It's as if you just post science-y sounding words to sound smart, but you don't really understand what they mean. That may work in a lot of forums out there, but you will have some trouble with that approach here.
If matter is the same as energy, then...
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
It's as if you just post science-y sounding words to sound smart, but you don't really understand what they mean. That may work in a lot of forums out there, but you will have some trouble with that approach here.
Now we arrive at the crux of the matter!
What gets me going is how those with a grudge against mainstream, those with anti establishment bias, those that suffer from tall poppy syndrome, those with delusions of grandeur, will grab hold of the greatest aspect of the scientific method, and try to use it against itself. That being that no theory is 100% dinky di set in concrete.
Which is why I asked about the heliocentric solar system. It's a theory, but one so well set in concrete, so much observational data to show its correct, that a person would have to be a real live dead set loonie to deny it.
The same applies to SR/GR the BB and Evolution, and those foolish enough to attempt to deride and deny the very near positive nature of those theories.
I'll throw in another one. In my opinion the sheer enormity, scale, and near infinite content of the Universe, plus the fact that the stuff of life is everywhere, and Abiogenesis is as near as fact as one would want, makes ETL a near certainty.
If by that one in a trillion chance we were it, I would then most certainly believe in miracles!
In other words what I'm trying to say, is that sometimes you do not need that 100% certainty, to logically, sensibly, and scientifically conclude that a theory is a certainty beyond any reasonable doubt.
In reply to bilvon, re: your #181.
Do not concern yourself over my word usage. (I was never made welcome here, and have yet to lose sleep over it)
I write as I will, for reasons of my own...as for making friends or allies, my books are my friends.
.....
Is the above too "science-y?"
Do not concern yourself over my word usage. (I was never made welcome here, and have yet to lose sleep over it)
I write as I will, for reasons of my own...as for making friends or allies, my books are my friends.
.....
Is the above too "science-y?"
In reply to paddoboy, re: your #182 post.
If it is correct to assume there are many Stars like our own Sun, then it is a virtual certainty "ETL" is correct. Assuming that all of the "principle players" are present (same elements, etc.)
then "life" much like that of Earth will exist.
(I have serious doubt involving "Pandora" type scenarios as being "real" with regard to horses<? with four front limbs!...Or "islands in the sky!")
(Thanks for reading!)
If it is correct to assume there are many Stars like our own Sun, then it is a virtual certainty "ETL" is correct. Assuming that all of the "principle players" are present (same elements, etc.)
then "life" much like that of Earth will exist.
(I have serious doubt involving "Pandora" type scenarios as being "real" with regard to horses<? with four front limbs!...Or "islands in the sky!")
(Thanks for reading!)
I think it is quite logically reasonable to conclude that what stable elements we know of, would also be part of the Universe as a whole.
Pandora type scenarios??? I'll maintain an open mind on that score.
In material world, matter is the only substance that provides objective reality and positive existence in space to all real entities. Energy is the ability (a quality) to do work. It is a functional entity that has no form or structure. Therefore, matter and energy are entirely separate. One is a real entity and other is a functional entity.
Certain theories equate mass (an attribute of matter) and energy by providing for their conversion into each other. Mass is a mathematical relation (a functional entity) between matter-content in a body and effect of an external 'force' on it. This does not indicate matter and energy are same.
Nainan
Certain theories equate mass (an attribute of matter) and energy by providing for their conversion into each other. Mass is a mathematical relation (a functional entity) between matter-content in a body and effect of an external 'force' on it. This does not indicate matter and energy are same.
Nainan
origin, may I respectfully ask for some clarification?
1.) - "matter can directly become energy" : What do you mean by "directly become"?
2.) - "energy can directly become energy" : ???!!! - please, elaborate?
In short, origin, what exactly is your point?