Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 12
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
=.
Somebody says: The law of energy conservation
There isnt such law in physics. There is
' The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass.'
=.
The Law of preservation and transformation of energy/ mass
is a law about a symmetry and asymmetry in the Nature.

If somebody think that , The Law of preservation
and transformation of energy/ mass is a simple
bookkeeping calculation of debit-credit he is mistaken.
It is a primitive judgment about one of the most
important Law in Nature. It is merchants opinion.
Why?
Because on the one hand the bookkeeping calculation
of debit-credit is a symmetry law. ( like 1$ is 100 cents )
But on the other hand the life in the Universe begins with
disturb of symmetry.
The occurrence of Life in the Universe is connected not with
symmetry, but with breaking of symmetry.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
( It means 1$ is not equal to 100 cents.)
Here the effect of transformation appears.
===============.
If somebody takes only one part of the whole law (preservation)
and ignore the second part of it (transformation) then he is falsifier.
=.

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
socratus, you are using terms such as 'flat universe' and 'symmetry breaking' as if you believe you understand them. Moreover, you seem to be attempting to reinvent physics and the universe to fit some peculiar personal fantasy and mythology. To any inquiring mind curious to know what these things really mean, I'd earnestly recommend that (1) they totally disregard your posts and (2) study a range of reputable sources (easily accessible on the net). Perhaps your own time might be better spent on asking questions of authoritative sources and paying careful heed to the answers. Please do the world of science education a favour and quit spewing forth these endless streams of garbage and misinformation.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Unfortunately Socratus what redewenur says is how anyone in science will view you. I suspect it is because your physics understanding is incomplete, inaccurate and very old or outdated.

Repeating easily identifiable scientific errors is plain just annoying and sometimes leads to you people getting upset, abusing you or getting you banned from forums which you have been on a great number.

The law of conservation of energy is nothing more than a bookkeeping function is a science fact.

WHY?

Because there is no explaination for why the law should exist and by definition at science it can not be more than that if it offers no understanding.

We had a law of gravity which we had no understanding of why it worked until recently that lead to the discovery of the higgs particle.

So gravity over the next years of research will move from nothing more than a bookkeeping function to something we understand and can make extreme predictions with.

PREDICTION

Prediction is what comes from understanding being able to isolate weird and unusual things that would not be obvious without the specific knowledge.

Until we understand the law of conservation it is nothing more than a bookkeeping law that we believe to be true.


So now we come to your errors or undecipherables in this post

Originally Posted By: socratus

But on the other hand the life in the Universe begins with
disturb of symmetry.

The occurrence of Life in the Universe is connected not with
symmetry, but with breaking of symmetry.


For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".


Discuss the logic and evidence for these statement because thats just mindless science jargon to me that makes no sense.

"symmetry" ... symmetry of what?

I am happy to be a falsifier, the devil and any other title you choose to give me but unfortunately it won't change the fact that many of your posts are totally undecipherable rubbish.

Edit: Ethan put up a relatively layman friendly version of science view of the early universe so I provide the link

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/27/say-something-smart/

You will note he deals with conservation of energy in a very matter of fact way it is just a bookkeeping function

Quote:

As the Universe expands, the amount of stuff the number of protons, neutrons, electrons, and photons remains constant, while the volume of the Universe increases. The density of both matter and radiation drops, but not at the same rate.


You might also notice he kills the infinite universe without really explaining its just reported as a fact.

What was funny is he commited a no no and changed reference frames and mathematics in simplifying the problem down when he made this statement

Quote:

But the photons the particles of light also have their wavelength stretched, which means they get redshifted and lose energy


He just violated the conservation of energy :-)

The frames of reference issues and the mathematics problem for light in space is well known and always leads to lively debate ... I did laugh the QM fringe are going to tear him apart.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...-optics-dilemma

Last edited by Orac; 08/29/12 01:21 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
to fit some peculiar personal fantasy and mythology






Quote:
Please do the world of science education a favour and quit spewing forth these endless streams of garbage and misinformation.


practice what you preach is another famous quote.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...1ac.vV2evN7lF_w

you guys seem to enjoy discrediting people with your garbage.
one mans garbage is another mans treasure I suppose.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
some people call other people retarded on this forum.
some people just make it clear.

Quote:
The law of conservation of energy is nothing more than a bookkeeping function is a science fact.

WHY?

Because there is no explaination for why the law should exist and by definition at science it can not be more than that if it offers no understanding.

We had a law of gravity which we had no understanding of why it worked until recently that lead to the discovery of the higgs particle.

So gravity over the next years of research will move from nothing more than a bookkeeping function to something we understand and can make extreme predictions with.


We had a law of gravity

and how long will it be before we can say

We had a law of conservation of energy!



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Socratus
But on the other hand the life in the Universe begins with disturb of symmetry.

The occurrence of Life in the Universe is connected not with
symmetry, but with breaking of symmetry.


I admit I usually just skim the rambling animadversions of some posters, often including those of Socratus, but perhaps I might have a go at unravelling this bit, just to see if I have grasped the underlying intent.

If one assumes that life on Earth is the only life in the Universe, then it follows that the Universe developed for billions of years without life. During that time it followed the laws that govern the development of inanimate matter. This following of natural laws may be seen as a symmetry.

Life does not follow this long established set of laws, so the arrival of life disrupted the ordered flow (symmetry) of the Universe by introducing something new and different.

Socratus, please tell me if I have missed the point.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
There is something I need to clarify, for my own understanding of the situation.

It is proposed that because the Universe has no net energy (+ve = -ve energy) no energy had to be found to bring the Universe into existence.

Surely, in order to create a universe that had both +ve and -ve energy one would have to "create" both types of energy in exactly the same quantities.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Im about to watch a movie right now , I just checked in to see if
there was anything interesting before I started.

the first few minutes looks like it will be a quality movie
its the new frankenstein movie.

I will tell you this , Im pretty much dissatisfied with the
forum lately.

so you and red and orac have at it.

hows that


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Question:
How does electron obey The law of conservation
and transformation energy/mass if according to Planck /
Einstein its energy is E=h*f and according to Dirac its
energy is +/- E=Mc^2 ?
==..

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
It's a classic physics bullshit problem Socratus probably dates back to about your age if I recall you are about 68.

It's the same as lots of classical phyics totally wrong because they didnt know and understand relativity.

If you derive hf=mc2 from the above it is wrong the two energies simply share the same letter they are not the same thing.

Where are you dragging all this old garbage up from.


The E for energy in E=MC2 includes both the kinetic energy and rest mass energy for a particle. It's a simplification and einstein clearly defined E which many science whackjobs forget.

The funny thing is Einstein in his paper E is actually given the symbol L throughout his papers.

You can look at digital copies of his papers online (http://www.alberteinstein.info/) it is in german of coarse.

This is a translation you might be able to read
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/)

Here let me cut and paste the exact expression

L = (Mb Ma )c2 = (delta)mc2


Mb was the kinetic energy Ma was the rest energy which in the specific example he was doing being the universe which has no reference frame and can't move reduces to L = mc2

An electron is not stationary you can not use the reduced form use the proper expanded form

L = (Mb Ma )c2

or in your want to use modern symbols


E = Kinect mass x C2 + Rest mass x C2

Now the discrepency between dirac and einstein disappears because you have the correct equation

hf = Kinect mass x C2 + Rest mass x C2


The fact this garbage gets recycled astounds me ... any other old garbage you want to bring out.

Why don't you try reading and understanding rather than google searching for every high school kids great problem they found in classic physics.


Last edited by Orac; 08/30/12 06:14 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
How does electron obey The law of conservation
and transformation energy/mass


has anyone thought about this?

when an atom is excited by a photon causing an electron to (move)
to a higher orbit.

there is an amount of energy required to move that electron.

when that atom later emits a photon it is said that it emits a photon of the same magnatude of energy compared to the energy of the photon that it previously absorbed.

where is energy conserved when this occurs?

the energy required to move the electron to an outer orbit
must be accounted for.

also the energy required to move the electron to an inner orbit
must be accounted for.

the photon that is emitted could not have the same magnatude of
energy as it is emitted if conservation of energy is correct.

this would be like a person throwing a baseball to the batter
and the batter hits the ball causing the ball to move at the same
speed that the ball was thrown at without using any energy.


if we think of the atom as a spring then we still have to consider that a spring uses up energy in the form of heat.

and if we throw a baseball at a spring the baseball never has the same amount of energy as it leaves the spring than it had before it impacted the spring.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I linked you the answer a number of times which you refuse to read I am not getting involved in another stupid and inane Paul make up physics session.


So this is the science answer accept it or not I don't care it's not up for discussion and the answer revolves around QM.

This is the answer to your problem of why certains atoms only "hear" precise frequencies as your genius in your youtube video called it.

If an incoming energy of a photon matches the energy level difference between two levels of that particular atom it will absorb it and the atom becomes excited.

Any frequency that doesn't match this difference is rejected because there is no way to deal with left over bits of energy.

So the conservation of energy in the absorbtion is what makes certain atoms only absorb certain frequencies. Thats what gives rise to spectral lines and how you can detect substances by spectroscopy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line

This is also the reason you can't just keep absorbing photons because the atom would get more and more excited like in your original crazy answer we would end up with an atom with a -10 000 charge because it absorbed 10 000 photons without ever re-emitting them. Ever heard of an atom with 10000 electrons?

When the electron drops back down it causes a re-emission of the exact same frequency it absorbed which is the effect you didn't want to think about because the genius on youtube video didn't discuss it. It's covered under spectral lines.

So the absorbing and re-emmission maintains perfect conservation of energy and that was the whole problem I was trying to get you thru.

Visually try this => http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/absorption-emission.mp4

This stuff is all beyond doubt by you and is easy enough to read up on and I don't intend to discuss modified Paul physics on it so accept it or not I really don't care.


Last edited by Orac; 08/30/12 07:02 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
sorry orac

that does not explain where the energy came from to move
the electron 2 seperate times.

conservation of energy has obviously failed.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ok 1 time just incase you really aren't trolling

In the movie E=hv which is the energy of a photon of light socratus describes it in the conversation that started this garbage.

Conservation of energy only fails in Paul brand physics it has never failed EVER in science brand.

Last edited by Orac; 08/30/12 07:49 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

what has that got to do with the question I asked?

where does the electron get the energy from to move
when the electron moves?

its obvious that the electron moves to an outer orbit , then back again isnt it?

and energy is required to move mass , and an electron has mass.

so where does the energy come from?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Paul.
Think of Earth orbiting the Sun. If you could increase the orbital energy, it would assume an orbit farther from the Sun. If you could then reduce the orbital energy it would take on an orbit closer to the Sun.

Q: Where does the energy come from to move it closer to the Sun?
A: gravitational attraction.

In the case of the electron, it's electromagnetic attraction. The location of the electron is described as a probability distribution, and the energy levels are quantized (hence the equality of gain and loss via the photon) but I expect you can see the parallel.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Im pretty much dissatisfied with the forum lately.


My feeling is that the forum is, to a great extent, what we - the posters - make it. We can choose to have reasonable discussions, or slanging matches. We can listen to, and learn from others, or we can make everything competitive and insist on "winning" arguments.

Even if we believe we lack free will we can at least enjoy the illusion of choice. smile

If we do not get the responses we need from others, perhaps we should say what it is we need; it could help.

For better or worse, we have a lot more freedom of expression on this forum than on most serious discussion forums; its up to each of us to use that to the best advantage.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
^^^ What both of them said.

Apology I didn't even think about that bit needing explaining the energy of the photon is not so obvious.

Explaination start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level

I would also add if you physics is really that bad you should be just asking questions not trying to answer ANY questions which is why I assume you are just trolling.

Last edited by Orac; 08/31/12 03:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
red

that still does not tell us where the energy came from.

1) the photon has a 1 unit of energy

2) the photon is absorbed by the atom

2.a) the electron moves outward into a higher orbit. (requires energy)
2.b) the electron moves inward into a lower orbit. (requires energy)

3) a photon is emitted from the atom with 1 unit of energy.


during all of the above , and all of the interactions , the photon leaves the atom with the same exact charge that it had when it was absorbed.

that clearly says that the conservation of energy failed.

otherwise

I can drive my car to the race track at 100 kh.
drive it around the race track several laps at 100 kh.
then drive it off the race track at 100 kh.

and all the time I spend driving around the race track does not
consume any gasoline...








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Perhaps you need to put on glasses and go an re-read what redewuner poseted.

You were also given a link for energy levels but hey you won't even discuss what that says which is also quite clear.

However lets face it you are just trolling trying to make issues with science because you are so insecure in your religion that you see science as a threat.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5