How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?

Does mass not contain energy? Or what would be a better word for the relationship between mass and all the energy required to keep it together as such?

Catholic Scientist,Subatomic particles(protons, neutrons, electrons) come together to form different types of bonds. These bonds form matter. In these bonds the energy is being used to form these bonds. So therefor the capacity to do work is being used at the moment. Since energy is defined as the "capacity to do work" matter can't be energy because the energy in the atoms of matter at the moment is being used to form these different types of bonds/matter. Break the bond/NOT THE MATTER = Release the energy.P.S. cavediver, could you correct me if I am incorrect. I've read all your posts and even reviewed some Chemistry books from previous courses to make sure I got that all right.

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

Thanks, yes this is how I understand it too. Its quite different from what you posted in Message 86 though.I see the energy of the bonds as being "contained" by the matter, and that's why I said that mass "has" energy.

Catholic Scientist,Actually they are not different although I will admit post 92 is a lot more true than post 86... You also have to understand that I studied it a lot inbetween those posts..........

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

It looked like were changing from your position that matter has no capacity to do work to matter being able to do work by breaking the bonds.From Message 86:

quote:

---

I also think the problem with considering mass to be energy is that matter its self has no capacity to do work its just simply inanimate. I can see the point cavediver is making though I still fill like matter is simply taking energy and binding it with chemicals or atomic particles that make it inanimate in the form of matter.

---

From Message 92:

quote:

---

Subatomic particles(protons, neutrons, electrons) come together to form different types of bonds. These bonds form matter. In these bonds the energy is being used to form these bonds. So therefor the capacity to do work is being used at the moment. Since energy is defined as the "capacity to do work" matter can't be energy because the energy in the atoms of matter at the moment is being used to form these different types of bonds/matter. Break the bond/NOT THE MATTER = Release the energy.

---

But now I see my mistake in that your saying that breaking the bonds and doing work is not the same as the matter doing work. But the matter is the bounded up particles. I think breaking the bonds is the matter doing work.And the bonding is the doing of the work, not the using up of the capacity to do work, I think... maybe.Hey, that's one of the great things about this place, I can just through that out there and be sure that someone will be quick to tell me if I'm wrong

In my my limited understanding of physics, mass and energy are properties of matter itself and therefore "mass" cannot "contain energy" as much as temperature can contain density. Energy and mass are interelated as much as all properties of matter are (and probably at the most fundamental level are the same concept but at more macroscopic levels describe matter in different ways) but one does not contain the other.If by 'mass' you meant 'matter' than that too is a misnomer as energy is a property of matter in as much as all matter has (or more accurately is) some amount of energy (the ability to do work). The question then become what do you mean by "contain energy".Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yeah, the wording has become akward.From Message 86, Sasuke:

quote:

---

I also think the problem with considering mass to be energy is that matter its self has no capacity to do work its just simply inanimate.

---

I don't think matter is just simply inanimate and has no capacity to do work, but I'm not trying to consider mass to be energyI repied: So by "containing energy", I'm talking about that ability to do work that matter has. What do you think is a better way to phrase it? i.e. how's your Phraseology In Message 89 I wrote:

quote:

---

And mass does not equal matter. Matter has mass, but not all mass is matter.

---

Energy does have mass, but is not matter. Ergo, not all mass is matter. Not true.

No such animal in physics. Even at absolute zero, there is the effect of quantum fluctuation (vacuum energy). Again I think you are butchering scientific terms here. Mass, energy as well as space and time are intricately linked i.e. two sides of the same coin. Mass is esentially the measure of the inertia (resistance to change in velocity) of an object in spacetime and the same time mass is also a measure of the amount of energy an object contains (mass—energy equivalence: e=mc[squared]). See above. Wrong, energy does not have mass. Mass is a measurement not a substance as matter is. Mass is a measure, of the amount of inertia (affect that spacetime has), on matter not vice versa. Very much true. Look it up. I think you are confusing mass with matter.Of course these are all labels, however to adequately describe the universe we need to use commonly accepted labels first. Therefore it is necessary for us to use the labels commonly accepted by the scientific community.Just my layman thoughts on the subject. Correct me if I am wrong.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Well, we agree on the main point I wanted to make. But I'd still like to see other opinions on the side stuffs: I do think I was conflating the terms there a bit. I wrote:

quote:

---

So by "containing energy", I'm talking about that ability to do work that matter has.

---

Matter has has an ability to do work, i.e. matter has energy, not mass has energy. Although: With mass being a measure of how much energy an object contains, I could see how the phrase of "mass (too) containing energy" could be arrived at, depending on how you're using 'contain' as you brought up earlier [whether or not its really accurate]. A cursory glance at the internets shows people claiming both sides. I honestly don't know. I thought it did. Of course. I brought up Phraseology, and I think these complex physics conspets cannot be adequately phrased with simpler words, but I do think its good to have simpler phrases of the concepts, even if they are a little off, so that they can be talked about without the need for a 1000 word paragraph. It might not be possible, but what word would you suggest for the blank:Mass _______ energy.I don't think "is" works, and not really "has" or "contains". Is there some word that can be put in there?What about if we sub matter for mass?Matter ________ energy. ???

Agreed. Energy = mass (times a constant- speed of light squared)Thus energy and mass are intricately linked and fundamentally interchangable. Mass and energy are properties of matter not physical entities themselves. Furthermore, they are two ways of measuring the same thing. Fundamentally, mass=energy.Hope this makes sense.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Catholic Scientist, I guess it depends on how you perceive "capacity to do work". However, if matter is inanimate I don't see it having a capacity to do work. The way I look at energy is while its stimulating not while it needs to be stimulated. stimulating = capacity, not stimulating = no capacity.

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

I would say destroying a city is a lot of work... (atomic bomb). Inanimate? A glass of water's molecules are moving all over the place. Its anything but inanimate. What do you mean? Simply not being alive?Contained steam can be used to drive a train and its not animated in the sense of living.... When you say that something inanimate cannot do work you seem to be suggesting that because a rock can't mow the lawn then it doesn't have energy..."doing work" is not just manual labor That hardly makes sense.The need to be stimulated doesn't mean there's not a capacity to do work.A stick of dynamite can do a whole lot of work but you gotta light it first.

CS, Energy is required in order to break the bonds to release more energy. It is not something that is just done inanimately. Gasoline does not burn without fire or some kind of force/energy. This is true for all matter. However, energy is simply stimulation. Matter is simply no stimulation. Matter is simply not energy cus it = 0 stimulation. The point is, energy = stimulation. Due to vibrations that are external to water. Again another case of energy/stimulation. Matter its self is inanimate. The idea behind, capacity to do work, is that there is a limit to how much something can stimulate something else.. When you turn on a vibrator and you stick it in a glass of water, how long does it last? Well typically vibrators have batteries. When these batteries die the capacity to do work is gone.(yes I realize the batteries can now be used for something else and when they are done being used there, then to the next thing, and so on.. but it is still stimulation.. energy is stimulation..) The capacity to do work is limited to the ability to stimulate something else.. Exactly.Energy is momentum. Matter has no momentum unless energy gives it momentum.

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

Not true. Matter does not exist without momentum through space and/or time (read Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' or Brian Greene's 'The Fabric of the Cosmos'). Therefore there is no such creature as matter with no momentum. Momentum itself is a derived measure of the amount of energy a system has and no amount of matter or lack thereof in the universe (vacuum energy) has 0 energy. Think of the universe as one big 'spacetime' ocean of frothy quantum particles popping into and out of existence. If you measured the energy level of this sea it would not equal 0 (zero point field does not equal 0).Therefore there is no such creature as static, unchanging matter with 0 energy. Matter itself is defined by energy. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

DA,this momentum you speak of is gravity and it occured in the moment of the BB. This BB is the initial vibration/force/energy...

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!