Win a copy of The Java Performance Companion this week in the Performance forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

law of conversion of energy[MisUnderstood]

 
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 290
Debian Fedora Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
AS
The Law States it :: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another.


My Question is all about , { i consider ego is an energy , brain cells is an energy ,lust is an energy ,Fear is an energy}etc ...as per the definition


So how these things are converted to energy ,at the end ( means after person dies???).


Thank You[ hope my English is proper]
 
Jesper de Jong
Java Cowboy
Saloon Keeper
Posts: 15356
39
Android IntelliJ IDE Java Scala Spring
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Arun Giridharan wrote:My Question is all about , { i consider ego is an energy , brain cells is an energy ,lust is an energy ,Fear is an energy}etc ...as per the definition

The law of conservation of energy only talks about energy strictly in the meaning of the word in physics, and certainly not about "energy" in the psychological definitions that you are mentioning.

You are confusing a theory from physics with a non-physical and non-scientific definition of the word "energy". The law of conservation of energy does not apply to "energy" as in "ego is an energy", "brain cells is an energy" etc.
 
Paul Clapham
Sheriff
Posts: 21124
32
Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well, that's the law of conservation of energy. But it refers to a specific scientific concept. You can't just say "X is energy so it must be conserved", that's just word-play unless X is actually what physicists mean by "energy". I could even say "Chocolate is energy so why is there less chocolate after I eat it" but that wouldn't have anything to do with conservation of energy either.
 
Bear Bibeault
Author and ninkuma
Marshal
Pie
Posts: 64967
86
IntelliJ IDE Java jQuery Mac Mac OS X
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yield to Commando Bear Energy!


 
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 290
Debian Fedora Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jesper de Jong wrote:
Arun Giridharan wrote:My Question is all about , { i consider ego is an energy , brain cells is an energy ,lust is an energy ,Fear is an energy}etc ...as per the definition

The law of conservation of energy only talks about energy strictly in the meaning of the word in physics, and certainly not about "energy" in the psychological definitions that you are mentioning.

You are confusing a theory from physics with a non-physical and non-scientific definition of the word "energy". The law of conservation of energy does not apply to "energy" as in "ego is an energy", "brain cells is an energy" etc.


You are saying these things are non-physical (Fine),but what actually it is ???
 
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 290
Debian Fedora Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Paul Clapham wrote:Well, that's the law of conservation of energy. But it refers to a specific scientific concept. You can't just say "X is energy so it must be conserved", that's just word-play unless X is actually what physicists mean by "energy". I could even say "Chocolate is energy so why is there less chocolate after I eat it" but that wouldn't have anything to do with conservation of energy either.


??? , As i know every matter consist of Energy.
 
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff
Posts: 8898
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think it's an interesting question...

You could take the tack that a couple of billion years ago some chemicals got together and started to make some proteins, then some amino acids, then a little RNA, and so on, and that we're all just a continuation of that chemical reaction that started way back when. Just one looooooooooong chemical reaction.

Now I believe in the theory of evolution, I'm not a fan of the "intelligent design" orientation. With that said, I find I'm comforted in the belief that there's a little spark of some sort, in everyone, that survives when the body dies.
 
Sameer Jamal
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1870
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bert Bates wrote:I think it's an interesting question...

You could take the tack that a couple of billion years ago some chemicals got together and started to make some proteins, then some amino acids, then a little RNA, and so on, and that we're all just a continuation of that chemical reaction that started way back when. Just one looooooooooong chemical reaction.

Now I believe in the theory of evolution, I'm not a fan of the "intelligent design" orientation. With that said, I find I'm comforted in the belief that there's a little spark of some sort, in everyone, that survives when the body dies.


I wonder why only living things were created from that chemical reactions not the non-living things like mobile phones, PC etc etc, I mean we could have found n number of other things as well though only it would have been a by-product.
 
Jesper de Jong
Java Cowboy
Saloon Keeper
Posts: 15356
39
Android IntelliJ IDE Java Scala Spring
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Arun Giridharan wrote:You are saying these things are non-physical (Fine),but what actually it is ???

I don't know but the law of conservation of energy has nothing to do with this.
 
Henry Wong
author
Marshal
Pie
Posts: 21194
81
C++ Chrome Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser Java jQuery Linux VI Editor Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jesper de Jong wrote:
Arun Giridharan wrote:You are saying these things are non-physical (Fine),but what actually it is ???

I don't know but the law of conservation of energy has nothing to do with this.


I would guess that the law applies to classical physics (or physics before quantum mechanics is applied). With quantum mechanics, matter and energy are conserved together (ie. E equals MC Squared).

To throw another monkey wrench into the works. There are theories that propose that some subatomic particles can, under certain conditions, become it's own anti particle. This means that it is possible to create particles (along with their anti particles) out of nothing, and then have some of those particles switch -- effectively creating something from nothing... BTW, don't have more detail, as most of the theory went over my head.

Henry
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic