It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Important Implications of the Conservation of Matter

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
1) Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, the Universe has always existed and will always continue to exist.

2) Since we are composed of matter, we have always existed and will always continue to exist (of course open to question is if we have always been or will continue to be conscious of our existence).

The Conservation of Matter is all more the reason to be respectful of the beings who have gone before us and the beings that will go ahead of us.




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   
yeah except what you say is wrong.

one easy example - nuclear fission.

during this some mass is converted to energy.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I appreciate your comments.

You imply that the Universe energy/ mass ratio is not constant. But could not energy be converted into mass, creating the conservation of energy.

It might be fair to assume that mass + energy is always equal to 1, thus creating the conservation of matter + energy.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
I appreciate your comments.

You imply that the Universe energy/ mass ratio is not constant. But could not energy be converted into mass, creating the conservation of energy.

It might be fair to assume that mass + energy is always equal to 1, thus creating the conservation of matter + energy.


But that doesn't guarentee matter.

We at a point, all matter might degrade into just energy.

Matter is often converted into energy such as fission, radioactive decay, matter-antimatter reactions, and black holes... I'm not aware of any matter forming from energy other than short lived virtual particles.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
1) Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, the Universe has always existed and will always continue to exist.


Well, it is possible that all this matter has come into existence at once.



2) Since we are composed of matter, we have always existed and will always continue to exist (of course open to question is if we have always been or will continue to be conscious of our existence).

The Conservation of Matter is all more the reason to be respectful of the beings who have gone before us and the beings that will go ahead of us.


For organized systems, the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts. We will not continue to exist after our death, but our particles will go on.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Thank god, the rest of us live in civilised society where conservation of energy has been the law for at least the last hundred years.

By the way, you're reiterating the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic "Go To Guy" for theology. He kind of supplanted St. Augustine after Bible-Heads decided to modernise and science up church about 300 years ago, during one of the many periods of reform the Catholic church is known for requiring.

The problem is, St. Augustine was an esoteric genius, and St. Thomas Aquinas was a scientist who put more faith in god than in his experiments. Which, you can tell, isn't a marvellous scientist. When you science up religion, you ruin the religion, and you ruin the science, and they still haven't really latched onto it.

There is _one_ way that Aquinas' "Five Proofs of God" can be seen as valid - despite the fact that he is actually using the same proof five different ways - and that is that when you look at the argument/'proof', "Matter is here now, Cannot be created by us/destroyed by us, thus, was always here or was created by God. As infinity is crazy, it must have been god." - you see a single way for the logic to _truly_ work, in an Augustinian (and therefore, Plutonian) fashion, of circular thought working upon an assumption of perfect form. I say a single way because assumption that infinity is impossible is rather barbaric and human of us to assume, merely because we don't really understand infinity as a concept.

Really, you've got to put a lot more thought into this kind of thing when you make blanket statements about the universe and the people within it.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

Originally posted by GreatTech
I appreciate your comments.

You imply that the Universe energy/ mass ratio is not constant. But could not energy be converted into mass, creating the conservation of energy.

It might be fair to assume that mass + energy is always equal to 1, thus creating the conservation of matter + energy.


But that doesn't guarentee matter.

We at a point, all matter might degrade into just energy.

Matter is often converted into energy such as fission, radioactive decay, matter-antimatter reactions, and black holes... I'm not aware of any matter forming from energy other than short lived virtual particles.


Black hole evaporation...virtual particles become real.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Thank you all for your comments. Viendin, do you mean that matter does not exist?

I am still searching for precise definitions of matter and energy.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Nope, I mean that the amount of matter beforehand and the amount of matter afterwards have long been known to not necessarily be equal.

Instead, energy is always conserved.

The amount of energy stored within matter is given in the famous equation, e=mc^2. Basically, the mass in kilograms of the object multiplied by (299,792,458)^2 gives you the amount of energy stored in that mass in Joules. It's marvellous. It's a bit more complicated, too, but that's the gist.

Massive matter certainly exists, but energy is what is important and must remain constant, not mass.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
And on the quantum level matter and energy can be both or neither or switch back and fourth depending on who or what is watching.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Great comments.

Who, what, where, when, and how were the experiments conducted to prove that e = mc^2 is a law? With all due respect to Einstein, did he visualize the experiments beforehand and afterhand and compute the law, hire people to conduct the experiments, perform the experiments himself with others, and/or perform the experiments himself? Why is the speed of light squared? Observation or theory?

Sometimes I think a large part of life comes down to semantics.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join