100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: An Energy Discussion | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Anyone that knows me knows that I am just a mechanic.
You also know I think in very strange ways. Lately my mind has been occupied with the concept of Energy. I have some concepts, queries & observations to make that I feel might be worthy of some discussion. It will be interesting to see where this leads if it leads anywhere. Energy & Electricity Energy and electricity are not the same thing. Electricity has energy in it but energy does not always mean electricity. From what I understand, Electricity is the displacement of electrons thru a conductor. Energy is movement. Energy exists sub-atomically and is not a particle. Everything everywhere consists of energy. Even an atom is comprised of massive amounts of energy (atomic bomb). Questions/Thoughts 1. Is Planck Units the smallest known measurement of Energy? In physics, Planck energy, denoted by E P, is the unit of energy in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, ћ is the reduced Planck's constant, and G is the gravitational constant. ~ Wiki
I know that energy is measured in Joules but how much energy is in one joule? 2. At Absolute Zero (the cessation of all movement at the atomic level) does energy still exist? True Absolute Zero is commonly referred to as Singularity. It only exists as a theory. Our current science can get really close to True Absolute Zero but have yet to attain it. 3. Theoretically AZ would be no movement at all. If atomically all movement is stopped, does that include stopping the Universe's vibration cycle as well? If I recall correctly this concept was explored in an episode of Star Trek? Could changing or stopping the Universal Frequency of the Universe move that particle out of reality and into another dimension? 4. I have read that thoughts, feelings, will & desire have a frequency to them. In my mind, frequency being movement and movement being energy it makes me think that Thoughts are composed of energy. Being composed of Energy, wouldn't thoughts be measurable and mutable? Broken down to pure Energy, might thoughts be considered a Force? What we call our Soul might be broken down to Energy as a packet? Since that Energy is within the boundaries of our Universe those packets vibrate at the Universal Frequency as well. Energy cannot be created or destroyed according to our current levels of understanding. Given that the Universe is entirely composed of Energy in one form or another and the baseline frequency locks the energy to this plane, when we die, wouldn't our packets of 'Soul Energy' release back to the Universe? This indicates that 'We' are 'One' with the Universe. 5. On a different note ~ Quantumly, a personality might be transported/manipulated by technology. In Quantum technology, observing changes it? I think they call this phenomena 'Spooky'. Actual science has been documented proving it can be done. I don't know the details but I ponder a possibility... If Soul Energy exists (I believe it does), might technology one day be developed that allows it to be 'Observed and Manipulated' before it renders back into the Universe? This is not a new idea, Soul displacement travel has been done many times in Science Fiction. What I am implying is real science and actually doing it. Granted, the source body would have to die. In actual experiments of Quantum Teleporting I believe they require a source destination for the information being sent. That would inhibit trying to use that technology to explore the Universe. The development of Quantum Computers might actually make limited 'Soul Transference' a reality. Now, You are probably thinking I am on some serious drugs. I'm not but I do think differently than most people I know. Just for a moment, give it some thought...Then reply with your own ideas. Energy is fascinating. In Tron they drink it like water, In fantasy, wizards throw it like balls and in science it powers the Universe. If there is going to be a new break-thru in technology in the future I believe it will be in the manipulation of energy in some way or another. The physical properties that govern our macroscopic world prohibits us from ever exploring the Universe. Distance, Time & Physics are huge obstacles in our way. Perhaps Energy and Quantum Science will be the 'Ship' that opens the door to exploration. Law of Vibration - Everything in the Universe moves, vibrates and travels in circular patterns, the same principles of vibration in the physical world apply to our thoughts, feelings, desires and wills in the Etheric world. Each sound, thing, and even thought has its own vibrational frequency, unique unto itself.
http://lawsoftheuniverse.weebly.com/12-immutable-universal-laws.html In 1942 the famous scientist Dr. Nikola Tesla said,
"If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy01.htm Energy may be the source of probability dimensions. Follow me as I try to explain this complex thought. You have a point. . I don't recall if the point is one dimensional or zero dimensional but there is a theory of Zero Point Energy. Feel free to look it up. Now, this point- . tiny as it might be, is also locked to relativity. If you were at a certain scale close enough to this point it might look like a sphere. I'm talking extremely tiny. Now take this point (Lets say it is a point of energy), the smallest base unit of energy. If you place an imaginary line thru the center of such a point and bisect it. You now have something radiating from it at what now becomes two ends, Lets say a top and bottom. Now, you bisect the point 90 degrees from the last point and what you get is a plus sign. + You continue to bisect the point at angles until you have a star pattern. * Now since this is a point, You turn the reference to the side 90 degrees and do the same thing. Now, you have a 3 dimensional star. If you continue to turn the reference and bisect soon you have a dot. A sphere that has no more room for more bisections. But if you move the reference of relativity to a larger point of reference you now are back to a point with things poking out in all directions. Since all lines are at right angles to the center the farther you look at it away from the center the more room there is for more bisections. So instead of the point only being able to be bisected 36,000 times there is now room to bisect the bisections. Again, each one equally bisecting the arcs. As your view moves larger, more macroscopic even more bisections are possible. Soon you are bisecting at the pico-second of an arc. As your view expands so does the ability to bisect. These lines could be said to extend to infinities. Lets not get stuck on infinity because infinity is difficult to comprehend. In this fuzzy creation, the center, is still the point. I think that Energy in its smallest manifestation is a point. The fuzzy bisecting lines we just imagined are the essence of the point radiating outward. The same inference can be done with gravity. If gravity were a point. So what do we have. We have a fuzzy point that exists in such a relativity that it fills even the empty pace between atomic components. You place such a point beside another such point. Then add another and another and keep adding points along a trajectory and soon you have a line - _ But, the Universe is not a flat 2 dimensional place. You need to do the same thing with the line as you did with the point. Now you have two lines of points that look like + again. Adding more lines in all directions and soon all the places you can reference is filled with points. We can't reference these points because they are at such a scale that any observing method is distorted by its own composition of points. There is no area of pristine emptiness needed to isolate the detection. Imagine trying to use your camera to take a picture but it is so sensitive that the exposure not only sees the lens but the air between the lens and the detector. Not to mention the surface of the detector itself. A computer, given the correct physics and relativity data might be able to simulate such a sight. I don't know. The scale I am referring to, the Higgs Field, is huge. The Higgs Boson consists of a cluster of these points. Between these bosons are even more points, one right next to the other on all possible sides. These points of energy are living and dying relatively instantly. It 'looks' like they are percolating. They have bonding actions that stabilize into particles that bond and stabilize into matter. All matter everywhere, from quarks to galactic super-clusters are composed of these points of energy. In string theory, the string vibrates from the percolation of the lifespan of the points that comprise the string. Taking this consideration we can apply the point scenario to probability. You have Time as a point. For every point there are emanations of probable outcomes and improbable outcomes for each one. Around the time point are other time points that are based on that angle of probability. Time becomes non-linear and becomes a cluster which fills all possible angles from every possible point. Our minds can't handle the overload so we only acknowledge specific paths of those points. That path zig-zags at different probability angles within the time dimension. The pathways we acknowledge are of such minute deviation time seems to flow in a line to us. The relativity scale we can comprehend is in the macro. We think our decisions are what propagates our timeline but the propagation occurs far below and far faster than we can acknowledge. Example: You comb your hair one way and your day unfolds a certain way. At the relativity scale I refer to, You might not have any hair, you might have hair but in one probability there is an extra atom in one of those hairs. This is even a macro scenario. Perhaps the energy percolation in between the leptons inside the atoms of one of those hairs is slightly different. This opens an infinity of probabilities that implies an infinity of dimensions. I know if you are still reading you are laughing but stay with me. This 'point reality' (? name needed) is true within the Universe's macro scale as well. Here is where the depiction in science is faulty in my opinion. In describing the gravity of mass in the space-time fabric it gets shown as a blanket type thing with boxes drawn on it. You have stars and planets depicted as sitting in these gravity pockets that interact with other masses near them. They show Black Holes as deep funnels in this representation. I always find these graphics misleading. Like our point of energy, our point of time and now the point of gravity, the fabric should be shown to affect space-time at all possible angles from the point. According to the popular gravity well graphic - only one bisection is shown where in what I understand about gravity, It exerts itself in all directions. Okay, you say "But the planets are circling the Sun in a disk shape" The disk shape of the debris that resulted in our Solar System is from the accretion process that formed the system. The gravity of our star is the same above it as it is on the side but there is no mass above or below it that can be influenced by it. If mass were to become available at those angles we would see the same type of pattern we see only as a single disk right now. The Black Hole shows up as an accretion disk because the matter falling into it is in a disk. The gravity is the same in all angles but the debris is only present at certain angles. Gravity is not one sided. It is a point. Orientation Any point no matter its relative size can be approached at any angle. Reference Any point approached gets assigned a top and bottom according to how it is referenced If you approach a galaxy from afar and as you get closer you see it as standing on its edge. When you reach that galaxy you orientate your view to a familiar point of view that allows you to make sense of what you see. You assign it a top and bottom. Left and right. We do this when we reference our Sun everyday. Our maps are drawn to establish our planet as a top and bottom with north, east, west and south (NEWS). In reality, most of us are seeing the Sun to the side yet we think it is above us. We think north is the top of our planet because we have been trained to see it that way. Imagine if you came to Earth and it was from above the solar plane. You would see the planet rotating in one direction. From below the Solar plane you would see it rotating the opposite direction. If you came to it from the edge it might appear to be rotating upward or downward depending on your orientation. Energy, time and gravity points are like this view. At all possible angles. Okay, sorry. My brain just locked up. Perhaps I will be able to add more later. I ask, for discussion purposes, What are your thoughts? Does this make sense? Is it pure fantasy? Is it possibly true? Can or has anything I mention been or currently being tested? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meh. I just rely on the Bunny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps I will be able to add more later."
Please don't. I think just trying to make sense of this has caused me to have brain aneurysm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of really big questions here....
Tom4Uhere, I'd say at least for question 1 on the definition of a Joule: there are a number of ways to quantify it, here are just a couple. One way is to think of a joule as the amount of energy that you obtain if you were to push an object with 1 Newton of Force by a distance of 1 meter. If you guys prefer imperial units, it's like applying a force of 4.45 lbs for a distance of 3.28 feet. When working with machinery or cars, it's easier to visualize the energy as if you were pushing or pulling something over some length. A Joule is also a convenient unit to use when figuring out power. If you run a pump or motor at 1 watt for 1 second, you've consumed 1 joule of energy. Source of info is wiki also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule From a philosophical standpoint, how much energy is actually in one Joule is hard to determine. The way I see it is, we have trouble understanding what energy really is, so we reconcile that by using concepts like a Joule to be able to measure and calculate with. Also, for your question 2 about absolute zero temp, have a look at this article. I came across it a while ago, and I think it might interest you: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146 I remember in school people would ask: 'if we ever hit absolute zero, does that mean everything just collapses in on itself?' I still don't quite understand how it works. But it seems researchers have found out that we can go below absolute zero, and the material still holds together, and behaves differently. Really cool stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway you can do a Cliffs notes on your magazine article books?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eletricity is kind of energy form.....and the kinds of energy contains eletricity.....eletricity's power is comes from the electron just as the heat source power is comes from the fuction of the atomic's electronical field and phantom change of the press of proton.....because the scientist belive that the basical energy source contains Alqha Beta Gamma three forms of the particle power source......and thats where the three kinds of energy form <the heat the light-shine the E-ampere(eletronical charge)> comes from.......but there is oone exeptional energy source beside.....the magnetism.....and this kind of energy form only functioning on the metals precisly......and only functioning more directly to all the material by mass effect....and we call it the gravity.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, for your question 2 about absolute zero temp, have a look at this article. I came across it a while ago, and I think it might interest you:
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146 Thanx, I skimmed thru that reference and it seems they are talking about averages to Kelvin scales. True Absolute Zero temperature is the point where there is no movement at any scale. All 'states' are frozen. True absolute Zero cannot exist in a moving Universe. Even quantum entanglement requires energy which requires movement on some scale. At True Absolute Zero even the spin of up-quarks, leptons and bosons are frozen. What science calls Absolute Zero is not what True Absolute Zero is. True Absolute Zero cannot be measured because the detection method will cause movement. Any waveform that strikes the frozen state will cause a vibration in the frozen state as the energy of the wave is both absorbed and reflected which will nullify the frozen state. Frozen State being that which is trying to be observed. That is also why True Absolute Zero cannot exist in our moving Universe. Thermodynamic properties of nearby material transfer heat and energy to one another. As far as I can figure, the only time that True Absolute Zero could have existed is before the initial movement that started the 'Big Bang'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a philosophical standpoint, how much energy is actually in one Joule is hard to determine. The way I see it is, we have trouble understanding what energy really is, so we reconcile that by using concepts like a Joule to be able to measure and calculate with.
There is nothing philosophical about it. Human science is still in its infancy. Just because we can't prove something does not mean it isn't real. At one point, we believed that the atom was the smallest object in the Universe. We now know atoms are made up from even smaller parts. 
Here is something I wrote awhile back that kinda explains what I see concerning True Absolute Zero. Temperature is movement. Movement is frequency. Frequency generates heat. Heat is energy.
Frozen means no movement (frequency of vibration). When things are freezing they are slowing down. When things are heating they are speeding up. Science says the absolute lowest temperature that is theoretically possible is -273.15 C. That temperature is known as Absolute Zero (AZ). We know Bosons exist. We know the Boson has a spin. If the Boson spins, it is moving. It is part of the Fermions of Matter. Real Absolute Zero would be when even the spins of Fermions have stopped. Only then could matter be completely frozen. It may be at -1000 deg C or -273.18 C. Any matter that has a cycle of movement cannot be AZ. If a particle of matter somewhere in the Universe cycles only once in 14 billion years it still has movement, thus has heat. Imagine a Universe where every Fermion spin has stopped. All matter is at AZ. Nothing moves anywhere at any scale. It may remain that way forever or a split nanosecond. Now, introduce movement to that. A Down Quark starts to spin. At that point heat is generated, very little heat but heat all the same. That movement reacts with the frozen Fermions in its vicinity and starts more movement. Soon, the particle is moving, then the next and the next and so on. The reaction spreads in all directions faster and faster. It looks like an explosion, it grows hotter and hotter as the movement increases. We have ourselves a Big Bang, folks. Eventually, all the matter that is moving will slow. As it slows, it cools. It continues to slow until all matter is once again at Absolute Zero. We have a Big Freeze, folks. Science can't achieve True Absolute Zero because we are within a current expansion of movement of all matter. The thing about AZ that makes it so difficult to replicate is that we can't isolate a particle of matter from all movement. Even if we could, we would not be able to study the particle because to detect the particle it must move something to be detectable from nothing. Detection is isolating one thing from another. Imagine trying to detect a black dot in the middle of a black square. On the human scale, Think about what happens when you see something. Light reflects off the item and enters your eyes. When a photon strikes a particle it is absorbed and reflected. The frequencies of light that are absorbed causes heat in the particle. The frequencies that are reflected cause movement in the particle that translates to heat. (Think Solar Sail, yes light can affect matter) Science has transported a particle quantumly. So, even quantumly, matter has movement. AZ also includes frequencies quantumly affected. Which means, To achieve AZ, the quantum properties of the particle must also be controlled. Does the Spin of a W Boson also have a quantum state? This brings me to Energy. The spin of Fermions requires energy to make it move. Is energy heat? Energy generates heat by moving matter. Heat is a product of Energy. It is theorized that there is such a thing known as Vacuum Energy or Zero Point Energy (ZPE). ZPE implies that in a true vacuum, energy erupts into matter and antimatter that annihilate each other in a constant percolation of minute explosions both structurally and quantumly. When the annihilation is not completed, a particle and antiparticle are created. Those particles and antiparticles drift in the vacuum until they meet another, then bond or annihilate. When they bond, over time, they bond with more particles and eventually dust is formed. The gathering process continues, creating all matter in the Universe. To achieve Absolute Zero with any particle, even the ZPE will need to be isolated from the particle both actually and quantumly. When the Universe ends for this phase, all Energy, Including the ZPE will cease to affect matter. All matter in the Universe will stop moving until ...something...causes a movement. Then it will explode into a new Universe of movement for a time. Understanding energy has great potential for us in everyday life. Imagine a phone that requires no battery. The energy that powers it comes from the energy already existing in the materials used to make the object. It could be the next giant leap in technology. No more batteries, wires or power plants. It may not happen in our lifetimes but it could happen. Think Nano-Watts instead of Kilo Watts. Nanotechnology is a real science. Its applications are theoretical not philosophical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holy S**t!.. the dead sea scrolls
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a philosophical standpoint, how much energy is actually in one Joule is hard to determine. The way I see it is, we have trouble understanding what energy really is, so we reconcile that by using concepts like a Joule to be able to measure and calculate with.
There is nothing philosophical about it. I think he means: Joules are a definite measurement of something real. We know this, because we can measure it. Predictably and consistently. But "energy" is a word used to reference "that which is being measured", and there might be some difficulty for some of us to get what they *really* means. When we try to relate the word 'energy' to our personal models for understanding the universe, when we try to explain 'energy' to ourselves, we might make some mistakes - but if we look at Joules as a measurement of energy we put our eye back on the ball. Understanding energy has great potential for us in everyday life. Imagine a phone that requires no battery. The energy that powers it comes from the energy already existing in the materials used to make the object. Wouldn't that would make those materials the battery? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
BrentFL
on
Tue 02/14/17 10:13 AM
|
|
5. On a different note ~ Quantumly, a personality might be transported/manipulated by technology. In Quantum technology, observing changes it? I think they call this phenomena 'Spooky'. Actual science has been documented proving it can be done. I don't know the details but I ponder a possibility... I freely admit that I didn't read all the way through your post... but the excerpt I quoted caught my eye. When Einstein said 'spooky action at a distance' - I believe he was referring to quantum entanglement - not that observing quantum states changes results. Quantum entanglement is when particles are linked in such a way that the measuring of one particle's quantum state actually determines the quantum states of the other particle - bizarrely enough - even if the entangled particles are separated by great distances. It's fascinating stuff. I love reading about particle physics and quantum mechanics. Edit: Re-reading what you said - I see you may be saying the same thing. If so, ignore my comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think he means: Joules are a definite measurement of something real. We know this, because we can measure it. Predictably and consistently.
But "energy" is a word used to reference "that which is being measured", and there might be some difficulty for some of us to get what they *really* means. When we try to relate the word 'energy' to our personal models for understanding the universe, when we try to explain 'energy' to ourselves, we might make some mistakes - but if we look at Joules as a measurement of energy we put our eye back on the ball. I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that Joules is only a current, measurable determination similar to the second being a measurable determination of time. At one point in our knowledge, a second was the smallest representation of time commonly used. We have now measured time in many powers of a fraction of that. It is my belief that energy may also eventually be measured to many powers of a fraction of a Joule. At what point does that fraction of a joule no longer represent energy? I don't believe a Joule is a defining baseline of energy. Wouldn't that would make those materials the battery?
In the sense of a source of energy being a battery, yes. But energy is not only electrical in nature. Electrons are only one part of matter. I freely admit that I didn't read all the way through your post... but the excerpt I quoted caught my eye.
That's okay, Its something to read if you are bored and something to comment on if you strike the fancy. When Einstein said 'spooky action at a distance' - I believe he was referring to quantum entanglement - not that observing quantum states changes results. Quantum entanglement is when particles are linked in such a way that the measuring of one particle's quantum state actually determines the quantum states of the other particle - bizarrely enough - even if the entangled particles are separated by great distances. It's fascinating stuff. I love reading about particle physics and quantum mechanics.
Edit: Re-reading what you said - I see you may be saying the same thing. If so, ignore my comment. No worries. I'm not a scientist I am a disabled truck mechanic. Quantum science is still a mystery to me. Another thing I find fascinating is String theory and Dimensional Probability theories. I also find Infinities and Chaos theory interesting studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey tom.... its all been answered however its all been censored ! the answers to all your questions and so much more are revealed by the physics paper called "the swartzchild proton " by nassim haramein
if u want to understand life in all ! watch on youtube, the 8 hour long version I would recommend :) with blessings love and light jp 99.999 of everything is so called empty space and you are the infinite potential within that space , in short " all things are you and you are the singularity ! infinity expands to infinitely more and infinitely less there is no smallest thing the universe does , infinity exists within a finite space ! the terms spooky and dark matter and scientific codes for I should understand but don't know wtf is going on here . the current model of physics is flawed at the fundamental level and the following of these teachings has created a merry go round that u wont ever get off of until we go back to the first wrong step we took and replace our footsteps in live with what has now been proven as fact ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey tom.... its all been answered however its all been censored ! the answers to all your questions and so much more are revealed by the physics paper called "the swartzchild proton " by nassim haramein if u want to understand life in all ! watch on youtube, the 8 hour long version I would recommend :) with blessings love and light jp 99.999 of everything is so called empty space and you are the infinite potential within that space , in short " all things are you and you are the singularity ! infinity expands to infinitely more and infinitely less there is no smallest thing the universe does , infinity exists within a finite space ! the terms spooky and dark matter and scientific codes for I should understand but don't know wtf is going on here . the current model of physics is flawed at the fundamental level and the following of these teachings has created a merry go round that u wont ever get off of until we go back to the first wrong step we took and replace our footsteps in live with what has now been proven as fact ! I watched The Mystery of Empty Space University of California Television (UCTV) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q I even emailed and corresponded with Kim Griest at one point. This was all before the Boson was actually observed during the CERN test that confirmed it. Infinity has a practical example demonstrated in fractals in nature. I suggest you watch Arthur C Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk6QU94xAb8 BTW, Pink Floyd does the music for that video and the music does not appear on any of their published albums. The current model of physics cannot be 'flawed'. There are too many real world practical examples of inventions that are based on the science as established. I believe it is incomplete but not flawed from conception. The thing about any scientific study is that we continue to learn new things and revise accordingly. For something to have scientific merit it must be produceable and reproduced then it also cannot be disproven. I refer you to The Baloney Detection Kit http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ 1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” 2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. 4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. 5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. 6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. 7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them. 8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. 9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We were taught that in physics, electrons have a negative electrical charge and protons have a positive electrical charge, so you could say that any thing that has an electron or a proton charge wise deals with electricity in some form or at least the basis of it.
Energy was studied in many forms, Such as: 1. Gravitational energy 2. Magnetic energy 3. Electrical energy 4. Temporal energy or motion and momentum 5. Light energy 6. Heat energy 7. All forms of radiations from infrared to ultraviolet 8. Bio-energy (life) 9. Nuclear energy - Fission - fusion 10. Plasma fusion energy (I'm talking about stars) 11. String theory - cosmic string vibration energy 12. Hutchinson ambient space as energy its self (I love that one) 13. Sound vibration as energy 14. The cosmic background radiation 15. Dark matter energy 16. Zero point energy (Don't know what that is) 17. Vacuum energy (a concept from Dyson spheres and hollow earth) 18. Field theory (energy) 19. Point resonance theory (Eastern mysticism) 20. And the possibility of materialisation from nothing - Genesis and the beginning. 21. Quantum teleportation energy - (I like this one, point to point) 22. Information, as energy in its own right 16. Whole universal motion - But thinking on them vast scales tends to drive one mad. And a whole lot of others I've probably missed. meta-physics energies: 1. Thought energy 2. Spiritual frequencies 3. Consciousness Ah! All stuff to drive one mad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jord33n, Nice List! I like lists. Easy to quantify.
1. Gravitational energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy 2. Magnetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy 3. Electrical energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy 4. Temporal energy or motion and momentum http://www.johnagowan.org/stored.html SPATIAL VS TEMPORAL ENTROPY 5. Light energy http://www.reference.com/science/light-energy-fcdf5886b17ee03b 6. Heat energy (Thermal Energy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy 7. All forms of radiations from infrared to ultraviolet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation 8. Bio-energy (life) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy 9. Nuclear energy - Fission - fusion http://whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucenergy.html 10. Plasma fusion energy (I'm talking about stars) http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ http://www.sandia.gov/research/research_foundations/radiation_effects_high_energy_density_science.html 11. String theory - cosmic string vibration energy http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077903002789 12. Hutchinson ambient space as energy its self (I love that one) AKA: Hutchinson Effect http://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-hutchison-effect/ 13. Sound vibration as energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_energy 14. The cosmic background radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background 15. Dark matter energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy 16. Zero point energy (Don't know what that is) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy 17. Vacuum energy (a concept from Dyson spheres and hollow earth) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy 18. Field theory (energy) AKA: Mean-Field Theory http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.44.2664 19. Point resonance theory (Eastern mysticism) AKA: Resonance Theory as pertaining to the Bose-Einstein Condensate http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.043604 20. And the possibility of materialisation from nothing - Genesis and the beginning. Something from nothing is related to Vacuum Energy and Zero Point Energy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ 21. Quantum teleportation energy - (I like this one, point to point) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_energy_teleportation 22. Information, as energy in its own right http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics Information is converted to energy but is not considered a form of energy. 16. Whole universal motion http://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html During my look into references for your list I found a very interesting page on energy relations that expresses the joule as NOT the smallest measurement of energy (as I suspected). http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/useful-energy-relations/ The erg is the metric unit for energy in CGS (centimeters, grams, seconds) and is 10 million times smaller than the Joule, in MKS.
There is also a measurement of Energy that is called an Electron Volt (eV) 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^19 Joules
An electron volt is an unit of energy, particularly used in atomic and nuclear processes. It is the energy given to an electron by accelerating it through 1 volt of electric potential difference. TeV stands for tera electron Volts. That is 1,000,000,000,000 electron Volts or 10^12 electron Volts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PS: Just found this page on DeBroglie Wavelength proven by the Davisson-Germer Experiment
Involves energies related to Photons Here are some references: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html http://www.quora.com/What-is-de-Broglie-wavelength All interesting but as far as measurements go. The smallest possible measurement that we know about (scientifically) is called the reduced Planck Constant http://factmyth.com/factoids/a-planck-unit-represents-the-smallest-measurable-unit/ Planck units, based on the reduced Planck constant (ℏ) and Planck constant (h), represent the smallest measurable units in the physical universe.
Whether it is time, mass, length, or anything else, the smallest measurable unit of that system can be derived from the Planck constant (see examples below). Physical units, smaller than what is represented by the Planck constant, represent quantum behavior (behavior that must be measured over space and time, and not just space). It then states that Despite the Planck representing the smallest unit, “the true smallest unit” can be described as “any unit greater than zero”. Thus, there is no actual true smallest unit of measurement that can be described scientifically at our present knowledge level. Nothing is the baseline of existence. Nothing as in ZERO. Energy constitutes something so it must be greater than zero. Since matter is made up of energy (Atom Bomb Physics). Energy must be smaller than matter but larger than zero. If we can measure matter at reduced Planck Scales then energy must exist at much smaller scales. The Universe is 14 Billion years old (at our present knowledge). Light travels about 186,000 miles per second (roughly). 1 year = 365.25 days = (365.25 days) (24 hours/day) (3600 seconds/hour) = 31557600 seconds 5.87 x 10^12 miles in a light year (58,700,000,000,000,000 miles) 58,700,000,000,000,000 X 14,000,000,000 = 8.218e+26 miles in DIAMETER According to the Atlas of the Universe The diameter is a Sphere not a circle. Volume of a sphere is determined by calculating the radius^3 x PI. (22/7ths) The Volume of the Universe is calculated to be 3.58×10^80 m^3 
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html * Number of superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
* Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion * Number of large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion * Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion * Number of stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3x10^22) The energy of the Universe is so great it is almost unfathomable. The amount cannot be processed because we have not yet discovered the smallest actual unit of energy. I'm sure it exists because I'm sure energy exists. Here is where I get all kooky in myself: If atoms have baseline properties that are smaller than itself could energy...the smallest possible energy also have baseline constituents. Since there is no name for those baselines I want to call them Essences of Energy. If Essences of energy are ever determined to exist. Will they also have constituents in their composition? A God Particle? If you look up God Particle you get references in science concerning the Higgs-Boson. But if the Higgs-Boson has Energy it is not a God Particle is it? The Law of Conservation of Energy states (in essence) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.
One form is reversion back to energy. Why is this on my mind? I have dealt with a personal death experience. I hear lots of talk about how when we die we go to Heaven or Hell. We are made up of Energy. The energy in our atoms...feels like...it is separate from the energy of my soul. But, I feel like my soul is also a form of energy. Not bound by matter. I wonder if when I die for good, Will my soul energy remain intact as me or will it disperse back into the energy of the entire Universe? Essentially, becoming One with God? God being the energy that makes up everything from nothing. During that dispersal, the Law of Conservation dictates that the energy that was once my soul can be transferred into another form. A question that stupefies me is will it be whole or part of my soul? If energy has constituents, will my soul be only part of me in many different forms? Understanding energy helps me attempt to understand my death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
I like the way you think, but I confess, there is no way another person could possibly dive into your comments and tease out what you are asking (not to mention answer it!) without spending more time than we selfish beings like to offer to each other. That said... Buddhists talk about this all the time. There is no doubt. Science and deep meditative spirituality (like MANY MANY hours of meditation by a LOT of people through thousands of years of history) are in complete agreement. We ARE energy. Everything you see around you IS energy. Physical form is a nice convenient way to interact with each other and with our world, but once you wrap your head around the concept of energy (as you have now done), you realize we are in fact ALL just manifestations of the same source, interacting briefly and then morphing into another form for whatever that form brings. Energy is another avenue into the simple reality of life: Life Is Change. Nothing is constant. Absolute zero would be constant. As such, it cannot "exist". It is the definition of a lack of existence. Don't try to hang on. It just hurts, because change happens whether we fight it or not. Go with it. Resonate with the energy and see where it takes you. Easier said than done. I've always been a fan of what some claim are the last words of the Buddha. Note that more "learned" sources say these words are inaccurate, as his actual words were recorded and are not these, but so be it. If these weren't his last words, then to my mind, they should have been: Do Your Best |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpenVista,
Thanx for the kind reply but I assure you I am not completely engrossed in this. It is a curiosity, yes, but it is just that...Something to think about. I really like science fiction. Not that stuff you see on the Syfy Channel, the good, thought-provoking stuff that gets really deep into the science. I'm not really asking specific things. Merely presenting my views for others to ponder. I like to try to keep my views close to known and theorized science if possible. I believe science is a truth where religion is a suggestion to elicit a behavior. When I died, what I experienced did not fit what others claimed. I saw it as a scientific process not a religious experience. Had I stayed dead, I know that my brain would have eventually shut down and I would have sensed nothing ever again. As it so happened, my brain did not completely shut down before I was revived. There were still chemicals firing synapse in there. Its fairly easy to force an Out-Of_body experience and a simple matter to recall before I was born (in the womb). Dying is also a process that has body function. That is, until you are completely dead. Having a scifi mind. Part of my energy discussion is to imagine how mankind might exploit energy in the future. "Ride the lightning" so to say. Perhaps one day we may actually be able to ride the lightning as a means of travel. Imagine being able to tap into the baseline energy of the entire Universe and move to any desired location at the sheer thought of it? Like quantum entanglement but in real time, location to location instantly. Imagine an entity that is energy based instead of carbon based. Billions of years old and immortal and able to travel instantly to any place in existence. Existing in the matrix of energy they might even be able to enter the realm of dreams, desires and nightmare because those also have energy in them. Energy is complex, yet simple. It can be looked at purely scientifically or with philosophy. This topic attempts to explore both. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpenVista, Thanx for the kind reply but I assure you I am not completely engrossed in this. It is a curiosity, yes, but it is just that...Something to think about. I really like science fiction. Not that stuff you see on the Syfy Channel, the good, thought-provoking stuff that gets really deep into the science. I'm not really asking specific things. Merely presenting my views for others to ponder. I like to try to keep my views close to known and theorized science if possible. I believe science is a truth where religion is a suggestion to elicit a behavior. When I died, what I experienced did not fit what others claimed. I saw it as a scientific process not a religious experience. Had I stayed dead, I know that my brain would have eventually shut down and I would have sensed nothing ever again. As it so happened, my brain did not completely shut down before I was revived. There were still chemicals firing synapse in there. Its fairly easy to force an Out-Of_body experience and a simple matter to recall before I was born (in the womb). Dying is also a process that has body function. That is, until you are completely dead. Having a scifi mind. Part of my energy discussion is to imagine how mankind might exploit energy in the future. "Ride the lightning" so to say. Perhaps one day we may actually be able to ride the lightning as a means of travel. Imagine being able to tap into the baseline energy of the entire Universe and move to any desired location at the sheer thought of it? Like quantum entanglement but in real time, location to location instantly. Imagine an entity that is energy based instead of carbon based. Billions of years old and immortal and able to travel instantly to any place in existence. Existing in the matrix of energy they might even be able to enter the realm of dreams, desires and nightmare because those also have energy in them. Energy is complex, yet simple. It can be looked at purely scientifically or with philosophy. This topic attempts to explore both. Cool. Like you, I like to play in these waters. Thanks for the space to offer a perspective on something I also have thought a lot about. You certainly do have an active mind. |
|
|
|
|
