Am a little thick when it comes to energy. I mean, energy can be destroyed I mean, I even proved it. Think about it, a candle you blow it out - you've destroyed energy! the flam is no longer there. Its all the same if you think about it, look at the sun its a star and every star eventually dies, so the energy has been destroyed right?

I think all this conservation laws is crap I mean did the Greeks invent them laws or something?

Am a little thick when it comes to energy. I mean, energy can be destroyed I mean, I even proved it. Think about it, a candle you blow it out - you've destroyed energy! the flam is no longer there. Its all the same if you think about it, look at the sun its a star and every star eventually dies, so the energy has been destroyed right?
No, not at all. When you put out the flame you simply stopped the chemical reaction (oxidation) that was converting the candle wax (fuel) into heat and light.

The sun also "burns" fuel and produces heat and light. When it eventually goes out, the energy that it (and the candle, too) has already produced is simply spread out throughout the universe. It hasn't been destroyed, the sun just isn't producing it any longer.

Am a little thick when it comes to energy.
at least you know one thing about energy.


I mean, energy can be destroyed I mean, I even proved it. Think about it, a candle you blow it out - you've destroyed energy! the flam is no longer there. Its all the same if you think about it, look at the sun its a star and every star eventually dies, so the energy has been destroyed right?

I think all this conservation laws is crap I mean did the Greeks invent them laws or something?
energy cannot be destroyed and you have not proved it. when blowing out a candle, you are disrupting a chemical reaction and transferring energy to a different form. the chemical reaction of the parts of the candle and air was releasing radiant energy (fire). when you blow it out, that radiant energy is no longer being released, but it is still stored in the material; the wick and the wax and the air.

ideas about the law of conservation were started in greek philosophy by Thales of Miletus, but the real math was first developed by a german polymath named Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the late 1600's. since then, many different physicists and mathematicians have proven this to be true, from Newton to Descartes to Thomas Young to Joule to Eintstein etc...

Or put it this way - you're thinking about energy in a different way. Using the way physicists describe energy, though, the conservation laws have been remarkably resilient, although they've had to be extended, for example, to the conservation of mass-energy once it was realised the two could be converted.

Muslim:

YOU PUT A flam OUT?

AND YOU HAVE PUBLICLY CONFESSED!

Are you a flim-flam man?

excerp from The Laws of Thermodynamics by Flanders and Swan:

[Flanders] Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
[Swann (spoken)] Really?
[Flanders (spoken)]Yeah - that's entropy, man!
-------------

So it'll all end in heat. I recall somebody telling me once that the final temperature would be only a few K. No idea if this is correct.

Muslim:

YOU PUT A flam OUT?

AND YOU HAVE PUBLICLY CONFESSED!

Are you a flim-flam man?

You're trolling aren't you? I mean you can't have actually posed this as a serious question, and then respond with answers like this.

-AntonK

AntonK:

Trolling is entirely innacurate.

Being sarcastic in response to a question that must be considered naive beyond belief is entirely accurate.

When I encounter a question or comment that is naive BEYOND belief, I DON'T believe it. I believe that the poster is trolling in the first place.

It has already happened at least once, or maybe twice, in these forums.

He could be trolling. This is true. However, even if he is, there is a chance someone else out there doesn't understand the conservation of energy/matter (Especially since the conversation of energy OR matter -- if not treated as interchangable has been disproven). In this case I believe it would be better to simply provide a good answer to the question. Nothing stymies a troll more than an intelligent response.

-AntonK

AntonK has forced me to recognize a greater responsibility which I had foolishly overlooked.

Thank you, AntonK.

Yeah, but can anyone prove this? Its seems abstract I mean it converts into something. I can understand some parts, but saying energy cannot be destroyed doesn't seem right. I can understand the storing energy part, that makes sense. Has any one actually had a critical look at the laws of conversion? piratically the the weak Greek ones. Maybe am wrong, however think of a black-whole, does light get destroyed in that? (event horizon) am not an astrophysicist but somethings don't seem to add up.

Yeah, but can anyone prove this? Its seems abstract I mean it converts into something. I can understand some parts, but saying energy cannot be destroyed doesn't seem right. I can understand the storing energy part, that makes sense. Has any one actually had a critical look at the laws of conversion? piratically the the weak Greek ones. Maybe am wrong, however think of a black-whole, does light get destroyed in that? (event horizon) am not an astrophysicist but somethings don't seem to add up.
look at it this way; every single observation man has ever made concerning energy shows that it cannot be destroyed or created. and we don't know what happens in a black hole. also, what is your problem with the greeks?

look at it this way; every single observation man has ever made concerning energy shows that it cannot be destroyed or created. and we don't know what happens in a black hole. also, what is your problem with the greeks?

Maybe so, but if we can't crate energy where did it come from? I mean sduhscfkms what I don't even get that my brain doesn't work when IO try to think of that.

I don't have a problem with Greeks, but their history's been pretty crappy. They been talking way to much crap when it comes to mathematics, and astronomy.

Lets ignore the Greeks and the question of where all energy/matter came from in the first place. Just for the time being. We can come back to both of those later.

First we have to define what energy or matter is. Matter is anything with mass. This is a simple definition, but it suffices for now. Energy on the other hand can come in various forms. There is potential energy, kinetic energy, electromagnetic energy, etc. I think your first misunderstanding is when you refer to a flame as energy. A flame is better described as a phenomenon that for thousands of years was misunderstood and misattributed. When you see a flame what you are seeing is photons, that is light, given off by atoms which have been put into an energetic state. These atoms give off energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light) to get back down to ground state. Now the question comes, where did this energy come from? It was stored (as chemical potential energy) inside the molecular bonds of the fuel you are burning. There was no creation or destruction of energy in this scenario. We converted potential energy in chemical form (be it wood, wax, whatever) into electromagnetic energy and heat energy. Heat energy on the other hand is really just kinetic energy. The atoms in the molecules making up the chemical reaction as well as the molecules in the air and matter around it get hit by photons and by other molecules and atoms and are physically sped up. When you look at the average speed of the atoms within a given object, we call that quantity the temperature.

A good question that often comes up here is where did the energy come from that was inside the molecular bonds of the fuel? This happened in some other chemical reaction. If you want we can talk chemistry and I can go over some basic equations which show exothermic and endothermic reactions. Basically it can be said that all energy in the Earth came from one of two sources. Either from the initial heat in the formation of the planet, or from the sunlight and radiation raining down on the planet from the sun.

--

Okay, now comes the hard part. It turns out that for a long time people thought that #1 you couldn't create or destroy matter and #2 you couldn't destroy or create energy. They were wrong. In fact Einstein showed an equivalence between the two in his famous E = mc^2. This actually referring to rest mass, but we can ignore that for now. This means that it IS possible to destroy matter, but you'll get energy in the process. It shows its also possible to destroy energy but you will create matter in the process. This is not theoretical. High speed colliders have shown the creation of newly formed particles from pure energy. These particles usually then decay and eventually end up back in a more dispersed form of energy, but all the calculations show that in fact, we never lost any matter or energy. It was just conversions. In some nuclear processes it can be shown that we lose a tiny bit of matter and that this matter is converted to energy. Still the same thing, no net change in the amount of matter/energy.

Please feel free to ask any other questions, I am sure someone here will be happy to answer. But remember, one of the first tenets of science and learning is the admission that perhaps not everything you hold to be true is so. You must be prepared to give examples, and possibly back up any assertions you make.

-AntonK

Hay thanks AntonK. For trying to help me out, am a-little dyslexic so I might ask a lot more questions.


When you see a flame what you are seeing is photons, that is light, given off by atoms which have been put into an energetic state.

So the photons are part if all light we? Or are the just attributed to one particular element? Do they always exist in light? Are they small particles or something else?


These atoms give off energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light) to get back down to ground state

So, is this right the photons react and we see the flame? Which consists of light? And we are seeing the flame because of the photons reacting?


Now the question comes, where did this energy come from? It was stored (as chemical potential energy) inside the molecular bonds of the fuel you are burning. There was no creation or destruction of energy in this scenario.

Yes I can understand that, so when we’re burning this potential energy, for instance as a candle, the photons react and then energy is realized in the form of heat and light? And it just disappears light as light and heat as heat into the surrounding?



Heat energy on the other hand is really just kinetic energy. The atoms in the molecules making up the chemical reaction as well as the molecules in the air and matter around it get hit by photons and by other molecules and atoms and are physically sped up. When you look at the average speed of the atoms within a given object, we call that quantity the temperature.

Sorry am lost here, I don’t understand this bit. This part is a little confusing.


A good question that often comes up here is where did the energy come from that was inside the molecular bonds of the fuel? This happened in some other chemical reaction. If you want we can talk chemistry and I can go over some basic equations which show exothermic and endothermic reactions. Basically it can be said that all energy in the Earth came from one of two sources. Either from the initial heat in the formation of the planet, or from the sunlight and radiation raining down on the planet from the sun

Yes, if you could tell me about chemistry and explain in detail that should help me out. At the moment, is this right what you’re saying potential energy doesn’t come from one source? It’s basically all sorts of elements and other chemicals which come into play that make potential energy? I.e. there are various elements.


Okay, now comes the hard part. It turns out that for a long time people thought that #1 you couldn't create or destroy matter and #2 you couldn't destroy or create energy. They were wrong. In fact Einstein showed an equivalence between the two in his famous E = mc^2. This actually referring to rest mass, but we can ignore that for now. This means that it IS possible to destroy matter, but you'll get energy in the process. It shows its also possible to destroy energy but you will create matter in the process. This is not theoretical.

Wait am, confused now. So wait basically part of both #1 and #2 was wrong so destroying one creates the other am I right? Basically people had it partially right? And this is all just abstract at the same time?


High speed colliders have shown the creation of newly formed particles from pure energy. These particles usually then decay and eventually end up back in a more dispersed form of energy, but all the calculations show that in fact, we never lost any matter or energy. It was just conversions. In some nuclear processes it can be shown that we lose a tiny bit of matter and that this matter is converted to energy. Still the same thing, no net change in the amount of matter/energy.

I don’t understand this part, basically I know hardly anything about science in school I used to hate it, but am starting to like it now for some reason. This stuff it’s really interesting. But my dyslexia kind of puts me off, I don’t like asking questions for me it takes some time to understand the concept not because am stupid or anything, its just the way its explained.



Please feel free to ask any other questions, I am sure someone here will be happy to answer. But remember, one of the first tenets of science and learning is the admission that perhaps not everything you hold to be true is so. You must be prepared to give examples, and possibly back up any assertions you make

Yes I understand what you mean obviously, when you talk about something’s you have to explain them and provide evidence. It’s not like being a weak Greek.

I'll be happy to answer all of those questions as soon as I get a chance. But for now, perhaps we should leave the comments about Greeks or any other nationality out of it. As it really has no bearing on this discussion. Once we can agree on this, we can continue. I assure you, eventually the concepts of energy and matter CAN make sense. Once they do, you'll see that a lot of other phenomenon start to make a lot more sense as well.

-AntonK

I'll be happy to answer all of those questions as soon as I get a chance. But for now, perhaps we should leave the comments about Greeks or any other nationality out of it. As it really has no bearing on this discussion. Once we can agree on this, we can continue. I assure you, eventually the concepts of energy and matter CAN make sense. Once they do, you'll see that a lot of other phenomenon start to make a lot more sense as well.

-AntonK

OK I'll lay off the Greeks. Also are you a teacher by the way? I mean do you teach in a school?