If matter is the same as energy, then...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Magical Realist, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    We certainly do have a very good idea of the composition of the core. Scientist don't make absolute statements about these things but by layman standars we know what the composition of the core of the sun is.

    Actually you said the 150X comment was absurd. And again these are not guesses. They might seem like guesses to you because you clearly do not have any knowledge or understanding of the calculations and modeling involved. You realize you could learn if you put in the effort!

    Your obsevations are worthless because you have demonstrated you are ignorant of the basic physics involved.

    Jesus! Do you ever pay attention to what you read? NOT trillions of tons per square inch, what was written was 3.6 trillion pounds per square inch. It is incredible how you can miss the point, your comprehension skills are nonexistent. He said the density is 150 time that of water, there was no mention of water actually being under the trillions of pounds of pressure! Unbelievable...

    Your method making stuff up is way worse than some of the people here who's only physics knowledge is from wiki.

    I am looking forward to the day that you post something (anything) that is not just misquotes, madeup crap, misunderstood phyiscs or just plain loony.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your #161 post.

    The density values of the Sun are "calculated" unknowns...my comprehension is not an issue, the issue was "150x denser than water".

    3.6 trillion is a plural, yes? Meaning more than a "trillion". This results in "MORE than a trillion".

    ......

    You love to quote...it is ALL you have!

    (it is you who does not understand fundamental causations, this why you are forced to "look facts up". You have no intrinsic ability of your own to engage me with)

    ......

    Now all you have for rebuttal is "name-calling" and denial! You cannot respond any other way, for you have nothing of own to "counter" with.

    I am NOT going to argue incessantly with someone who writes that "lightspeed slows in relation to a media!" You have a complete lack of understanding in this regard...you see no

    difference between quantum factors and "real particles". You are assigning "particle values of velocity in relation to transit thru a media" and this is a false analogy.

    .....

    You are wrong.




    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Matter, energy, gravity certainly are real enough, along with of course, space, time, and spacetime, but none of that in anyway supports your hypothesis.
    Scientific theories are not best guesses. As I have said, you do though find comfort in calling them best guesses, as it [in your mind] gives your hypothesis some form of credibility.
    Scientific theories are descriptions of reality, based on current observations and experimental results.
    That's why we call them theories, because as our observations increase, the possibility can exist that may see the need to modify the theory, or completely falsify it.
    But as I have said to you previously, some theories are near set in concrete, due to their continuing successes.
    I'll ask you a question again.
    Do you believe we live in a heliocentric solar system?


    But in reality, your models have neither.


    Not really. New theories come about because they are needed to get rid of glaring anomalies revealed by being able to observe further.
    Evolution, SR, GR are though three theories that have no glaring anomalies.



    I'm not trivialising anything. You in fact trivialise your own hypothesis by claiming they don't need credibility.
    And who has argued against the conservation law re matter and energy?



    Yes.


    So having evidence that reveals a model as near fact, say 99% certain, is no reason to accept that???
    Again, I see that sort of take on science, as just an excuse to give your own models some credibility, where none exists.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It absolutely is a comprehension problem.
    A material that has density 150 times the density of water does not mean the material is water.

    Very good, 3.6 trillion is more than a trillion. I am impressed!

    But that simply highlights your continued comprehension problem.
    I said 3.6 trillion pounds per square inch which is 1000 time less than 3.6 trillion tons per square inch that you incorrectly claim I said.

    You love to make up goofy crap that is utter nonsense.

    Yes, those pesky facts that show your ignorance. It is true that I do not make up goofy absurd crap and instead rely on understanding what the scientist in the mainstream have discovered. I think that is better than making up loony toon garbage, but hey that's just me!

    The name calling is born from frustration with your willful ignorance. I have countered your goofy ideas with math and logic which you conveniently ignore. Do you think this is not obvious to anyone looking at this thread?

    I assume you saying you do not think the speed of light is slower in water or glass in which case, how embarassing! You are loudly proclaiming you know less than anyone who has taken a highschool science class! I guess fiber optics and prisms must just blow your mind??

    Well looks like I will continue to wait for you to write something that isn't nonsense.

    You have not demonstrated the ability to be able to determine what is right or wrong about, well, anything so far.
     
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    1 ton(short - US) = 2,000 lbs.(pounds)

    1 tonne(UK) = 2,204.6 lbs.(pounds)

    1 ton(long - imperial ton) = 2,240 lbs. (pounds)
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Where did I say that?
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Maybe you should ....say it ..
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Pay his comments no mind, Gerry really does have reading comprehension problems - I am not kidding. I do not think he has actually ever answered a question I asked, it is not just that the answers are wrong they are not even accurately addressing the questions asked. :shrug:
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Thanks for clearing that up...

    1 tonne(UK) = 1 metric ton
     
  13. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to paddoboy, re: your #163 post.

    Do I believe "we live in a heliocentric Solar System?" YES. Do I believe that "99" is almost a "100?" YES. (yet 99 is not a 100, ever...100 is 100)

    Which part of what is a 99% certainty, paddo? I have confidence in Evolution, 100%! I have confidence in GR, 100%!

    (why do you insist on lumping me into the "deny all things" category?)

    I agreed 100% with your statement that "everything came from the Stars!" (another thread)

    .....

    I am not "demeaning" everything...just many aspects of "particle theory" that I see no validation for, no matter how many say "photons are real" as singular identities of energy.


    ......

    Many respected people in theoretical physics support the idea of "matter into energy"...I don't agree, and I wrote "why" I don't agree. There are others in physics who also disagree with

    "matter into energy", but they are a small number. Neither side can disprove the other.



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  14. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your # 164 post.

    Uh...and your point is what?
     
  15. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to paddoboy, re: #166.

    On another thread, I think...if I misread, then please accept my apology.
     
  16. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    A cartoon gets "no answer".
     
  17. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your #164 post.

    Yes...every high school physics class is WRONG! "c" is always "c".
     
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523

    To be completely Honest, origin, I was trying to "clear up" this highlighted statement from your Post #164 :
    However, origin, I am not the authority on : "comprehension problem(s)" ; "incorrectly claim(ing)" ; "goofy crap that is utter nonsense" ; "pesky facts that show your ignorance" ; "goofy absurd crap" ; "rely(ing) on understanding what the scientist in the mainstream have discovered" ; "making up loony toon garbage" ; "willful ignorance" ; "goofy ideas" ; "math and logic" ; what is "obvious to anyone looking at this thread" ; the ability to "assume" ; what is "embarassing!"...etc.

    So...it may be(However I, dmoe, cannot concur!) as you stated :
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Hmmm, you couldn't comprehend my post?
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Lets see now, you have been told at least 5 times that c is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is in fact invariant, so c is always c. The speed of light in any other medium is less than c though.

    That is a fact. You can disagree with facts but that just makes you a look like a crazy crank.

    I assume you will not understand this and reply with something bizarre - gee, I can't wait to see if I win the kewpie doll!
     
  21. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your #177 post.

    "c" is ALWAYS "c".

    Did I not write all of this "out" in a post reply before? At least once?

    "c" is an inherent factor of light, a factor that never varies...you are confusing "frame' observations with lightspeed!

    .....

    The diffusion of light energy with regard to any media does "make it seem" as if light slowed. It didn't. The surrender of energy is NOT an instantaneous process...the energy does require

    time to be diffused in a given media.

    The "time lag" is dependent upon the media, and is easily measurable...with regard to the "speed of energy diffusion' thru-out a media.

    The "c'" value remained A CONSTANT!

    Light does not slow...but the energy diffusion does make it seem that way.



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Have you ever heard of metaphors?...Or figures of speech?...or hyperboles...or "rhetorical figures of speech"???

    I have often used an expression "near Infinite" in relation to the Universe and the stars within.
    We often here the expression, her eyes shone like diamonds....or more then all the grains of sand on all the beaches...or gazillions of whatever

    dmoe, is this another example of not seeing the forest for the trees?
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So the the time it takes the light to move through the material is longer than the time it would take for the light to move through a vacuum. Speed is distance over time. That means that the speed of light through the material is slower than c. We are in agreement.

    I agree that the difference in the time lag is dependent on the material. That time lag is due to the slower speed of light through the material, so we are in agreement.

    The point is that if you shine a light through a 10 mile optical fiber is will take longer for the light to travel through the 10 miles than it would take for light to travel 10 miles through a vacuum. If your point is that when the light is not interacting with the atoms, in other words inbetween the atoms of the material, that the light is moving at c then I agree.

    I think that we are in agreement. Well, I'll be damned! Good deal.
     

Share This Page