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.

 

Energy never dies

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I was reading that energy never dies it just changes form. Since humans are made up of alot of energy does that mean we never die? Maybe our 'spirits' are our bodies left over energy after we die? Please help me out!




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Energy may not die, but it can dissipate...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
energy don't die and can't be killed

it transform



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Indeed the fundamental laws of science tell us this, and therefore whether we go on or not afterward, our energy will go on, similar to the Egyptian belief in the KA.

I happen to believe consciousness is non local and thus the possibility is included in my train of though that in fact we may go on in some form at the end.

Time will tell hehe.

On a related note, you may find the book, '___' THE SPIRIT MOLECULE, to be very intersting.^__^



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Ok you asked about this in relation to spirit. Here I shall elaborate on my theory.


Energy = MC^2

That means that everything that exists, is energy.

There is nothing that is not energy.

Therefore if "Spirit" exists, it MUST BE Energy also!

But Everything = Energy

This means that Everything = Spirit = Energy

So, all things in existence are Spirit.

Because if "Spirit" exists, it HAS to be "Energy" which is the basic component of all things in existence.

See where I am going with this??



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, that's interesting...I believe the following is correct:

Energy = MC^2
That means that everything that exists, is energy.
There is nothing that is not energy.
Therefore if "Spirit" exists, it MUST BE Energy also!

However, I believe sentient beings posses an immortal soul which is a direct result of their sentience. I believe this spirit/soul is essentially your essence, your mind, or the hub of your consciousness if you will, able to operate without a physical brain to process information, a pure and immortal being...most people would call it a light being, a shimmering being of energy as Bob Dean says...I believe these beings (if they exist) are essentially the same thing as a soul/spirit, they've just evolved into past the need for a physical body, and were probably born as a pure energy being, instead of dying and becoming one...

[edit on 2/5/10 by CHA0S]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Energy isn't alive so of course it can't die. The energy in our bodies is caused by chemical reactions and interactions but all of our bodies are slowly breaking down (entropy). When the reactions cease the energy ceases.

At least that's how it works from a scientific point of view, no one knows for sure whether death is the end of consciousness. Those of us who have experienced the paranormal usually think it has something to do with humans and their afterlife but what if some other phenomenon were at work? We must be willing to put our quaint superstitions on the shelf if we want to find the truth about the paranormal.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
how does this play into the theory that we may be living inside of a very advanced computer simulation?!

I have the feeling that we choose to come here, to forget our past, to learn more.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Well... I believe us humans live from the energy nature provides us with, by consuming and transforming other forms of energy.

Our energies get consumed bu maggots and worms which the energy source for insects and small mammals and bird.

All the way up the foodchain energy gets transformed, eventualy ending up in our dinner.

This energy is consumed by the cells in our body that use it to repair and reproduce.
If energy does not die or fade out I suppose it means that it's an infinite system.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
I was reading that energy never dies it just changes form. Since humans are made up of alot of energy does that mean we never die? Maybe our 'spirits' are our bodies left over energy after we die? Please help me out!


Energy's not alive to begin with, therefore there's no way for it to die. The terms "death" and "energy" are not applicable to each other.

When you die, there are all sorts of "energy" that remain in your body, chemical and thermal are the biggest, probably, unless you die in midair or on the top of a cliff or something, then you've also got kinetic and potential energy, but I digress.

The thermal energy dissipates into the environment as you assume room temperature, and the chemical energy is generally consumed by bugs, dingoes, worms and whatnot, as you are recycled into the circle of life.

"You" are a phenomena that is likely stored in neural weights and interconnections in your brain, and when you die, the neurons quit working. It's sort of like asking "where does the music go when I stop the CD" - the music is a phenomena of the data patterned on the CD, but it doesn't exist there. When you die, it's like hitting the stop button. It's not a matter of energy, what you consider "you" has become unstructured.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar
Indeed the fundamental laws of science tell us this, and therefore whether we go on or not afterward, our energy will go on, similar to the Egyptian belief in the KA.


This is another one of those threads based around confusion caused by conflating spiritual concepts and physics terms. You are using "energy" here to mean "spirit", or "soul" as best I can tell, because New agers often do.

Then you try to conflate "energy", not in a physics definition usage, with the first law of thermodynamics, where energy is used as a physics term, and you end up with a dog's breakfast sort of concept.

The fundamental law of science you quote does not use "energy" in the same way you are using it. Therefore, it doesn't apply to "energy" used as a synonym for "soul", they're talking about "the capacity to do work", not "ka".



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Ok you asked about this in relation to spirit. Here I shall elaborate on my theory.


Energy = MC^2

That means that everything that exists, is energy.

There is nothing that is not energy.

Therefore if "Spirit" exists, it MUST BE Energy also!


No. It means that matter (that's the M part) has an energy equivalence, if converted to energy. It doesn't mean that matter IS energy. In a similar way, a dollar is equal to 100 pennies. ($=100p). I can cut up a dollar, and it won't spill out pennies. There are no pennies IN that dollar! Wow, how can my equation $=100p be true then? Well, in some transactions, the dollar will be converted to pennies by the transaction. Similarly, in some operations in physics, you will see matter vanish and the system will gain energy at a rate defined by E=MC^2. But the matter didn't "contain" the energy anymore than dollars contain pennies.

I would debate that spirit does NOT exist, but if it did, then if it is matter, it will have an energetic equivalence. However, I would suspect you will say it isn't material. Therefore it may not be energy, nor may it have an energetic equivalence. Until you can dump some spirit on a table and define its characteristics, you can't really stick it into a meaningful physics statement.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam


No. It means that matter (that's the M part) has an energy equivalence, if converted to energy. It doesn't mean that matter IS energy.


Go take a physics course before you open your mouth.

You are 100% wrong.

ALL MATTER IS ENERGY. FACT.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I've taken enough to get a masters in it. FACT.

Matter is not energy. Matter can be converted to energy.

Hell, energy can be converted to matter, as well. Happens all the time, if the conditions are right.

edit: you may be confused by the "M", which does not stand for "matter", but for "mass". Mass and energy can be viewed as equivalent. Energy has mass, mass has energy, matter has mass (usually) but matter is not energy. Matter has an energy equivalence, energy has a matter equivalence, and that equivalence rotates around the mass of each that you have.

edit ps: I was sort of sloppy by equating matter and mass in the previous post, but I generally don't expect to get into definitional quibbles with other physics guys on here now that Neon Haze doesn't post anymore, it comes off as pedantic

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a very cursery look at a black-hole would make you revise your hypothesis...

certain energies are trapped in a black-hole while higher energies are released in those energy beams excaping from the objects poles
which we see as Jets of gas/energy/gamma rays etc.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio


a very cursery look at a black-hole would make you revise your hypothesis...

certain energies are trapped in a black-hole while higher energies are released in those energy beams excaping from the objects poles
which we see as Jets of gas/energy/gamma rays etc.




Actually, once the matter is inside the event horizon, it doesn't come back out. Ever. The jets are coming from matter that is in the accretion disk.

And there are no "higher energies", if by that you're trying to ring in some metaphysical term. Energy is energy, just in different forms.

You can actually form a singularity from energy alone, no matter required, if you have enough energy in a volume of space. Wheeler calls a hole of this type a "kugelblitz".

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
how does this play into the theory that we may be living inside of a very advanced computer simulation?!


A really bright guy named Frederick Kantor wrote a book on that in the 70's, where he derives a physics framework around "information mechanics" that's held up fairly well over the years.

You can get a copy of "Information Mechanics" by Kantor, used, on amazon for about 20 bucks. It's pretty thick reading but it's interesting.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I've read somewhere a theory about matter.

It stated that all energy is effected by frequency and matter was energy at a very low frequency.

Do you know something about it ?

Are you open to alternative theories ?
Or do you think your master in physics what includes a lot of theories is the absolute truth.

Always good to know if I search for an explanation.

Oh... About black holes.
They are only recently considered proven to exist. Before this it was a theory. Still they have only seen the effects a black hole is supposed to have on it's surroundings.
Is there any proof of this or are the observations just what the equations say they should be.
Can you tell me how you know the energy from the energy beams comes from the accretion disc and not from the black hole itself ?

Edit.
Sorry for all the questions. It's just... I'm really curious.


[edit on 5/2/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I've read somewhere a theory about matter.

It stated that all energy is effected by frequency and matter was energy at a very low frequency.

Do you know something about it ?


I know from the way it's phrased, you probably read it in some new age thread. "Frequency" has a pretty strict meaning in physics, and this doesn't really make "physics sense" the way it's worded.

Some types of energy HAVE frequencies, like, say, electromagnetic energy. But the frequency of it isn't an aspect of "massiness". New agers tend to use "frequency", as far as I can tell, to mean a sort of "perfection". That's not at ALL how physics uses it. So I could imagine some mystically oriented guy misusing the term and saying that "less perfect" i.e. "low frequency" energy was matter.

Not the case at all.

Actually, in the case of electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the higher the energy of the photon. If you have a high enough energy (for em that corresponds to frequency, mind you), you can actually get that EM wave to transform into matter, if you also have a really abrupt electric field gradient for the photon to interact with, generally in the vicinity of a nucleus, although you can also do it with an electron in some circumstances. So if you want to consider it that way, you have to have a very HIGH frequency (in the physics sense) for EM energy to convert to matter.



Are you open to alternative theories ?
Or do you think your master in physics what includes a lot of theories is the absolute truth.

Always good to know if I search for an explanation.


I'm open to alternative theories, but theories in the physics sense, less so in the metaphysical sense. A good physics theory has to pass a lot of gates before it's more than a conjecture. You might find, for instance, that Kaluza Klein 5 dimensional space theory can generate Einstein's field equations or Maxwell's equations, great! That's tough to do. But then it fails under some weird invariance issue under rotation or predicts infinite mass for certain particles or something, and there you go. Generally the math gets way more arcane than I can follow - I'm not great with tensor calculus and the theoretical guys kick sand in my face at the beach. If I ever get that doctorate, it'll be in a practical physics, probably specializing in acoustics, which is looked down on by real physicists. Except by the Navy.

On the other hand, if your alternate theory is something that includes tings like "etheric vibration" and "spirits from the fourth density" then no, I don't swing that way. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to find some way to prove the existence of aether, but too many years as a comm theory guy shows me that the math for transverse waves works every time.



Oh... About black holes.
They are only recently considered proven to exist. Before this it was a theory. Still they have only seen the effects a black hole is supposed to have on it's surroundings.
Is there any proof of this or are the observations just what the equations say they should be.


Well, you can't actually ever see the hole, so you will only see the effects it has on its surroundings. The thing goes all the way back to the late 1700's, after Newton determined the basic formula for gravity and people were starting to get a rough clue of the speed of light. You can actually get a pretty good value for the amount of mass required just by calculating an escape velocity at the speed of light and working backwards. Even though it's a Newtonian solution for a relativistic problem, it's not that far off.

And actually, having the observations match what the equations say they should be is a real proof that you're onto something, at least that your model works for that set of conditions. It's when you make up something, call it a theory, and then test it and it fails miserably that you don't have a theory. At least not a real one.



Can you tell me how you know the energy from the energy beams comes from the accretion disc and not from the black hole itself ?


Nothing (other than a Mach object) exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum. By definition, the black hole's escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Therefore, no energy can escape it.

Matter emits electromagnetic radiation, once that matter is moving fast enough, or it gets hot enough. That's where you get the accretion disk radiation, it can't HELP but emit EM - the infall energy of a black hole is ginormous.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join