Kevin's Watch

Matter is energy (E=mC^2, or inversely, M=E/C^2). True, it's hard to find current evidence of an EM wave being turned into an egg sandwich, but you do need some EM waves to make said egg sandwich.

You guys are talking about entropy and the laws of thermodynamics and how it applies to the big bang/big crunch (gnab gib). Currently, the trend is leaning towards constant expansion (seems Einstein's gaff of the Cosmological Constant, IIRC, might be correct afterall), since there seems to be some mysterious force repelling the galaxies away from eachother.

However, to assume that us little creatures even grasp the most infinitessimal part of the ultimate nature of the universe seems a little arrogant. I've always been of the mind that the laws of nature as we know it are only a small, perhaps transitory, part of the whole. Beyond our meagre knowledge lies the original sea of chaos.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ryzel wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Yup. And then it starts all over again.

Optimist

Just doing the yin/yang thing. Everything IN the universe is part of one or more cycles, so maybe the universe itself cycles too. I wouldn't say it's something I have faith in. If true, it won't happen in my lifetime, so I don't much concern myself with it. But it's an interesting thought.

Although if current theory of the course of the universe holds out, we'll go out like a dimming ember.

On the other hand, there is a supposed time-limit on the existence of the universe these days. If dark energy exists (the theoretical stuff that pushes the universe apart), then according to the theory it will reach a point wear it will tear all matter in the universe apart. Can't remember the time period that was given, though, something like 20 billion years.

Ryzel, what I'm talking about is cycles within cycles, systems within systems. If something seems wasted when looking at a particular cycle, see what larger cycle that one is merely a part of. Ultimately, when viewing the universe itself, everything - every subatomic particle - is used and reused. Of course, we can't know that every single hydrogen atom that's free-floating between the galaxies will ever become a part of any larger structure (like a water molecule), but it's possible. And even if not, they have a gravitational effect that is absolutely necessary to the universe.

Everything is conserved, nothing disappears. It all just changes form.

No, this certainly doesn't mean that the universe itself cycles. As you and Damelon say, the leading thought is eternal expansion. According to Stephen Hawking, there is only 1/100 the visible matter out there that is necessary to do the job. And even when they add what they call “dark matter”, matter which is detectable only by the gravitational influence it has on visible objects, there is only 1/10 the necessary matter. National Geographic says that there is only 10-30% of the necessary matter. Further, the article says that things are, through some as yet unknown force, moving apart faster now than they were in the past! As Sylvanus says, Einstein's Cosmological Constant seems to exist after all.

I don't know if there's a flaw anywhere in there, or if anything yet to be discovered will make us think that a Big Crunch is, indeed, in the future. Like I said, I don't really care. I was just playing Yin/Yang's Advocate.

As for energy becoming matter, food cycles are good examples. Sunlight becomes food in plant leaves. (And sunlight is the result of the fusion of atoms in the first place, so we have matter to energy back to matter.) And calories become fat in the body. (Calories are heat units that come from the breakdown of the food, so, again, we have matter to energy back to matter. Nothing but cycles.)

In the stranger world of Einstein's E=mc^2, objects increase in mass as their speed increases.

And ultimately, it's all the same thing anyway. For example, electrons are one of the three building blocks of all atoms, an integral part of physical matter. And strings of electrons are electricity. And a quick look on google reveals that Alpha Radiation is a stream of alpha particles, each of which is composed of two neutrons and two protons. And, if I understand the basic concept correctly, String Theory says that EVERYTHING - gravity, matter, energy, time - is made up of tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny strings of vibrating energy. Or something like that.

All is one, everything works together, everything goes around and around. As Sylvanus says, we can't even begin to understand all the interrelations of it all. But that's ok, it doesn't need us to understand it.

...if a universe falls in the woods and nobody's around to analyze it...

Fist and Faith wrote:Everything is conserved, nothing disappears. It all just changes form.

I am with you on this. But the question is, will it ever change back?

Fist and Faith wrote:I was just playing Yin/Yang's Advocate.

And I was doing the opposite one.

Fist and Faith wrote: As for energy becoming matter, food cycles are good examples. Sunlight becomes food in plant leaves. (And sunlight is the result of the fusion of atoms in the first place, so we have matter to energy back to matter.) And calories become fat in the body. (Calories are heat units that come from the breakdown of the food, so, again, we have matter to energy back to matter. Nothing but cycles.)

Good one there. Not quite the transition that I was thinking about, but it will do for an example.

Fist and Faith wrote: In the stranger world of Einstein's E=mc^2, objects increase in mass as their speed increases.

I have heard that, but how do you figure that from E=mc^2 which basically should be constant? (Short version please.)

Fist and Faith wrote: And ultimately, it's all the same thing anyway. For example, electrons are one of the three building blocks of all atoms, an integral part of physical matter. And strings of electrons are electricity. And a quick look on google reveals that Alpha Radiation is a stream of alpha particles, each of which is composed of two neutrons and two protons.

Yes, electrons are an special case. Alpha radiation is basically helium cores. They have a nasty habit of shattering the molecules they hit, bad for your DNA if you get some radioactive stuff in you.

But I disagree when you say it is all the same thing anyway. They are related somehow, but they are not the same thing and the mystery is exactly how they relate to each other and to space and time itself.

E=mc^2
c = speed of light (which is constant (according to Special Relativity))
So, c cannot change. Therefore, if something reaches the speed of light, for energy to rise, mass must rise - because speed cannot possibly rise.

This all depends on whether the speed of light is constant or not, though. Doubly Special Relativity, a fairly new field which came from some small changes to Einsteins equations, says it depends on photon energy.

Murrin wrote:E=mc^2
c = speed of light (which is constant (according to Special Relativity))
So, c cannot change. Therefore, if something reaches the speed of light, for energy to rise, mass must rise - because speed cannot possibly rise.

This all depends on whether the speed of light is constant or not, though. Doubly Special Relativity, a fairly new field which came from some small changes to Einsteins equations, says it depends on photon energy.

I read somewhere that the speed of light is actually slowing down ... must have been in one of those astronomy mags again ....another thing I'll have to go and find.

That's Doubly Special Relativity (DSR). It says that In The Beginning light travelled up to three times faster than it does now - Theoretical physics at it's most theoretical. Not much evidence supporting the theory at the moment, and a lot of physicists don't like the idea (since he was around, scientists have been very reluctant to say anything against Einstein's theories).

Strange how a discussion of faith has involved into a discussion of physics..

People, don`t turn science into religion. Science is just..science. A bunch of theories that most likely will be invalidated sometime in the future and replaced by other theories, etc.

No time to look back to see how science got into it. But I'd say that a lot of people have faith that science will eventually answer all questions conclusively, so that anything any god is supposed to have done will be proven inaccurate.

Ahhh, but science is more than just theories. There are laws, constants, and mathematical proofs that exist beyond faith.

But where is the hole when the cheese is gone?

And science will never tell us anything of value - We can calculate and predict, but all the equations won't tells us why. This is why scientists like Einstein were also very religious.

Fine, live in a world where science is gone, since it has no value. Have fun! Let's go back to the caves, too, while we're at it! "Who needs them thar rocket-shipz and Warner Von Braun! Pfft!"

The answer "why" is cause-and-effect, which science provides. The earth was formed over billions of years, we evolved on it, and now we're here living and dying on it. The end. Simple. There's your reason. Science does a hell of a lot better job answering "why" than religion, which is just a dumb form of science anyway. We made religion to explain stuff, like “the lightning is from angry gods”. Good explanation, that, by the way! And you want to believe our Improved 3.0 version of that explanation (Christianity) is any better? Heh, okay! I think religion's so readily grasped cause its groundwork wasn't laid down by geniuses and smart people like in science, but was instead made by a bunch of normal dummies like us.

Why do you need to know "why"? What's the big deal? It's all in front of you! Lives, love, reason, literature, earth . . . EVERYTHING we know can be researched, and in every one you'll see where they came from. Everything has an explanation. Maybe the reason we’re always asking “why” is because everything we do on earth is pretty much pointless. Maybe we ask “why” cause we want to prove to ourselves that there's more "why" to us than the other beings and creatures of the animal kingdom that share this little planet with us. Or maybe we're not different from them, at all.

"What is man, if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.”

...
Wow.
I was simply stating a belief of many modern scientists - I believe it was Stephen Hawking himself who said that the Theory Of Everything would not answer all we need to know.
As for myself...
Overtly and extremely atheist and anti-religion.
Heh.

Well, not everything I said was toward you. In fact--none of it is, if that's what you are! You're a smart lad, then! It's whoever believes against what I said, mainly.

No offense, Foul, but I've met some pretty retarded atheists and have had brilliant friends that were very religious. Granted, I've met a lot more mentally reduced christians, but I've met a lot more christians than atheists.

Was talking more or less in the difference between the originators of science and the originators of religion. Both camps--science and religion--started basically in the same way: wanting questions to be answered . . .especially that big “Why”.

Anyway, it was kind of about morons in atheism, and morons in Christianity. There are plenty of them in each facet of life, I'm sure! But anyway, I know a lot of my stuff sounds bile-filled and all that, cause I can leave the Watch for a couple days, come back, and see what I said came off as sort of bitter and somewhat narrow-minded. Anyway, that's sometimes how I am about stuff I don't understand. I can admit stuff like that! But, still, I think I have valid, well-crafted points. Not that it matters, anyway. All arguments boil down to "Yes" and "No", really, and with science and religion it's the same case.

Kind of tired of complicating life with arguments, anyway. Think I'm going to start my own religion--called Simplifinity. "How should I live? Why am I here? Say, what does it all mean?" It means nothing--just kick back, believe in yourself, and don't worry about it! Simply be yourself! Simple! "There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy."

Foul,
I truely identify with your views, I am what you might call the believer in the scientific religion.
But, it's not that simple. When you get to the point in your life where you've made it, got married, got a house, had kids, have a good job, then you start asking yourself, what for? why am I doing all this? and what now? It's kind of a feeling of emptiness and restlessness.

There is an interesting book I'm reading now. It's called "The Celestine Prophacy" by James Redfield. It talks a little about the issues of science, religion, and spiritualism. Has anyone here on the watch read it?

Anyway, Religion on top of giving answers to the Why question, also gave people spiritualism. Science is based on skepticism, it accepts only what can be proven logically and experimentally. But what if the world is not bound to logic? what if there is something beyond that? By definition science cannot discover it.

-pitch

Pitch I have read Celestine and listened 2 Secrets of Shambalar on audio tape...I am a-religious but not atheistic...mayb open-minded best describes...