Could you refute an idea that came into my head

[fisherman_carl]

Energy is real…E=mc^2 its waveform will decay, but we don’t have the science to work it out. If you are thinkinh potential energy (mgh fm gravity…) that is a construct.

I’m still unclear on what OP was trying to say…need a biologist!

I don’t agree with you. Energy doesn’t exist as an existing thing. Rather energy is always associated with existing things. Energy is a calculated value that existing things can have. E=mc2 does not describe energy like it is some ghostly existing thing with its own existence or ether. Einstein dealt with the speed of light. Matter doesn’t change into some formless thing called energy. What is an example of matter to energy conversion? You have nuclear reactors that change something from one form to another. It creates radiation which heats the water while creates steam while drives the turbine. You have energy throughout this process but it is always associated with an existing thing. Elements, radiation, water, steam, mechanical. And, in terms of photons of light, it is as close as you can get to a formless energy,but even it can be described as an existing thing that behaves as a partice and a wave. And it is the result of existing things emmitting photons, like stars. So its not like light just exists eternally on its own. It is caused by something else. You can’t just have energy without existing things. Energy is a quality that existing things can have.

 

[Crusaderbear]

I don’t agree with you. Energy doesn’t exist as an existing thing. Rather energy is always associated with existing things. Energy is a calculated value that existing things can have. E=mc2 does not describe energy like it is some ghostly existing thing with its own existence or ether. Einstein dealt with the speed of light. Matter doesn’t change into some formless thing called energy. What is an example of matter to energy conversion? You have nuclear reactors that change something from one form to another. It creates radiation which heats the water while creates steam while drives the turbine. You have energy throughout this process but it is always associated with an existing thing. Elements, radiation, water, steam, mechanical. And, in terms of photons of light, it is as close as you can get to a formless energy,but even it can be described as an existing thing that behaves as a partice and a wave. And it is the result of existing things emmitting photons, like stars. So its not like light just exists eternally on its own. It is caused by something else. You can’t just have energy without existing things. Energy is a quality that existing things can have.

Agree to disagree…I go with Al on this one. The bombs dropped on Japan, converted about a teaspoon of matter (uranium…) into pure energy. Thankfully it was very inefficient, there was a real possibility that total conversion would have wiped out the entire world…going the other way has never been done by man, but I believe that God did it once about 15 billion years ago this coming Monday.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’m not looking for a debate with atheists. I have no interest in wasting the emotional capacity. I’m just hoping that some CAFers can help me get through an atheistic doubt.

Refute: The idea is that a single cell couldn’t be eternal because it changed, right. What about if there was a canvas(quantum vacuum, etc.) that allowed the cell to exist infinitely back in time and change(Big Bang) without the canvas changing?

Hi Upgrade. I don’t see why a physical (material) state could not exist eternally without change. However, that state would have to continue eternally, i.e. there could be no change at all.

If change did occur to, as you say, the surrounding canvas, then the state of the canvas could not have been eternal (it changed) but the state of the cell is dependent on the state of the canvas, and so the cell cannot be eternal.

 

[Upgrade25]

Hi Upgrade. I don’t see why a physical (material) state could not exist eternally without change. However, that state would have to continue eternally, i.e. there could be no change at all.

If change did occur to, as you say, the surrounding canvas, then the state of the canvas could not have been eternal (it changed) but the state of the cell is dependent on the state of the canvas, and so the cell cannot be eternal.

I meant the cell changes and the canvas is eternal.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m not looking for a debate with atheists. I have no interest in wasting the emotional capacity. I’m just hoping that some CAFers can help me get through an atheistic doubt.

Refute: The idea is that a single cell couldn’t be eternal because it changed, right. What about if there was a canvas(quantum vacuum, etc.) that allowed the cell to exist infinitely back in time and change(Big Bang) without the canvas changing?

My mother has an education in biology. As for me, and the fact I am not good at biology, II don’t know how to answer your question. I wish I could. Sorry I can’t be of more help

 

[tonyrey]

1 cannot become 2? Couldn’t the cell have broken up and become several?

It could have done but it is necessary to give an explanation if that hypothesis is to be credible. Otherwise it is gratuitous without any reason to accept it.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I meant the cell changes and the canvas is eternal.

If either changed, it would necessitate a change in the other. If they are material objects, a change in one would have some kind of change in the other.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Agree to disagree…I go with Al on this one. The bombs dropped on Japan, converted about a teaspoon of matter (uranium…) into pure energy. Thankfully it was very inefficient, there was a real possibility that total conversion would have wiped out the entire world…going the other way has never been done by man, but I believe that God did it once about 15 billion years ago this coming Monday.

Energy is just describing work done in a certain amount of time. For example, the movement of a ball that is thrown into the air moves from kinetic energy to potential energy and then back down again as kinetic energy. Think of it like this. Force doesn’t exist on its own either without something real exerting that force. Its not like you could have force existing on its own apart from the universe. Force is measured as a mass accelerated through a distance in space. F=ma. However, if there was nothing to exert that force than neither would it exist. It’s An abstraction to describes a physical event. It is the same with energy. There isn’t force and energy existing on their own apart from existing things that exert them.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Agree to disagree…I go with Al on this one. The bombs dropped on Japan, converted about a teaspoon of matter (uranium…) into pure energy. Thankfully it was very inefficient, there was a real possibility that total conversion would have wiped out the entire world…going the other way has never been done by man, but I believe that God did it once about 15 billion years ago this coming Monday.

There is no such thing as pure energy. Or rather all energy is pure energy. A nuclear explosion exerts force and energy. But, you would not say it exerts pure force. The force from a nuclear explosion is no more pure than the force of someone throwing a ball. It may be different in magnitude but force is force. Its the same with energy.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If you want to know what the essence of energy is… If I remember correctly energy is kgm2/s2. Which is basically Work done per unit of time. Or the rate at which work is done. And Work is force through a distance. And Force is mass x acceleration. SO Energy is Mass x Acceleration x Distance per unit of time. So as you can see energy is a calculated value like force or acceleration or distance or mass. It doesn’t exist apart from the things you are describing. E = mc2 is derived from this basic equation where c is the speed of light. But you still end up with the same units. ie. kgm2/s2.

 

[ynotzap]

If you want to know what the essence of energy is… If I remember correctly energy is kgm2/s2. Which is basically Work done per unit of time. Or the rate at which work is done. And Work is force through a distance. And Force is mass x acceleration. SO Energy is Mass x Acceleration x Distance per unit of time. So as you can see energy is a calculated value like force or acceleration or distance or mass. It doesn’t exist apart from the things you are describing. E = mc2 is derived from this basic equation where c is the speed of light. But you still end up with the same units. ie. kgm2/s2.

Energy formula used by scientists= E=MC2 Energy= Mass in motion, we know what mass is, a quantity of something in the objective outside world, but scientists do not explain “motion” Matter is not capable of moving itself and moved by another and so on down the series of cause and effects until we come to the first mover, who needs no mover but can move without being moved, called the Unmoved mover. So ultimately energy is God, that’s why empirical science can’t really explain Energy We can give the mass in motion a mathematical value, keeping the idea in the quantitative realm, but it so does not explain the nature of motion, in the Metaphysical sense. Motion can be conducted through secondary causes, eg. highly active fissionable material, uranium etc, radio-active matter, but all motion present is not produced by matter initially, only conducted through secondary causes.