Big Bang - Big Dud

arkathonTime to put up some actual evidence here old man.You state. I want you to give everybody here the exact answers from creation science sites that you claim are refuted through 'new mindbending pagan stories.' Either put up or change your posting to reflect that just because a person can shoot holes in these answers does not have anything whatever to do with beliefs but with facts.I assume pagan to you is anything that disagrees with your rigid worldview.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

arkathonI can understand people who attack others out of frustration when they do not deal with the issues honestly.I personally have a fairly thick skin and am old enough not to take things too personally. This is especially true when you are dealing with most of the people on this site.
I think it is better if you were to allow yourself to take a specific issue and debate it to see where the you may be not consistent in either your understanding or your interpretation.The strength of science lies in how it shows where errors of logic and personal bias occur and why science is self-correcting over time.So I suggest that you offer your evidence and allows others to show the errors [if they exist] and you may debate the the points raised by them.It is my experience that given a proper debate both sides can learn.Please bring up a specific point on whatever you wish and we shall discussit.Fair enough?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

SoulFire writes:
Crashfrog also stated that matter can be destroyed through nuclear reactions,...All you need to remember is E=mc2. In a nuclear reactor, matter is converted to energy. Saying that the matter is destroyed isn't really wrong, but it isn't really accurate, either.I would like to see if I can resolve things that are confusing me as to this formula E=MC^2 and the use of matter in the place of mass. From this website I have a quote from Einstein himself concerning it.Page not found | American Institute of Physics
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."And from this website we get this.http://home.pacifier.com/~ppenn/page4M.html#matterThe clue:
The letter "m" in E = mc2 stands for mass.Missed:
The distinctions between mass, weight and matter. Seeing the distinction between mass and weight is one of a few indicators that someone is ready to understand elementary physics beyond the first week of a first course in physics. Surprisingly many students still do not understand that distinction when they graduate from the course. (Weight is a force, that due to the pull of gravity; mass is resistance to force, resistance to being accelerated by a force.) Confusing weight and mass indicates a very serious failure of comprehension of some very simple science. Failing to see the distinction between mass and matter is even more serious. "Matter" refers to little more than "quantity of substance" and can have many different meanings, meanings that must be distinguished before we try to understand those basic principles.Also missed is the profound meaning of E = mc: "Energy and mass are merely different expressions of the same thing." When we query nature we may see mass or we may see energy, but we are seeing two sides of the same thing. Einstein called E = mc, the "energy-mass equivalence," and that's a logical (Boolean) equivalence.So I am going to see if this can be resolved or if I am going to remain confused. I will begin a new topic posting if it is necessary so that I can get myself straight on what actually occurs.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

crashfrogWell I know it seems to me that if you double the energy you can double the mass however I do not see how you can double the matter.Mass is a property of matter and I suppose in the realm of science it is quite necessary to distinguish the two.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

PercyYou make this statement But it seems this contradicts the point made here If the mass and energy are equivalent then if you double the mass you double the amount of energy available through it because they are in fact two aspects of the same thing. So in this case it would mean that 2E=2MC^2. With your position the equation would be 4E=2MC^2.Can we clarify this?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

PercyI am trying to make clear that matter cannot be the thing that is changing in the formula E=MC^2 since,again,if the energy were to be doubled we do not therefore have double the matter.It is an important concept in that mass is an abstract phenomena as is energy and even though the balance is maintained in calculations we do not have any idea just what they {energy/mass} are.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

PercyPhotons are not conserved are they? They are produced through energy levels in an atom going from a higher energy state[with a subsequent change in mass]which emit a photon when dropped to a lower energy level[with another change in mass] If the matter were to change then we would expect to see an increaese in the number of neutrons and protons upon an increase of energy wouldn't we? This is where my confusion lays.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

PercyThe Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to energy and time as well as position and momentum,and as you corrctly reccall the conservation of energy can be violated as long as the time is short enough. The formula for this {delta}E times {delta}t > h-bar/2. h-bar is planck's constant h {6.6262 x 10^-34 joule seconds} divided by 2PiThe product of energy and time must be of greater value than this number.You can see that either the values of the individual energy and time must become exceeding weak for energy if the time is large or the time extremely brief if the energy is substantial.This message has been edited by sidelined, 10 February 2005 06:17 AM

jsmall I will give you the chance to reply to the person you meant to since I am not the one you mean to deal with.

Pro TerraNuclear reactions do not convert matter.The mass of a nucleus is always greater than the sum of the constituent protons and neutrons.The difference is the energy that binds the nucleus together.Nuclear reactions free the protons and neutrons and the binding energy accelerates this matter.The matter does not "become" energy it is simply a mass acceleration.When the accelerated protons and neutrons encounter other matter they decelerate and impart their energy to this matter which results in an increase in mass which in turn results in more collisions.This is why the energy from a nuclear reaction is dangerous.The acceleration imparted to the mass is sufficient to break bonds in flesh and dissipate in heat as the body absorbs the impact of the accelerated matter.E=Mc ^2 means that energy and mass are equivalent.