Death doesn't make sense according to physics

page: 21
11
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Saying energy is a force is like saying a second hand on a clock is time itself.


Yes energy is a force.

And sure the second hand on a clock is time itself... if you're not scared to go there; it's also energy.

There's two types of people in this world that I'm aware of. Path pavers and path followers. See if you can find out who's who.




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by mdiinican
Energy is not a force. Energy is the ability to do work. You can have forces that don't consume energy, and energy that is never used to create a force. We can easily control energy through a multitude of different means. Charging a battery puts more chemical potential energy into a battery, for example. throwing a ball puts kinetic energy into it.


Energy is a force. Every force requires and is of energy. If there is no ability to do work then there is no force available. Energy is an unstoppable force and an immovable object. Energy is everything. There are many different forms of energy, but they are all energy.

We don't control energy, and when we think we do we are only using energy to "control" energy.

What type of energy is used to give the ball kinetic energy? What type of energy is used to put more chemical potential energy in the batteries?

I agreed with most of your points, but here you're just going off into fallacy.


No, you are wrong, sir. Your definition of energy is wrong.

Look at the normal force. It is the force that solid object apply to you to keep you from passing through them. The ground expends no energy keeping you from falling to the center of the earth, but it pushes on you with considerable force. It holds up thousands of miles of rock, and everything on top of the surface, without expending energy.

a spring can be compressed. It will apply a force on whatever is compressing it, forever. It doesn't expend energy to do that.

This is because energy is equivalent to a capacity to do work, which is a force times a distance. No distance traveled, no work. a system can have all the forces it wants, and yet not be using any energy. Now there is usually, but not always, potential energy directly involved with the creation of a force, because, ostensibly if the other forces acting on the object were removed and the object were free to move, energy would be expended pushing it.

Gravity expends no energy pulling you when you're not changing elevation. It pulls with a constant acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared, but no energy is expended. Now when you change altitude, you either store energy in gravity, as gravitic potential energy, or you expend some of your gravitic potential energy.

If you try to push a wall, you'll constantly expend chemical energy doing it, because of the way your body works. But if you lean a plank up against the wall, it can push the wall just as hard, but use no energy to do it, unless the wall eventually moves.

energy is neither an unstoppable force, nor an immovable object. For that matter, it's not a force or an object at all. It is a state function representing an object's capacity to do work.

If you use the word energy in any context besides the physical context, you're not talking science. This happens to be the science subforum, so there is a meaningful difference between the real definition of energy, and the colloquial version.

As for the question of where the energy came from, The energy it took to throw a ball came from energy stored in the form of the molecule adenosine triphosphate, which is used to power our muscles. We synthesize it using the energy in glucose, which we get by eating food. The energy in the food comes, ultimately, from molecules synthesized by plants. The energy in the plants came from the sun. And the sun gives off energy in the form of light and other radiation through nuclear fusion.

Similarly, the energy used to charge the battery came from an electric current, which was probably generated either by burning coal or oil, by a nuclear plant, or by hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, tidal, or wind power.

Except for nuclear power, tidal, and geothermal, all those methods are directly or indirectly powered by the sun.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, I'm not trying to conflate anything. It's very simple. The 1st law of Thermodynamics states, energy can't be created nor destroyed.

So when you born energy is not magically created and when you die energy is not destroyed. The laws of physics only supports the experience of death. Your energy doesn't die. We exist in a potential reality that's formed from a quantum fluctuation. We are energy in a state of decoherence and our energy doesn't magically disappear when we die. That's hocus pocus physics.


here is what he said,

you eat an apple, the energy from the apple is processed and put into your body, you die (the natural elecric pulses ((caused by apple energy)) stop), you get buried, the worms+centapedes eat you and your flesh is decomposed, the flesh is broken down to the mineral form and stay in the soil and the energy the worms got does the samething as the apple.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/20/08 by FredT]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
If you don't understand that all things are states of energy and that a force is energetic, requires energy, exerts energy and is of energy... then you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the universe... and I won't converse with you until you figure what a force is and what energy is, where energy is, when energy is required, when energy is exerted (Hint :Always, everwhere and only in differing states, but energy nonetheless).

See if you can now reckon what energy is. (Hint: Remember there are differing states)

Everything of existence can be harnessed and controlled, albeit forces, materials, and any other physical state, only that requires to be found is the energetic state or states to do so; everything is energy and energetic states control other energetic states.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
If you don't understand that all things are states of energy and that a force is energetic, requires energy, exerts energy and is of energy... then you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the universe... and I won't converse with you until you figure what a force is and what energy is, where energy is, when energy is required, when energy is exerted (Hint :Always, everwhere and only in differing states, but energy nonetheless).

See if you can now reckon what energy is. (Hint: Remember there are differing states)

Everything of existence can be harnessed and controlled, albeit forces, materials, and any other physical state, only that requires to be found is the energetic state or states to do so; everything is energy and energetic states control other energetic states.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


If you can't be bothered to get an eight grade education on what energy and forces are, then you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with reality. Seriously, these are universal scientific terms, which come in defined units. Just look it up on wikipedia or hyperphysics or something. Work is the ability to apply a force over a distance.

You can, of course, use up energy without ever applying any force. Lights, for instance, use up energy to emit radiation. endothermic reactions use up thermal energy to form chemical bonds. But the energy is always conserved. It's all eventually going to thermal energy, though.

Forces are NOT conserved. Energy is. Forces aren't energy. You can stand on the ground and apply the force of your weight into the ground all day long, and the ground doesn't get any energy out of it. Nor do your feet receive any energy from the normal force applied to them by the ground..

Energy is a capacity to do work. Nothing more, nothing less. Energy comes in all kinds of different forms, but it is always quantified as the ability to do work. It's unit is the joule. A force is a mass times an acceleration. Unlike work, however, a force doesn't require the object to actually be moving. Force's unit is the Newton.

Unless you want to go all nonstandard and measure energy in calories or in ergs, or in electron-volts, or in foot pound-force, or in watt-hours. Regardless of the units you use, force and energy are not equivalent. BY DEFINITION.

Newtons =! Joules. One is in kgm/s^2, the other is in newton meters, or kgm^2/s^2.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
IMO you both are right. There are two different and unrelated "stuff" which is being called energy.

Energy: The ability to do work; the school book and physics definition.[1] And Energy: The substance that is found everywhere and in everything, something the Michelson Morley experiment did discover, contrary to popular belief. [2]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


I don't think we're both right and I don't care about being higher than him either. Only one presentation is right here and it is that energy is everywhere and in everything, whether it's potential, kinetic, chemical etc.

I don't bother with people who just try to make others look bad... such as telling me to get an 8th grade education in physics... pft... have a good day.

The guy doesn't even realize what he's saying. When he comes to and accepts that everything is forms and states of energy (if ever), then we can discuss whatever he wants to discuss. I'm not gunna go throwing around lame insults.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
You can, of course, use up energy without ever applying any force.


You can use up force without applying energy (this is what you're saying; then show me a system where this is true[hint: it's impossible, the universe is an eternal system that requires everything that is of it]).

You can apply energy to force and force to energy, force requires energy and energy requires force.


Forces are NOT conserved. Energy is. Forces aren't energy. You can stand on the ground and apply the force of your weight into the ground all day long, and the ground doesn't get any energy out of it. Nor do your feet receive any energy from the normal force applied to them by the ground.


Yes, in fact standing on the ground gives energy to it and it gives energy to you.


Energy is a capacity to do work. Nothing more, nothing less. Energy comes in all kinds of different forms, but it is always quantified as the ability to do work. It's unit is the joule. A force is a mass times an acceleration. Unlike work, however, a force doesn't require the object to actually be moving. Force's unit is the Newton.


Right, energy is an immovable object and an unstoppable force. I said this earlier but you skipped over it in your haste to cruely convert me.


Unless you want to go all nonstandard and measure energy in calories or in ergs, or in electron-volts, or in foot pound-force, or in watt-hours. Regardless of the units you use, force and energy are not equivalent. BY DEFINITION.


Non-standard? If it applies then it applies, and when and where applicable then it is. Not because you say it isn't, but because it is.


Newtons =! Joules. One is in kgm/s^2, the other is in newton meters, or kgm^2/s^2.


Right, for sake of referential convenience.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Ungh, not another one of these "energy can't die, so how can you" questions.

You are not energy... you are a collection of matter and energy interacting in a uniform manor to allow for you to be considered as alive.

Death is merely the lack of uniformity.

The energy isn't gone, it's just not interacting in a way that would classify you as alive.

The energy, chemical, electrical, thermal within your body simply becomes random and distributed.
The chemical stored energy resides as chemicals until it is either ingested, or reacts with other substances.
The thermal energy radiates outward to the surrounding environment and objects, just as it did when you were alive.
The electrical charge in your nerves, brain, simply neutralizes itself when it can. Either through grounding, or it gets carried by another object/atmosphere.


Yes. Death makes perfect sense in physics... it's only stops making sense when you think of yourself as a singular quantity of energy that cannot be disrupted or dispersed. You aren't. You're a collection of matter and energy, that can be easily scrambled.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Here's some definitions for you, in hopes that we don't have any future misunderstandings.

WORK: Physics; force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves.

ENERGY: Physics; the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done; potential energy. Symbol: E

Over time the gravity of the Earth will diminish as the Earth is eventually no more. Also if you are calling a force an unstoppable or imperishable work ability, therefore it loses and gains no energy, then it would also fit the definition of energy as its properties would diminish by 0 being that it is doing 0 amount of work (according to your definition here), ergo its diminishment is equal to the amount of work so done, that which is 0; still fitting the definition of energy.

FORCE: Physics; a.) an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.
b.) the intensity of such an influence. Symbol: F, f

I hope this makes more lucid and apparent the interrelation, interdependence and eventual equality of the subject at hand, that which is energy.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You can use up force without applying energy (this is what you're saying; then show me a system where this is true[hint: it's impossible, the universe is an eternal system that requires everything that is of it]).


You can apply energy to force and force to energy, force requires energy and energy requires force.


No that isn't what I'm saying. If you read that as the energy is actually removed from the universe, than I apologize for not being clear, but you can transform the energy to other, less useful types of energy, without ever creating a force. Radiating energy in the form of low level EM radiation that matches the intensity of the cosmic background radiation can be done, and you'll never get that energy back as anything that can ever be used again, unless you've got some hypothetical thing that's even less energetic to transfer it to.



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Yes, in fact standing on the ground gives energy to it and it gives energy to you.


No. It doesn't. You are very wrong here. Energy is conserved. You receive no energy from a mechanical system if no work is being done on you. If you're just standing there, and the floor is pushing up on you just enough to keep you from going through it, the force is acting over no distance, no work is done, and no energy is transfered. Likewise, gravity is pulling on you with a constant force, but if you're not going anywhere with a downward component of motion, it is doing no work on you, and you're not storing or using up any energy in the gravitic field.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Right, energy is an immovable object and an unstoppable force. I said this earlier but you skipped over it in your haste to cruely convert me.


Not only did I not say anything remotely to that effect there, that's not even a meaningful phrase. As far as I can tell, you've just ripped some bland but popular phrase from bad religious philosophy and applied it, out of context, to energy because it sounds good. Energy is the capacity to apply a force to an object over a distance. It isn't when you're expending energy moving an object that the energy causes an unstoppable force over a distance. No. If the object were immovable, the force would act over no distance, and no energy would be used. "unstoppable until stopped" isn't meaningful.

I have no idea what's going through your head here. Energy is only an object in the sense that all mass can be theoretically exchanged for it at the rate of E=mc^2. Beyond that context, energy isn't' a "thing" at all. It is a state function that relates all kinds of phenomena that have the common property that they can be exchanged for other types of energy.

By the definitions YOU POSTED, energy and force aren't the same thing. they are related, but distinct phenomena.

And more importantly to the topic, by the definitions you posted, there's nothing odd about death.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
No that isn't what I'm saying. If you read that as the energy is actually removed from the universe, than I apologize for not being clear, but you can transform the energy to other, less useful types of energy, without ever creating a force. Radiating energy in the form of low level EM radiation that matches the intensity of the cosmic background radiation can be done, and you'll never get that energy back as anything that can ever be used again, unless you've got some hypothetical thing that's even less energetic to transfer it to.


Energy is recycled and can be used again and is used again and will be used again and has been used in the past; you can not destroy energy nor can you negate its properties.

Your apology is accepted and thank you for explaining in grander depth.



No. It doesn't. You are very wrong here. Energy is conserved. You receive no energy from a mechanical system if no work is being done on you.


There is always work being done on me and there is always work being done on everything else. There is no system where there is no work being done. This is a lie and a depression to science and the universe.


If you're just standing there, and the floor is pushing up on you just enough to keep you from going through it, the force is acting over no distance, no work is done, and no energy is transfered.


So you are making the direct claim that the force of gravity radiates from the outter surface of the Earth's crust and that there is 0 distance between me and the force of gravity while standing on the surface of the Earth? In this case there is 0 distance between me and the force of gravity no matter where I am as long as that force is touching me; even if I'm in the air... UNLESS the surface of the Earth is what creates gravity. That IS the claim you are making, I am asking you to be sure that you realize what you're saying and that it's really what you intend.


Likewise, gravity is pulling on you with a constant force, but if you're not going anywhere with a downward component of motion, it is doing no work on you, and you're not storing or using up any energy in the gravitic field.


And I am also pulling on gravity with a constant force and I am an indefinite object being pulled on by a constant; we could also call that constance death. You did not mention an upward component of motion. The gravitic field is what I am in and of while on Earth and energy that I am processing is being used and stored in this gravitic field. My body is one big chemical reaction, it is never stagnant.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Right, energy is an immovable object and an unstoppable force. I said this earlier but you skipped over it in your haste to cruely convert me.



because it sounds good.


Religious? No. (Though the argument could be made, I'm sure) Universal and physical? Yes. Because it sounds good? No.(although it may have appeal, but that's relative) Because it is logical? Yes.


Energy is the capacity to apply a force to an object over a distance.


Well, that's good. Now you're finally conceding that force is reliant on energy and that at the root of force is energy. Force gives energy and is ultimately a form and a source of energy. In this case we could call it gravity. Is gravity energetic? Yes. Does gravity give energy and is tapped into for use of energy and work? Yes.


It isn't when you're expending energy moving an object that the energy causes an unstoppable force over a distance.


The unstoppable force IS the immovable object. For if a thing can not be stopped then it certainly isn't moving, therefore it is also immovable. Unstoppable=immovable. What is this thing? Eternity. What is eternal? Energy. What is energy? The universe.

If you can't stop a thing it's because it never started and if you can't move a thing it's because it's unstoppable and unstartable; that thing is immeasurable, immeasurability is eternal, eternity is space and time, space and time is the universe and energy.


No. If the object were immovable, the force would act over no distance, and no energy would be used. "unstoppable until stopped" isn't meaningful.


Replied to above.


I have no idea what's going through your head here. Energy is only an object in the sense that all mass can be theoretically exchanged for it at the rate of E=mc^2. Beyond that context, energy isn't' a "thing" at all. It is a state function that relates all kinds of phenomena that have the common property that they can be exchanged for other types of energy.


So energy is nothing? Or when you say "not a thing at all", do you literally mean that, and you are saying that it is only a thing at unwhole? Can you prove this in any way, whether logically or physically. I'm just curious as to what you'll come up with.


By the definitions YOU POSTED, energy and force aren't the same thing. they are related, but distinct phenomena.


They are exactly the same thing, the ability to do work, yet there certainly are distinctions between energetic states, though they are all energy in this sense nonetheless.


And more importantly to the topic, by the definitions you posted, there's nothing odd about death.


Only that energy never terminates, yet bodily vessels do. I think there is everything odd about death, simultaneously nothing. I am not limited to this vessel, I am eternal universal knowledge, though I will surely die, my message will not.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


It seems you're the one with a misunderstanding. Force is not energy. Energy is not force. That's why we have two different words with different meanings to describe these different notions. They are not the same. It doesn't matter how much convoluted "logic" to try to combine the two, they are distinct.

Energy is what something possesses, forces is how that energy is transferred. If energy was force, how can something at rest still have energy? Surely it'd cancel itself out, or keep moving. And conversely, electric cable would be bouncing around the room because of all the energy going through it.

Your understanding of these two terms is what's getting you confused.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
If energy was force, how can something at rest still have energy?


No things are ever truly at rest, only relative to theirself. All things are always in motion and always consist of a form of energetic identity.

Relative to itself, a thing at rest has infinite energy.


Surely it'd cancel itself out, or keep moving. And conversely, electric cable would be bouncing around the room because of all the energy going through it.


Why?


Your understanding of these two terms is what's getting you confused.


I'm not confused, you can tell me otherwise, but it's not the truth. What's more important is understanding the THREE terms that I posted. I specifically underlined and bolded text that were important and showed interconnection, interrelation and energetic equality.

They are all energy, yet in differing forms and states. There are definitions in this thread on this page above. Please do see them. There are also now a number of posts that you can read through explaining why.


Energy is what something possesses, forces is how that energy is transferred.


Energy possesses force, therefore energy transfers force. If energy is what something possesses and energy possesses force, then energy possesses energy, and in this case that energy being possessed is force. That is going by your definition.

Work is also how energy is transferred. So now you're telling me that work and force are the same thing, therefore so is energy since energy is the capacity to do work.

Now this is not an insult, this is an honest inquisition. I am curious; how old are the both of you and what is your highest level of education?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


This is getting stupid. You are clearly confused as to the terms we're discussing. It'll be pointless to try to drag you back into the realm of reality, as you're already halfway towards planet Bizarro at ludicrous speed.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
This is getting stupid. You are clearly confused as to the terms we're discussing. It'll be pointless to try to drag you back into the realm of reality, as you're already halfway towards planet Bizarro at ludicrous speed.


Until you can prove anything that you're saying and stop making me your epicenter of jaundice and patronism (you can't because you can't really argue with the attributes of the universe and its workings) then we'll have a pleasant discussion. All you're doing now is showing your anger and frustration at your lack of ability to understand physics and someone that is well versed in it.

It is obvious so far that my understanding of physics, logic, existence and the universe are well beyond what you can allow yourself to comprehend. I'm just calling it the way that I see it, the way that it is.

See, when I have discussions with people I hear out their sides and agree when and where necessary and correct. You will never see me going around telling someone they are confused without being able to prove it, nor saying that a casual interlocution is stupid without proving it. When you can prove to me that I am the one with the terms confused and not yourself (which you won't be able to do because you are the one confused here) then I'll agree in deference. Until then there are definitions up higher on this page explaining to you what work is, what energy is and what force is and how they interact with one another and how they are interchangable and all actually contain each other's attributes.

This isn't a game about me Vs. you, this is an exchange of information about the universe. If you can leave this me vs. you mindset then we can probably move forward.

And one more time. I'm not confused. So please stop saying this. (and go read the definitions already!)

[edit on 23-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Only that energy never terminates, yet bodily vessels do. I think there is everything odd about death, simultaneously nothing. I am not limited to this vessel, I am eternal universal knowledge, though I will surely die, my message will not.

This is your problem, where you are, in fact, somehow confused. Bodies, or at least the energy they contain, does not "terminate."

Basically, there's all sort of energy in your body, kinetic, potential, you know the drill. The reason your body runs is because it takes energy from what you eat. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugars, which run through glycolysis, the krebs cycle, and aerobic respiration.

Through this, you're making adenosine 5' triphosphate. ATP. This is the fundamental unit of energy, that is, potential energy stored within the molecular bonds, that your body uses.

Your body is filled with chemical energy stored within the bonds of your molecules, between atoms. When you die, glycolysis, the krebs cycle, and aerobic respiration cease; you stop digesting food; you stop producing energy. What's left of your body, in chemical potential energy, is broken down; decomposed.
 



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
This is your problem, where you are, in fact, somehow confused. Bodies, or at least the energy they contain, does not "terminate."


That's what I said, here it is one more time since you must have missed it?


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Only that energy never terminates,


See, so there is no problem and again I am not confused. When I said bodily vessels terminate, I was speaking of the morphology that occurs after death. The energy that composes our vessels is eternal, yes, but our vessels do not keep their forms forever. So perhaps I should have said the "form of our vessel terminates". My mistake for not being clear enough the first time if that IS how you took it and it wasn't just a misread on your part.


...What's left of your body, in chemical potential energy, is broken down; decomposed.


Thank you for the rest, I'm sure it will serve as a guide post for others who come along or that have been sticking around as of late


[edit on 23-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
If you only take physics and exclude Chemistry it wouldn't make sense, you have to look at it from all perspectives.
wtf am i saying lol



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
I don't see how death makes any sense within the laws of physics. We are energy in state of decoherence. So how does your energy die? In order to show that we die you would have to prove 2 things within the laws of physics.

A) That energy can die.

B) That your something other than energy.

If you can't counter these 2 things within the laws of physics, then how can you say we die?

You can say death is an experience just like getting married or having a child but you can't say that our energy doesn't survive the experience of death. That doesn't make sense in light of the laws of physics.


A) dying refers to the death of the medium, not the death of the energy. with the medium no longer capable of holding the energy, the energy gets transferred (aka ghosts, heaven, hell... whatever school of thought you subscribe to)

B) our bodies now are just mediums for the energy. granted that they are really cool and intricate mediums. but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. see answer A.





top topics
 
11
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join