It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

If all matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration .....

page: 2
6
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 05:53 AM

Belcastro
And energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed as in the first law of thermo dynamics,
How could a god have created anything if its impossible to create something out of nothing?

You have a false assumption in there: that it's impossible to create something out of nothing.

It's impossible for US to create something out of nothing, but we're bound by the laws of the universe.
God wouldn't be - He's outside of those things: outside of time, outside of the physical realm, outside of the laws and boundaries that we live within.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:04 AM

ChaoticOrder
Einstein told us that "mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing".

And you'll note that he didn't say "mass and energy are the same thing". He's right - the manifestations are different. Very different. You can interchange the two, but they aren't co-identical.

Even your examples bear this out - momentum converted to mass, binding energy converted to mass. You're right. You can convert between the two, but they're not the same thing. E=mc^2 gives you the going exchange rate for the conversion. Pennies, dollars.

If I have enough pennies in the right place at the right time, I can convert them to bubble gum. Bubble gum isn't pennies and doesn't have any inside, but I can convert the gum back to pennies, and the pennies to dollars. As long as I don't chew it first. In this metaphor, Einstein's talking about value. Value is the thing that bubble gum and pennies are manifestations of. You can interchange gum and pennies, and both are examples of value, but gum is not pennies and pennies are not gum.

To be sure, there are a lot of philosophers and physics on various sides of the issue. I tend to be a Rindler-ist. They are different, and conversion is possible. Others say they are always different and never convert, others say they are always the same and it's a perceptual thing. But they all have inconsistencies and internal inconsistencies, IMHO Rindler has the fewest.

edit on 8-2-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:22 PM

Cosmos works in mysterious ways , Pilgrim. And you never know 'till you know .

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:37 PM

Awen24

Belcastro
And energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed as in the first law of thermo dynamics,
How could a god have created anything if its impossible to create something out of nothing?

You have a false assumption in there: that it's impossible to create something out of nothing.

It's impossible for US to create something out of nothing, but we're bound by the laws of the universe.
God wouldn't be - He's outside of those things: outside of time, outside of the physical realm, outside of the laws and boundaries that we live within.

Yup he is outside of reality but inside of your imagination.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 05:31 PM
The only way i can think of something coming from nothing is natures first pattern,
And that in the beggining there was only imagination,

but max planck had said "There is no matter as such; all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of an atom together. We must assume behind this force is a conscious and intelligent mind; this mind is the matrix of all matter."

So in my own theory everything is a figment of gods imagination.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:10 PM

You're right. You can convert between the two, but they're not the same thing.

Correct, they are not the same exact thing, they are different representations/manifestations of the same thing. Pennies, dollars, nickels, it's all fundementally money. Everything is just energy in one form or another. Matter is simply one type of energy. The form is irrelevant, it's still fundamentally a type of energy which can be converted into other types of energy.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:01 PM

Not according to Rindler, or the majority of other theorists. Mass does no work, for instance. It also does not propagate. A proton can sit there until the end of the universe doing nothing one can point to as being characteristic of energy. One could say that all energy is a form of mass with more evidence.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:44 PM

Bedlam

Not according to Rindler, or the majority of other theorists. Mass does no work, for instance. It also does not propagate. A proton can sit there until the end of the universe doing nothing one can point to as being characteristic of energy.

That's because matter is typically a stable container of energy. Just because it is not constantly doing some type of work doesn't mean it doesn't contain the capacity to do work. A drum of oil could sit idle for a very long time without doing anything interesting, but that doesn't mean it contains no energy capable of doing work. It's just in a stable state and it holds that energy until it needs to be used for doing some type of work.

One could say that all energy is a form of mass with more evidence.

I would say that is true, all energy exerts a mass and has an affect on space time, that is what Einstein's equations say. Even a photon has a relativistic mass even though it has no rest mass, because it has a momentum and that gives it some energy and therefore some type of mass. This is just another example of how everything is energy in one form or another.
edit on 8/2/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 08:25 PM

ChaoticOrder
This is just another example of how everything is energy in one form or another.

Nay, nay, Pauline! It's an example of how everything is mass in one form or another!

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:05 AM

Pardon the pun, but binary 101:

I am one, I see nothing.
If I copy myself, I see 1.
If we copy ourselves, I see 3.
If we copy ourselves, I see 7.
If we copy ourselves, I see 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511, 1023...

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 08:34 AM

He's outside of those things: outside of time, outside of the physical realm, outside of the laws and boundaries that we live within.

So then what special hearing ear/sound convertor does IT (he???) use to listen to your prayers? I mean there must be some form of sound wave/thought wave/translator needed?

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 08:39 AM

You as a living flesh and blood thing are part of my imagination right now. I mean I dont have conclusive proof that you are human and not some computer software code typing away.

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 08:50 AM

Mass does no work

"The amount of gravity that something possesses is proportional to its mass and distance between it and another object."

Defn of work
"work-applying a force to an object and the object moving in the direction the force is applied"

Ah but then you will bring in gravitons,
however...

"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless"

god how I love
riddles physics and metaphysics

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:34 PM

Belcastro
And energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed as in the first law of thermo dynamics,
How could a god have created anything if its impossible to create something out of nothing?

Interesting...

we've been discussing this phenom here:

"Out of Nothing comes Something"

Or:

"Out of something infinite comes something/everything"

Which fits the facts?

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:20 PM
I may just be adding to the confusion here, but perhaps I can help out by contributing some words from StormCloudsGathering.

" Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is concept was established by Einsteins equation E = Mc2 and has been confirmed by numerous experiments. Therefore energy has always existed, and will always exist, this means that our current concept of time where everything has a beginning and and end is false. If we follow this line of reasoning it should be obvious that any scientific theory that describes the origins of the universe is not actually describing the origin of energy, but rather of one particular expression of that energy. The big bang theory traces this universe to a timeless and motionless state called the singularity. Since the singularity is timeless it cannot be talked about as before or after anything. If something exists but is not before or after anything then it is now. Therefore the singularity is now. Again energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore all of the energy in existence is present in the singularity. Time and space are one fabric, you cannot have one without the other. This is a basic premise of modern physics. There is no time in the singularity, therefore there is no space in the singularity. Without space and time there can be no separation or individuation. Therefore energy cannot be separated from the singularity, it cannot be broken up or divided in any way. It is a unified, monolithic field, with no boundaries. This is the eternal and omnipresent root of the universe. And yet the relative universe exists, separation and individuation exist. How do we reconcile this? How can two people sit down and have a conversation if they are both expressions of the same indivisible field of energy? A good way to conceptualize this is to use the metaphor of a video game on your computer. The characters in the game are all running on the same hardware, their spacial separation is illusory, and their time based interactions are expressions of preexisting probabilities. It is the encoding of time that creates the possibility of interaction both in a video game and in the real world. In the video game that that code of time is stored with all the probabilities and possible outcomes coexisting on a disk, in the real world the code of time with all the probabilities and possible outcomes resides in the singularity. This does not imply a deterministic existence where our lives are predetermined and free choice is impossible. Such a concept operates from an erroneous view of causality. All probabilities, all possible outcomes coexist in one moment, but in each moment we choose from those probabilities and our lives are expressions of these choices. These choices aren't always rational or constructive, but this is due largely to a distorted view of who we are. If rather than viewing ourselves as strictly isolated individuals at odds with the outside world we viewed ourselves as part of a single unified field of existence, how might that change the way we interact? How would we treat others if we understood that everything we do to them we are actually doing ourselves? Think about it."

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:45 PM
I like to think of it all like this....our brains are just not complex and smart enough to understand some things..just as an ant could never understand calculus......we can't answer everything because we arent smart enough
Thumbs down humans....

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:24 PM

It's impossible to add or subtract energy from this x-dimensional universe WHILE INSIDE IT.

God is beyond the universe, and thus beyond its "laws."

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:22 AM

coldkidc
I think a better question is how did anything come into existence if there was at some point nothing?

To me it suggests that there must have always been "something"...perhaps it was God.

what was before God, nothing ; how did God come out of nothing ??

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 10:12 AM

edmc^2

Belcastro
And energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed as in the first law of thermo dynamics,
How could a god have created anything if its impossible to create something out of nothing?

Interesting...

we've been discussing this phenom here:

"Out of Nothing comes Something"

Or:

"Out of something infinite comes something/everything"

Which fits the facts?

i think our discussion was more opinion based. as science expands it leaves less room for God to exist. in the 1500s we thought the universe revolved around the earth, where will science have taken us 500 years from now

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:14 PM

jed001

edmc^2

Belcastro
And energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed as in the first law of thermo dynamics,
How could a god have created anything if its impossible to create something out of nothing?

Interesting...

we've been discussing this phenom here:

"Out of Nothing comes Something"

Or:

"Out of something infinite comes something/everything"

Which fits the facts?

i think our discussion was more opinion based. as science expands it leaves less room for God to exist. in the 1500s we thought the universe revolved around the earth, where will science have taken us 500 years from now

"Opinion based" on what?

Reality or imagination?

As for science, it's a magnificent tool for understanding how things work but alas - that's about its limit.

It can't go beyond like I said in in the post the question of WHY.

top topics

6