If the human mind survives death, then you will eventually embrace a god

NorEaster:

Let's go with definition #1. 1. the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy.

No. let's not! 'Capacity for vigorous activity' relates to potential energy; 'available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy' relates to potential energy transforming to chemical energy transforming to thermal energy. All are the child-like definitions of different manifestations of energy, but none describe what energy itself is, because no one knows. Energy is not the property of something else. To think in those terms puts one in the absurd position of an infinity chain, always asking of what property is the first cause?

Kinetic energy is the energy possessed by mass in motion. It exists only as a result of a physical mass having gained it as the mass itself accelerated to a given velocity.

Here is where you are showing your misunderstanding of physics interpretations. You have part of it right in a sort of roundabout way. What you should be saying is:"Kinectic energy is the transform of a force acquired by a mass placed into motion from rest, or had its path of motion redirected to another path. No mass accelerates itself. It's essential you understand this, so I'll explain it for you.

Any object (mass) at rest will remain at rest until some force or other object already in motion acts upon it. In order for a force or an object already in motion to act upon an object at rest and place it into motion, both the force and the moving object have to overcome the object at rest's inertia (the object's tendency to remain at rest).

When a force begins to act upon an object at rest, the object at rest resists the initial impulse to motion by responding with an equal but opposite force. This is Newton's 3rd law, and it is also where we get physicality from. It is the reason why we cannot walk through walls, for instance, because we meet with the opposite force pushing back at us. The denser the atomic structure the stronger the resistive force. With air and water, the molecules are less packed and simply flow around our bodies.

If the force acting upon the object is strong enough, it will compell the object into some form of motion. The object acquires some of the velocity of the force and begins to move. It is this transferance of velocity between the force or the object in motion to the object at rest that is the acquisition of kinectic energy by the object at rest. The object at rest now placed in motion is accelerated to a speed in proportion to the velocity and speed of the force or object already in motion, but the force or object already in motion will themselves lose some of their own velocity and speed, and gain an increase in their own inertia, ensuring the conservation of energy.

It exists only as a direct result of mass and matter. How could it exist before the existence of mass and matter?

Kinetic energy is simply the energy of motion working against inertia in any environment. You don't need matter having mass for the existence of kinetic energy. The neutrino has no mass but most certainly has kinectic energy. The idea that pre-Big Bang was nothing but kinectic energy is not that far-fetched at all. The mechanism by which kinetic energy halved into matter with mass, could be due to kinetic flow patterns converging upon themselves at some singularity point, causing a gravitational squeezing and increasing the kinectic velocity to collosal pressures and then exploding out in thermal energy from which matter with mass was born as the thermal energy cooled?

Originally posted by elysiumfire
NorEaster:

Let's go with definition #1. 1. the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy.

No. let's not! 'Capacity for vigorous activity' relates to potential energy; 'available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy' relates to potential energy transforming to chemical energy transforming to thermal energy. All are the child-like definitions of different manifestations of energy, but none describe what energy itself is, because no one knows. Energy is not the property of something else. To think in those terms puts one in the absurd position of an infinity chain, always asking of what property is the first cause?

Take it up with Webster. I didn't write the dictionary.

Kinetic energy is the energy possessed by mass in motion. It exists only as a result of a physical mass having gained it as the mass itself accelerated to a given velocity.

Here is where you are showing your misunderstanding of physics interpretations. You have part of it right in a sort of roundabout way. What you should be saying is:"Kinectic energy is the transform of a force acquired by a mass placed into motion from rest, or had its path of motion redirected to another path. No mass accelerates itself. It's essential you understand this, so I'll explain it for you.

Any object (mass) at rest will remain at rest until some force or other object already in motion acts upon it. In order for a force or an object already in motion to act upon an object at rest and place it into motion, both the force and the moving object have to overcome the object at rest's inertia (the object's tendency to remain at rest).

When a force begins to act upon an object at rest, the object at rest resists the initial impulse to motion by responding with an equal but opposite force. This is Newton's 3rd law, and it is also where we get physicality from. It is the reason why we cannot walk through walls, for instance, because we meet with the opposite force pushing back at us. The denser the atomic structure the stronger the resistive force. With air and water, the molecules are less packed and simply flow around our bodies.

If the force acting upon the object is strong enough, it will compell the object into some form of motion. The object acquires some of the velocity of the force and begins to move. It is this transferance of velocity between the force or the object in motion to the object at rest that is the acquisition of kinectic energy by the object at rest. The object at rest now placed in motion is accelerated to a speed in proportion to the velocity and speed of the force or object already in motion, but the force or object already in motion will themselves lose some of their own velocity and speed, and gain an increase in their own inertia, ensuring the conservation of energy.

Not at all relevant. What's relevant is that kinetic energy doesn't exist without the presence of mass and matter. There are many ways that force can be applied to accelerate an object and give it kinetic energy. You claimed that kinetic energy existed prior to the existence of mass and matter. I said it couldn't have. It's as simple as that.

It exists only as a direct result of mass and matter. How could it exist before the existence of mass and matter?

Kinetic energy is simply the energy of motion working against inertia in any environment. You don't need matter having mass for the existence of kinetic energy. The neutrino has no mass but most certainly has kinectic energy.

"All evidence suggests that neutrinos have mass but that their mass is tiny even by the standards of subatomic particles." You need to try looking up the stuff you post to see if what you're posting is true before you post it.

The idea that pre-Big Bang was nothing but kinectic energy is not that far-fetched at all. The mechanism by which kinetic energy halved into matter with mass, could be due to kinetic flow patterns converging upon themselves at some singularity point, causing a gravitational squeezing and increasing the kinectic velocity to collosal pressures and then exploding out in thermal energy from which matter with mass was born as the thermal energy cooled?

You're trying to place gravity within a confluence that includes a singularity point, when the whole concept of a singularity point contradicts the concept of confluence (being based on a relative contextual assemblage) - let alone the fact that gravity itself is inherently relative as a force; depending on factors that can only exist within a Relative Being State. Nothing in your statement makes sense with itself. It's just a jumble of non sequiturs. I'd slap my tutor if I were you.

NorEaster:

I'd slap my tutor if I were you.

Yeah, I'd slap your tutor as well!

What's relevant is that kinetic energy doesn't exist without the presence of mass and matter.

The principle I am stating with kinetic energy is that it does not require either matter or mass to exist. Kinetic energy is a fundamental property of energy, describing energy's form of motion (or -kinesis), and not just its transference between objects.

Nano seconds after the 'Big Bang' the thermal energy (which is kinetic energy and probably the most fundamental form) was so great that no matter could exist, and thus energy could not be contained as mass. The thermal energy had to cool before matter could come into existence. Kinetic energy existed before matter in the form of thermal energy! This rebuts your claim that kinetic energy can only exist in the presence of matter and mass.

What form energy had before the Big Bang is open to speculation and investigation, but as matter did not exist before the Big Bang, we can safely speculate with a fair degree of accuracy that energy was not conserved as mass, but still exhibited some form of motion...a kinesis?

The cooling of the thermal energy of the Big Bang allowed matter to form with discrete quantities of mass, and as the cooling trend continued, it allowed the different forms (expressions) of kinetic energy to arise. Of course, in our everyday macro-world, we are concerned with energy's relation to matter and mass, but in the micro-world of quanta, the relation changes slightly.

The cause of the Big Bang was probably due to an 'exclusionary principle' coming into effect arising out of a change in homogeneity to heterogeneity? Matter did not exist before Big Bang, so a cause for the thermal initiation and expansion has to be hypothetically postulated to account for it. Regarding this, one has to ask the question on energy's motion, was it uniform (homogeneity)? If it was, we have to come up with a cause that upset this stasis by introducing non-uniformity (heterogeneity).

Non-uniformity is required in order to gain a reaction as initiator to the thermal expansion for the Big Bang into the Void. However, there wasn’t ‘nothing’ in absolute terms, there had to be ‘something’? That ‘something’ was swirling energy in a non-expressible form that was itself the Void? This is how I currently visualize the pre-Big Bang condition.

The Void was a homogenous Vortex of swirling energy, but within this one swirling Vortex, smaller separate vortices would spontaneously arise and dissipate back into the Vortex, overcome by the Vortexes’ overall swirling velocity. At some point, a spontaneously arisen vortex (or vortices) lasted long enough to be driven toward a central focus of the Vortex, and once positioned there changed the flow pattern of energy directing it inwards and down towards a point of singularity. Within this flow pattern gravity came into being driving increasing pressure at the point of singularity focus and initiated the thermal expansion, the Big Bang, annihilating the Vortex.

All evidence suggests that neutrinos have mass but that their mass is tiny even by the standards of subatomic particles.

I am quite aware of the issue regarding the mass of the neutrino, and as of yet, no one has been able to measure it. Admittedly, it was a clumsy example as it does interact with the ‘weak force’ of the W minus, W plus, and Z bosons. I was going to use the photon which is a mass-less particle, but for some reason opted for the neutrino. I’ll give you that one.

You're trying to place gravity within a confluence that includes a singularity point...

I’m using the term singularity as a point of focus where pressure driven by gravitational force could build up and from which thermal expansion could initiate. Before the Big Bang there were no spatial vectors, one had to be created from which the expansion could occur.

reply to post by elysiumfire


Apparently, the field of science doesn't agree with you. I'm going to leave it at that.

Maybe you've got a breakthrough tucked in there somewhere?

reply to post by NorEaster


Wow, NorEaster! Well said!

NightGypsy:

Wow, NorEaster! Well said!

As a concession, it is a poor way to leave.