work that matter has. What do you think is a better way to phrase it? i.e. how's your Phraseology In Message 89 I wrote:

quote:

---

And mass does not equal matter. Matter has mass, but not all mass is matter.

---

Energy does have mass, but is not matter. Ergo, not all mass is matter. Not true.

Well, we agree on the main point I wanted to make. But I'd still like to see other opinions on the side stuffs: I do think I was conflating the terms there a bit. I wrote:

quote:

---

So by "containing energy", I'm talking about that ability to do work that matter has.

---

Matter has has an ability to do work, i.e. matter has energy, not mass has energy. Although: With mass being a measure of how much energy an object contains, I could see how the phrase of "mass (too) containing energy" could be arrived at, depending on how you're using 'contain' as you brought up earlier [whether or not its really accurate]. A cursory glance at the internets shows people claiming both sides. I honestly don't know. I thought it did. Of course. I brought up Phraseology, and I think these complex physics conspets cannot be adequately phrased with simpler words, but I do think its good to have simpler phrases of the concepts, even if they are a little off, so that they can be talked about without the need for a 1000 word paragraph. It might not be possible, but what word would you suggest for the blank:Mass _______ energy.I don't think "is" works, and not really "has" or "contains". Is there some word that can be put in there?What about if we sub matter for mass?Matter ________ energy. ???

I would say destroying a city is a lot of work... (atomic bomb). Inanimate? A glass of water's molecules are moving all over the place. Its anything but inanimate. What do you mean? Simply not being alive?Contained steam can be used to drive a train and its not animated in the sense of living.... When you say that something inanimate cannot do work you seem to be suggesting that because a rock can't mow the lawn then it doesn't have energy..."doing work" is not just manual labor That hardly makes sense.The need to be stimulated doesn't mean there's not a capacity to do work.A stick of dynamite can do a whole lot of work but you gotta light it first.

I'm sorry Sasuke, but it sounds like you're just starting to make stuff up...A lot of your assertions can be easily refuted with a simple understanding of physics. No, radioactive matter will release energy in the form of radioactive decay without stimulation. No, due to Brownian Motion, independent of stimulation. Not necessarily. Uhh, no. Just look at the wiki page on energy.Also, a taught spring has a lot of potential energy without any relative momentum. Matter always has momentum, it never doesn't have momentum.Again, I think you're just making stuff up. You're in a position that you have to come to erroneous imaginations to maintain, you should just learn a bit and change your position.

"Energy" doesn't form bonds, and its not a thing or stuff. And if you stood next to some radioactive matter, it would do all kinds of work to your body. I don't know what you mean by "breaking down", but 'transforming' would be a better phrase.I don't really see anything correct in the above quote. No, they are molecules and that's matter. An explanation would've been nice. Swing... and a miss. You're just exposing your misunderstanding of energy and potential energy. Just look it up.Potential energy - Wikipedia Energy is not a force You need to learn more about that too:Force - WikipediaReally man, you're way wrong on a lot of this stuff and need to do some brushing up before you're going to be making any sense.

It has more energy because it can do more work. Stop holding it and it can crush your foot unlike the one that is sitting next to your foot. And they are not "both falling through spacetime equally" even though I don't know what you're referring to by that

No. They're both stationary to the Earth. Neither one is falling.One is being held above the ground and one is on the ground.The one being held has more potential energy. 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.

Oh, I read you as saying that one bit of evergy would form a bond with another bit of energy.Covalent bonds are on a much larger scale (i.e. the sharing of valence electrons) and saying that "energy forms them" is a poor way to phrase it. Are you beginning to see how matter can do work? On the Brownian Motion page you will find a link to 'Random Walk' and under the Applications section you will find the line:

quote:

---

In physics, random walks are used as simplified models of physical Brownian motion and the random movement of molecules in liquids and gases.

---

When I was in college we used computers to simulate random walks by having the body rotate a random number of degrees and then follow a straight path for a random distance, then rotate a random number of degrees and then follow a straight path for a random distance over and over again.Take a look at this gif: Inside a glass of water, the molecules are randomly bouncing around like that. It is not "inanimate". Not really.A force is caused by the acceleration of mass. Energy is not some 'thing' that can accelerate and cause a force.In Message 123 you wrote:

quote:

---

Force is acceleration. Acceleration is momentum. Momentum is potential energy. Potential energy is energy.

---

Acceleration is not momentum. Momentum is mass X velocity. It is not potential energy, but kinetic. I think you're thinking along the lines of energy transfer, whereby potential energy gets transfered into kinetic energy when the rock falls. But a force being a "form of energy" is a poor way to phrase it. Not too much. I learned all this stuff, like, 10 years ago. I'm just trying to explain it to you. I did learn to be careful when discussing both mass and matter to not mix them up in my head while I'm typing.ABE:How old are you?I'm 28.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Also, having the physics examples makes understanding the calculus easier.