Zman Kietilipooskie

This conversation is closed.

What is Energy

This is under the assumption that energy is the most basic structure. What exactly is it and what did it come from, did it always exist? How exactly does it create actual things? Does our understanding of physics actually have any implications towards the nature of energy.

  • thumb
    Mar 8 2014: When scientists or laymen say energy, they do not make the required subtle distinction. It's important to notice that when we say energy, most of the time we talk about matter's certain activity which is interpreted as energy, but not about pure energy. Because actually there's only 1 pure & independent form of energy we really know or see today (correct me if I am wrong), and that form is the electromagnetic radiation. Besides it, with all other forms of energy we need the matter as a medium to express the energy. Meaning, in all other forms, the energy is just an abstract mathematical entity which is expressed in units that are combined of matter and other physical entities like length, time, …..

    All these forms of energy are matter-dependent and they do not exist by their own. We call them in the common term of Energy because the various effects of those energies and their units are interchangeable. But as far as we can see today, only the electromagnetic energy can exist independently, without requiring the matter for its real-time existence (it’s originated from matter though).

    Considering the above, if we view the light (and the electromagnetic radiation in general) as the only true pure energy, we get a new perspective on the very peculiar behavior of light . Unlike the matter, the electromagnetic radiation is always travelling and it travels in the fastest velocity allowed by the Laws of Physics (or the nature). This gives us insight about the nature of pure energy existing by its own, which does not require the matter as a medium to exist independently once created (unlike heat, kinetic energy, electricity, etc).
    • Mar 10 2014: When two strangers randomly meet then what energy works behind the scene ?


      When electricity is passed through a coil then electromagnetic waves are produced.Electromagnetic waves are called electromagnetic because magnetic energy has been produced by the electrical energy.

      How electromagnetic energy exists Independently ?

      If that would have been possible then we didn't needed electricity to produce electromagnetism in a fan to make the rotor of the fan move.
      • thumb
        Mar 11 2014: The questions asked in this discussion are about physical energy and not mental energy.

        I think you are wrong: when electricity is passed through coil, just magnetic field is created, not electromagnetic waves. Magnetic field is created each time an electric charge moves in space or in matter. Electromagnetic waves are created when an electron jumps from one energy level around an atom nucleus to another level. The difference in the energy levels is the energy of the photon (electromagnetic radiation//wave) which is emitted in that process of jumping between the 2 energy levels in atom.

        Also, magnetic field is not energy, it's just a field, like gravitation field. What characterizes fields is that they have the potential to create energy//work when the appropriate substance interacts with them. So, with electric or magnetic fields the substance which creates energy//work is electric charge, with gravitation the substance is mass. But the fields by themselves are not energy, and don't ask me what are they really.

        I had already written in my first comment that electromagnetic radiation is indeed originated from matter. But once the radiation (energy) is created, it exists independently of matter.
        • Mar 12 2014: No, In my question I am not talking about mental energy.

          I am not convinced with your explanation of Electromagnetic Waves, because electromagnetic waves are associated with electric and magnetic field which is created when electric charge is accelerated.

          When electric energy is oscillated at high frequency then also electric magnetic waves are generated . All our communication system from mobile phone to television broadcasting uses electromagnetic waves for transmission and reception of signals.

          So , I am not convinced with the following explanation.

          "Electromagnetic waves are created when an electron jumps from one energy level around an atom nucleus to another level. The difference in the energy levels is the energy of the photon (electromagnetic radiation//wave) which is emitted in that process of jumping between the 2 energy levels in atom. "
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: When discussing anything, due care should be taken when using words. I am talking about independent EXISTENCE of electromagnetic energy while you are repeatedly talking about CREATION of that energy. These are two different things. So, what I say about independent existence of that energy, does not contradict what you say about the creation of it. So I shall repeat again and say that ONCE the electromagnetic energy is CREATED in matter, it can EXIST independently outside of matter, which is very unlike to other forms of energies like heat, Kinetic energy, electric energy (Electrons current) which they all require the matter to exist. Not only that they require the matter to exist, but the matter itself is the only substance for their expression as energies and that's why, unlike the electromagnetic energy, they are NOT independent of the matter. They are acutely and continuously dependent upon matter for their very EXISTENCE as energies.

        In your last reply, you have added a new factor to your argument which changes the Rules of the Game, and that is acceleration. Acceleration by itself inputs kinetic energy into the system and so obviously this energy input turns into electromagnetic radiation. This is very coherent with my first explanation about how basically electromagnetic radiation is created in matter. The point is that there is always some input of other forms of energies (acceleration, heat, kinetic energy, electricity, ......) which turns into electromagnetic radiation -- either this input occurs deep inside atoms, or in coil, or in antennas, or in whatever else. The result is the same and that is the creation of electromagnetic energy (radiation). But in all these different ways of creation, it's always only ONE basic process which creates the electromagnetic energy, and that is by jumping of electrons from one energy level to another level around atoms' nuclei.

        Also the oscillation occurs in matter, like antennas, coils.....etc.
  • thumb
    Mar 7 2014: My friend, I don't think this is the right venue for those types of questions. There are not many theoretical physicists or rocket scientists here so I doubt that someone would come across your questions and answer them to your satisfaction. However, with my little knowledge of physics, the short answer is, 'No one knows'. Energy is everywhere and today, scientists think that there maybe more than 99% more energy than we first thought existed, in the form of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' assuming of course that 'dark matter' is also just concentrated forms of energy as normal matter is. The origin of energy is unknown as the origin of the big bang is also unknown. Energy seems to be just 'there'. We have no idea what exactly 'it' is, only that you need energy to do work, it cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another, and is the basic composition of matter itself. How does energy actually 'create things' well that is still up for debate but for now, the best bet would be String theory though many scientists are now criticizing it. String theory says that subatomic particles are just loops or strings of energy at various frequencies. These frequencies give those subatomic particles their inherent properties. Those sub-atomic particles form atoms and those atoms form you and me. There is still a lot of questions on that note like quantum entanglement where two just separated photons (the particles that make up 'light) share the same properties altogether as the parent photon. Even when separated, when one photon 'shakes' at a particular frequency the sister photon would act the same way, like a mime, or a mirror's reflection. Also the nature of gravity is still debated, because it could be a particle, or the bending of space, or both at the same time. Its maddening how much we don't understand.
    • thumb
      Mar 7 2014: Yeah I would have done it on another site but none are quite as good as Ted, so I thought why not. Seems to me like you understand it well enough to talk. What do you think about Quantum Foam?
      • thumb
        Mar 7 2014: Well, I'm no physicist so I really don't have much of a grasp as to the possibility of quantum foam. Is quantum foam related to this? Well another good website to ask such questions would be hope I helped.
        • thumb
          Mar 7 2014: Yep," quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic space-time turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws"
          Quantum foam. (2014, 02 23). Retrieved from
          I just though it was pretty cool.
      • thumb
        Mar 8 2014: Quantum foam certainly is exciting considering that if my understanding of it is correct, It opens up a whole slew of almost 'magical' possibilities. Imagine because the subatomic particles that make up matter just dart around in and out of existence, then potentially we could create something from nothing. Empty space is not really empty means that it actually takes energy for space itself to exist. Does that mean that if we could create a space with no energy whatsoever, it would actually remove that 'space'. Does this also mean that with enough technology, could we harness the energy of 'space'? Could we 'create' space then, and harness it as potentially a faster than light way of propulsion? I'm actually postulating on my own version of quantum gravity so this information excites me. I still have a long way to go though... But my general idea is that, what if graviton was one of those particles darting around?
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2014: Yeah quantum foam is quite cool.
          Interesting idea. I don't really know. I would think it is possible.
        • Mar 18 2014: "Mar 11 2014: On the question of... publish it...'re alone in that idea."

          How did you read it if it were not published? Is it wrong to be alone in an idea?
    • thumb
      Mar 7 2014: Like your answer, Zman. "There are not many theoretical physicists or rocket scientists here so I doubt that someone would come across your questions and answer them to your satisfaction. However, with my little knowledge of physics, the short answer is, 'No one knows'. "

      Most of my friends are experimental physicists - no one knows what "energy" means exept the equations ...

      It's not just "energy", "gravity", "electromagnetic fields" but practically all conditions we may sense, using our very limited perceptions, have no real explanation of what we actually sense or experience. The human TERMINOLOGY does NOT explain anything but creates names and symbols of some events that are impossible to truly comprehend -- however, we may find some random connections/relations among conditions using terms to explain one another.

      I think that everything we are able to sense, calculate or see in our very unique human way tells us more about our own nature and our own great limitations, than about the real objective reality.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: @ Steve C
    Hope you'll be able to read this. I'm forced to comment here because i can't reply to your previous comments because you've deleted it for some reason. Please don't take anybody's reply too seriously. People have different opinions about things and that is fine. You just have to live with that. Being 'alone' in an idea is not bad at all. Actually its good, because it means you have something that could be new. That's why I said you should publish it. And the only time I've learned of an idea like that is in your comment, that's where I've seen it so please don't assume that the mere fact I know something is because I've read it in a formal publication. Keep up with ideas and be free to relate them! That's what this is for. Good Day!
    • Mar 20 2014: I was talking about your reply to someone else; (they deleted theirs). (I can't remember the last time I deleted one of mine; if I make a mis-step, I try to make an obvious edit, but keep my mistake visible.)
      It's good to hear the nature of gravity is still up-in-the-air. We don't hear about that much. I'm waiting for them to stop measuring-it-after-the-fact, and start creating & using it.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2014: Oh apologies, i confused you with someone else. Have you got an idea about gravity of your own? My actual field of expertise is psychology, but im terribly curious about physics, so im in a sort of a pickle, because I have to learn all the theories and equations by myself, in my spare time. Its crazy hard believe me, but I think its worth it.
  • Mar 18 2014: The best book I've found on the subject is The Alphabet That Changed the World; not that it said what energy is, per se - I don't think anyone's done that.
  • Mar 18 2014: WIkipedia states From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy.
    But in my opinion,
    Energy = the amount of matter in the universe + The amount of energy needed to convert the amount of matter in the universe to energy.

    I wont accept in the c square factor as per einstein's theory{e=mc2} because vacuum cannot exist and if light is there in vacuum , then technically it is not vacuum as light is there.

    I have zero background in physics
    • Mar 18 2014: What is "the most basic structure?" Why is it that what goes up must come down? People with a background in physics cannot answer these questions.
      • Mar 18 2014: "Why is it that what goes up must come down" - Excellant point

        I would suggest, people whether they have a background in physics or not, should think outside of the standard explained models like "gravitation" etc atleast for argument sake., and try to come up with new possibilities which may help science evolve.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: With regards to the reference to conservation law and the " hocus pocus", the conservation law is defined as "The law stating that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant, and cannot be created or destroyed, although it may change forms.", this means that energy is there it could just be in a different form (a form that we are not yet aware of), also it is very possible that the whole system (everything) still will have the same amount of energy, not just our specific universe. As for the designer reference which is in fact a religious belief, the earth was an adequate place that encouraged life. Life didn’t just magically appear; it developed over a long time. The earth is a suitable place for life which is why there is life here. Also environment al equilibrium is not a sign that God created us it is a sign that life has been here for a long time and the life here has learned be cohesive with the earth.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: This is indeed a complex topic.
          The definition of the big bang theory is "the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature". Also the definition of religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. God is defined as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." so you are indeed believing in a religious ideas.
          To understand what I am speaking of you must understand the basics of Biology, Physics and Chemistry. Basically minerals are complex structures of elements and can be found almost everywhere. First primitive biological structures of earth "learned" to use their environment to survive and reproduce. This eventually led to a diversity of life. And then the individual life forms then adapted to each other using each other as ways to survive. Shure people eventually discovered edible plants but that is just due to the evolutionary method of the plant (fruits and other edible materials encourage the spreading of seeds). Basic chemicals and minerals do exist on other planets just no biological structures (that we are aware of).
          In summary the earth is a big place (different animals and plants are found in different places) so really it is no surprise that some biological structures (such as life) have not been able to interact with other biological structures.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Hello! I think I can help clear a few things up. The conservation of energy does not necessarily dispel the big bang argument. Why? because scientists are only theorizing that the big bang was the start of OUR universe with its own special set of laws and characteristics. There are theories now arising that there could be infinitely many universes, and a big bang is just one way of starting one into existence. The big bang was not the absolute start of the whole of everything, but only our universe in particular.They recognize that there probably was something before the big bang, but as of now we have no way of observing such phenomena because hey, its not like there's a big bang everyday that we can observe! If you look at NASA's site, they have actually detected regions of observable space that has different energy signatures than the unbelievably constant energy signature of our universe, they theorize that these regions of space could be different universes altogether.
          The question of evolution. Extremely debatable subject with the new facts we have. Evolution is certainly a very feasible way for organisms to come about, but evidence keeps turning up that that may not be the case with our planet. I'm not saying creation, or alien zoo experiment. But since scientists say that they have dug up the grand majority of fossils they've tried to sequence organisms into feasible evolutionary trees. The mad thing was, it didn't work! Organisms only produced short evolutionary sequences that spanned at most a few million years but there was no tree, only twigs. There must be something were missing here, because in our case, evolution does not seem to be THE only explanation anymore. Resource wise, the universe itself is very resource stocked. Oil on earth may seem very useful to us now, but its a very lousy resource because its not very efficient and incredibly polluting. Not really something you'd call 'special'.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: On the question of things being discovered when needed, that I believe is your subjective opinion sir. If you could present evidence to support your claim, write it in a paper and publish it because I firmly believe that as of now, you're alone in that idea.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Well...
          "all that we see is based on a plan"
          "this planet was designed to meet our needs BEFORE we existed on the planet."
          "When you understand that every molecule in your body is held together by a force that we can not explain and that energy will upon your death eventually return to that source of energy you can start to see the plan." Three times you mention the design which implies a designer which is the definition of god.... Even if you don't believe that God is the source of moral authority it is still a belief in God. Obviously scientists haven't created a universe they have created biological structures.
          NO.... I am not incorrect... (and many other websites)
          The only mineral in that list of yours is salt.
          Read my last post again.
          So what you are saying is that God made "dinosaurs and marine animals" die so that we can drive cars?
          Yes some plants can be used to help with ailments, but that is due to their evolution, they are cool because evolution has encouraged different organisms to go off into different directions so it is no surprise that some of the hundreds of thousands of plants actually have medical uses. This is not evidence of God this is evidence of plants chemical compositions affecting other organisms in a way that benefits them (which is very rare…). If god did create plants for our benefit then why are their poisonous plants... Than can kill you almost instantly....
          It seems to me like your opinion is more about happy things then me....
          After all what you’re saying is that God created this magical (happy) world specifically for humans and nothing else….?
          I obviously do not believe that it is a coincidence, I believe that it is a direct result of probability that life will form on a planet, one way or another, and then it will developed and expand and balances itself out.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: You should really reread my posts, and try and understand the implications of my words.
          Also I will repeat the most important parts.
          Study Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and also History.
          Then make a choice instead of misunderstanding everything we talk about.

          P.S. Penicillin is produced by mold to counter other bacteria.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: in•tel•li•gent de•sign
          the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
          (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

          Can you see.... They are connected....

          Obviously mars has different amounts of elements, I was answering your statement that "the quantities and types of minerals and metals that we have on earth are not found on other planets." The quantities as well as the types of elements and element structures are, in fact, found on other planets. Obviously they are not the exact same as ours but they are similar.

          And then when you quoted me you seemingly forgot the key word in there... I said LIFE "will form on a planet, one way or another, and then it will developed and expand and balances itself out."

          If any of the pieces were missing then man would have developed differently.

          The chemicals do serve a purpose to the biological structure. Look it up. Remember penicillin.

          The scientific fact the things that man needs now were here before man existed. Yes because we evolved to use these things in order to survive. Just like an alien might eat crystals, we have adapted to eat other biological structures.

          You should really try researching things.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Interesting....
          provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

          I am siting Biological theories regarding evolution and the origin of life that have been proven through experimentation.
          Let me guess... You don't teach a thing called evolution....
          And just because you’re a teacher doesn't mean you know what you’re talking about (your title is irrelevant).

          Man only needs these things because man has adapted to use them. Remember the alien example. And again because we are a seemingly advanced species we have adapted to the point where we can manipulate our surroundings. What if the alien made a bicycle out of crystal? We quite simply use what we have to flourish.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: I said " Penicillin is produced by mold to counter other bacteria." then you said "Penicillin which is produced as a biproduct metabolite of a stress reaction and serves no beneficial function to the mold."
          Do you see?
          an antibiotic or group of antibiotics produced naturally by certain blue molds, and now usually prepared synthetically.
          a medicine (such as penicillin or its derivatives) that inhibits the growth of or destroys
          "Penicillin, one of the first antibiotics to be used widely, prevents the final cross-linking step, or transpeptidation, in assembly of this macromolecule. The result is a very fragile cell wall that bursts, killing the bacterium. "
          How do antibiotics kill bacterial cells but not human cells?. (2006, 3 13). Retrieved from
          Penicillin is a form of defense that penicillium has evolved to use.
          I did research... I guess you just can not read or understand what I am saying.....
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: I am getting bored
          in•tel•li•gent de•sign
          The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

          Progress is exponential.
          "Obviously they are not the exact same as ours but they are similar."

          "we have adapted to the point where we can manipulate our surroundings."

          The origin of life is not the same as a watch.... I really don't feel like explaining how the origin of life happened to you but your watch analogy is misleading (and also implies you don't teach chemistry)
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: ev·o·lu·tion
          the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
          synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
          the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
          Basically we have become more complex by using more and more things and more and more complex thing to our advantage.

          No, evolution did.

          Penicillium developed penicillin long before we discovered it.

          This is Biology...
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: That is the thing, I don't need to prove myself right (even though I actually did, origin of species, definition of: evolution, god intelligent design, penicillin, antibiotic, and others…), I just need to point out the flaws and contradictions in your logic, which you seemingly ignore and then go off onto another subject.
          In order for you to realize what your saying was wrong I thought it would be easy to just post the actual meaning of your words, because you are actually misusing them....
          For example
          "Penicillin, one of the first antibiotics to be used widely, prevents the final cross-linking step, or transpeptidation, in assembly of this macromolecule. The result is a very fragile cell wall that bursts, killing the bacterium. "
          How do antibiotics kill bacterial cells but not human cells?. (2006, 3 13). Retrieved from
          Molds (penicillium) produce antibiotics (Penicillin) to fight off other bacteria. End of Story.
          Evolution is more than the simple Darwinian evolution (I was there that day; you must have missed the next day when they talked about modern evolution...).
          We did not adapt to them they adapted to achieve an evolutionary goal that (threw experimentation with all different type of chemical compounds) resulted in compound that is something medically positive. Not over the last 100 years but over the existence of biological structures.
          I am not grasping at straws I am showing you how simple and ignorant your views are through actual definitions of words and scientific facts and also by pointing out the distortions in your point of view. If you can't see that then you shouldn't be on a site that is designed to open your mind to new (more advance) ideas. And if you’re wondering why I am not agreeing with you at all it is because I have kept up with the last couple of decades of science.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: "Penicillin, one of the first antibiotics to be used widely, prevents the final cross-linking step, or transpeptidation, in assembly of this macromolecule. The result is a very fragile cell wall that bursts, killing the bacterium. "
          How do antibiotics kill bacterial cells but not human cells?. (2006, 3 13). Retrieved from
          Molds (penicillium) produce antibiotics (Penicillin) to fight off other bacteria. End of Story.
          I guarantee you that every single other example you put forth also has an evolutionary function behind it.
          Are you saying that you understand the definition of (I will just pick one) intelligent design?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Human cell walls are different then bacteria cell walls. (You don't understand the implications of my posts)
          This is my last point, an example of your ignorance and also you complete lack of understanding of the English language.

          in•tel•li•gent de•sign
          1. 1.
          the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

          You compared intelligent design to “When a mechanic builds a car” so what you are saying is that a mechanic assembling a car is the same as an intelligent entity creating the universe or actual life.
          Time for bed… I guess it is futile to try and teach you about the implications of words and…. I guess that is it…. Good luck teaching “intelligent design” (your version of it) and Darwinian evolution (a 100 year old version of evolution) and your watch analogy (because organic compounds can only assemble in one way) and your new take on the meaning of the words penicillin,antibiotics and (my personal favorite) human cell wall vs bacteria cell wall.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Use quotations instead of making up what I am saying. You are actually just making stuff up now.
          I guess now you cannot even read.... So truly, what is the point of talking to you...?

          When did I say people adapted to penicillin?

          You called yourself knowledgeable about these fields yet you can't even understand that different cell walls react to chemicals differently. You also can't understand that penicillin was developed through evolution to fight off other bacteria (this is what the quote was taking about, penicillin destroys other bacteria's cell walls), not Humans (penicillin does not destroy the human cell wall). This is just sad that I have to explain every single part of the definitions of words. We cannot even get past the accepted definitions of experiments and proven facts.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: I guess I can now relate to what Richard Dawkins meant by "God Delusion" you truly are not able to look at any situation other than the one based on your delusional, simple, self-righteous and ignorant belief that humans are the center of everything.
          Yes scientists are trying to manipulate life, not create it. If you genetically manipulate you borrow from and/or edit a bunch of other things to create a different life form. This is far from creating life because we are borrowing from older forms of life. I think the problem lies in your own (special) opinion on the definition of intelligent design. It is not intelligent +design (something that is "intelligent designing), it is intelligent design ("the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.").
          You said it yourself "cloned life and can genetically manipulate life" not create but clone and manipulate, can you actually see the difference? So guess what you’re saying is that people taking a few pieces of DNA and putting it together is the same as creating an organism out of nothing. Until we can create a completely new (genetically constructed) organism we are not, by definition, intelligent designers. Even though we were talking about creating the UNIVERSE not life in the universe (the subject of the conversation…..).
          Honestly I am scared for the children you teach, if you are not capable of opening your mind to the flaws and actual misuses of the English language that I have pointed out multiple times. I really was only talking to you because I thought it was important that a so called educator would believe in such simple and ignorant views. But I guess the group of children who are now under your brain are doomed to only look at the world in one simple deluded way.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: I never said that aliens didn't create us..... I said humans do not follow the definition of intelligent design. READ WHAT I SAY!!!!!
          He was talking about a "intriguing possibility" and that " It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. ", what his words mean is that he believes that it is possible that a biological structure created or manipulated elements to form another biological structures this was then seeded (seeded means planted basic biological structures, not every single organism on the plant, and then was left alone to grow). I seriously doubt that you can even understand what he is actually saying without perverting it with your deluded thought. I never said that we not here due to aliens, I said that intelligent design is a religious belief because it involves the creating of the universe and the creation of original life which is also the definition of god. If the aliens created our universe then they are technically not gods because god existed before the universe and life. If they only created life then they are merely advanced creatures. And even then Dawkins believes that life arose and was not created originally. Next time I guess you should understand the meaning of the terms you use, like intelligent design. And also actually read what the person says instead of what you want them to say (so that you can feel good about you being right). And next time try and find actual in context Dawkins quotes instead of a bias distorted and stupid articles.
          I am not stuck; I reached this conclusion threw thought and research. What exactly did I buy into? Biological structures can evolve? Life can start from nonliving interaction in an environment? Intelligent design refers to the origin of life not the origin of the human race... Get out of your self-absor
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."

          ― Richard Dawkins
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Yes I was talking about MAN suing other things to its advantage, such as penicillium’s production of penicillin.
          When I said adapt to use them I meant adapt as using your environment to your advantage. And use them meant use things in your environment (such as penicillin).
          Mold produces penicillin as a byproduct of stress MEANS THAT mold produces it to counter other bacteria. That is the evolutionary purpose of the production of penicillin, when the penicllium is stressed (such as when other bacteria attempt to overtake it) it produces penicillin as a form of defense. Your Wikipedia article doesn’t even cover the evolutionary purpose of penicillin so you probably shouldn't use it as a source "professor".
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: in•tel•li•gent de•sign
          the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

          The only reason a person like me would fall asleep in you class is because you are not very interesting or though provoking or logical or factual.
  • Mar 10 2014: Hi Rodrigo

    I assure you I am definitely not a nerd in any shape or form, rather the opposite

    Not sure I am following you, star shine/light is electromagnetic energy; and agreed it is therefore as is all things. made up of the fundamental substance we call energy/matter;

    What I don't get, is what you mean by the product of distance over time; neither distance nor time are energy/matter; so how can they have a product?

    Energy in motion e.g. an electromagnetic wave requires energy/fuel in order to maintain its motion; what seems to be forgotten or ignored is that any motion; e.g. the motions of the subatomic particles within an atoms structure requires an "input of energy" into the atoms structure, in order to fuel those motions = work and output of radiant energies, without which the structure would fail.

    More obviously this applies to the atoms and output of a permanent magnet, whereby there has to be an input of energy into the permanent magnet, in order for it to produce the "constant output" of a magnetic field (Inclusive of the Gyroscopic Earth Magnet, and the output of its Magnetic field/Magnetosphere), which we then convert/coalesce into a stream of an electrical current within a conductive loop.

    And it follows that regardless of where an atom exists e.g. interstellar space or within a block of solid lead; all atoms require an energy input, that can only be entering the atom from its immediate surroundings, Hence Newtons aether or modern physics dark invisible matter; same thing, the fundamental substance of energy; regardless as to what we choose to call it.

    Cheers Carl
    • Mar 10 2014: I agree you are not a nerd because a real nerd would have pointed out that what I meant to say was "quotient", not "product" (of distance over time.) And "starshine is equal to an amount of the most basic structure multiplied by the product of distance over time" is an anti-nerdy way of saying e=md/t.

      The universe exists in an infinity of nothing to impede it's eternal expansion.
      • Mar 10 2014: Hi Rodrigo

        Will get back to you after giving my reply some more thought, however off the top of my head, years ago I went through this idea of an infinity/eternity (limitless/boundless) of no - thingness/no - energy; and I can't go over all my thinking, but concluded that given such an hypothetical state of nothingness existing around a state of energy/universe; the power of such a state of limitless nothingness, would as with the power/pull of a vacuum (nature can't tolerate a void), exert such a power of attraction around the universe, it would expand at a phenomenal and unimaginable rate and disseminate into the surrounding limitless void of nothing.

        Whereas given infinite energy coexistent with eternal nothingness pervading through its existence; energy has the eternal space to allow its coalescence and interactions, throughout a limitless and boundless universe.

        This concept of nothingness, has its origins in Lemaitre's so called Big Bang theory, which flies in the face of the law of physics "Energy may be converted, but energy cannot be created nor destroyed"; which means that the holism (rather the eternity and infinity) of the energy of the universe has always, does, and will continue to exist ad infinitum.

        Cheers Carl
        • Mar 11 2014: While you are concocting, here is my answer to the question "what is the most basic stucture?": m=e/(d/t). Can you see that it is short but NOT sweet? Like e=mcc!
  • Mar 10 2014: Hi Zman

    Re: This is under the assumption that energy is the most basic structure. What exactly is it and what did it come from, did it always exist?

    Refreshing to to read the question re energy, did it always exist? rather than the constant reiteration of the scientifically heretical Lemaitre "abracadabra" rub the magic lamp god particle (Big Bang Theory); which contradicts what I consider to be the first law of physics "Energy may be converted, but energy can neither be created or destroyed".

    Therefore it obviously follows, that as the holism of the energy of the universe "cannot be created or destroyed", it has always, and will always exist.

    How? Dust to dust ashes to ashes; extending from the most infinitesimal of particles up to the sizes of celestial bodies, and all of the biosphere of our own planet; energy has passed through stages of interaction and conversion to these points of larger existence, and subsequently all of those previous will "Cyclicly" return back into the fundamental energy source of the Universe; as circles/cycles are infinite in nature, having neither a beginning or ending, because all (mathematics) within the cycle is transitional.

    All we know of energy at a fundamental level; is that it is a substance, however we can add on;

    Substance + motion = force = energy or vis a vis energy = force ;

    Force = positive + or - negative = electromagnetic interactions = coalescence = density = matter & density of matter = strength of gravitational power.

    Gravity = fundamental particles or dark invisible matter, which are drawn into larger particles e.g sub atomic particles of atoms, in order to fuel the particles rotations, and orbital motions (Motion = work) so maintaining the atoms integrity and structure, and excess of input, radiated outwards.

    Of course not as simple as this; as the fundamental particles need a neutral medium/carrier energy to flow and interact, and my current candidate is the energy of centrifugal force.
  • Mar 8 2014: No one knows what energy is, rather we know what it does. This is how the concept of work was defined. Interestingly, energy is related to fields of force such as electromagnetic or gravitational fields, each of which possess energy in potential form. This means energy that has not yet been used to do work. Usually, this is done by the field exerting a force on a particle which is sensitive to the field. Because it is generally said that energy cannot be created or destroyed it seems reasonable to assume that it has always existed even before the universe was created. If the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation then the energy was probably already there within the quantum vacuum.
    • Mar 10 2014: The Big Bang non - sense states no thing = no energy = no time = no when = no where = no geometry = no mathematics = no quantum = no fluctuations =


      And depending on the reference source, the Big Bang supposedly happened 13 - 15 billion years ago; I don't thinks so

      Published Media reference; The Age Newspaper (Melbourne Australia) Saturday "19th of December 1999" Quote;

      Today astronomers announced that they had observed the oldest supernova to date this exploding “Star” called Albinoni being some 18 billion light years away. A "light year" being the distance light travels in "a year" “about” 9.5 Trillion kilometers.

      Therefore the assumed age of the Universe is out by at least 3 billion years

      However as this distance represents a radial distance from the Earth, taking in to account the same distance seen in the opposite direction; the diameter of the observed Universe is 36 billion years old; and its circumference is 108 billion years old.

      Certainly given the power of gravitation, and the resultant sizes of stars as big as our solar system etc; Big Bangs will take place due to compression to a point of critical mass; however no one seems to have considered, that the back ground radiation of the Universe is ubiquitous, and simply that, the background radiation/ocean of the Universe.
  • Mar 8 2014: Energy is mass in motion.
    • Mar 10 2014: Energy is "matter" in motion

      Mass is'

      Energy = matter
      Gravitational force = energy = matter

      E = mc2 : States that Energy is equal to a 1 unit of Mass (1 Unit = 1 iota, 1 lump, 1 piece, whatever) multiplied by the Speed of Light Squared.

      However this is totally impossible; because 1 unit of Energy, is not equal to 1 unit of Mass.

      1 unit of Energy; is 1 unit of substance/energy/matter and nothing more

      1 unit of mass; is equal to the quanta (density) of its energy content + the additional force/weight (Energy) of Gravity (G)

      Therefore it follows

      Energy + Gravity = E + E

      And 1 unit of Matter (Energy) + the Weight (Force = Energy) of Gravity; is greater than the value of 1 unit of Energy/Matter.

      Therefore it also follows

      The "multiplication" of an unspecified density/quantity/value of Energy; plus an unspecified density/quantity/value of Gravitational Energy;

      By the speed of light as measured within Earth's gravitational field "and then squared" does not equate to the amount of energy; that is contained within any given amount of mass

      Or the speed that the photon minus gravity would achieve in interstellar space

      Related conversation: That the Ancient Sumerian Geometers 3 to 1 ratio, of a circles circumferential length to its diameter length, was and is correct.
      • Mar 10 2014: Yes. I agree. "Energy is matter in motion" sounds better. What I was thinking is that the most basic structure is best described as mass/matter and that energy is best described as this stuff when it is in motion, on the move, going from a to b. Thus, starshine is equal to an amount of the most basic structure multiplied by the product of distance over time. And, thus, the most basic structure is equal to starlight over the product of distance over time. You went all-nerdy on me so I have to balance it by going nerdy in an anti-nerdy way which is equivalent to going anti-nerdy in a nerdy way.