aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes law of conversion of energy[MisUnderstood] Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "law of conversion of energy[MisUnderstood]" Watch "law of conversion of energy[MisUnderstood]" New topic
Author

law of conversion of energy[MisUnderstood]

Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

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

Joined: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 14435
    
  23

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.

Java Beginners FAQ - JavaRanch SCJP FAQ - The Java Tutorial - Java SE 8 API documentation
Paul Clapham
Bartender

Joined: Oct 14, 2005
Posts: 18991
    
    8

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

Joined: Jan 10, 2002
Posts: 61769
    
  67

Yield to Commando Bear Energy!



[Asking smart questions] [Bear's FrontMan] [About Bear] [Books by Bear]
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

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

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

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

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8883
    
    5
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.


Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Sameer Jamal
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 16, 2001
Posts: 1870
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

Joined: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 14435
    
  23

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
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 19073
    
  40

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


Books: Java Threads, 3rd Edition, Jini in a Nutshell, and Java Gems (contributor)
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: law of conversion of energy[MisUnderstood]