[extropy-chat] Gravity, Energy , Mass and my mother

[Emlyn]

Jef,

Don't feed the trolls.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com


On 09/03/06, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >I've been trying to explain to mother (who is a diosis with the Protestant
> > >Church) about science.  (Forget about evolution, that's going to take a
> > >lot more convincing)
> >
> > >I may be completely off, but i'm just trying to explain to her (she is
> > very, very
> > >old school, pray, be nice and don't think too much:) in easy terms,
> > >the concept of e=mc2 using humans as the example.
>
> Anne, humans inhabit a world in-between the very large and the very
> small.  In fact, we are roughly in the middle of the scale, with the
> very large, cosmic structures like galaxies at one end, and the very
> small sub-atomic particles at the the other end.
>
> Einstein's equation e=mc^2 was discovered only recently, in the early
> 20th century, because its effects aren't normally noticeable and
> hardly apply at the human scale.
>
>
> >
> > >Please let me know that i'm way off before I approach her with my idea:)
> > >(And by the way, smileys are cute!)
>
> <smile>  :-)  Yes, I think you are way off on this.  :-)  <smile>
>
> >
> > >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:)
> > >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy
> > >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially
> > >into kinetic energy of the electrons.  The simplest
> > >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's
> > >entire energy to a single electron..)"
>
> Usually photons transfer all of their energy to an atom at once, but
> sometimes they give up their energy gradually by interaction with the
> coulomb field of the atom, and there are various types of scattering
> which can cause the photon's energy to gradually dissipate over
> multiple steps within the body.  How much interaction and the types of
> interactions depend on factors such as the energy and angle of the
> arriving photon, and the nature of the material.
>
> But I don't think this has anything to do with interactions between
> humans at the human scale.
>
>
> >
> > Then I will say:
> > >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted
> > >to someone, you would need gravity.
>
> All bodies are subject to gravitational force in relation to their
> mass, and scientists have demonstrated that even photons are subject
> to gravitational attraction, but this is nothing like the emotional
> attraction that people feel for each other.
>
> >
> > >Then, If energy equals mass times the speed of light, then
> > >at certain times people meet for a specific reason.  (Or if they
> > >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation,
> > >they too may become contaminated.)
>
> This paragraph suggests to me that you may want to take a basic
> conceptual physics class so you will understand the scientific meaning
> of "energy", "mass", "radiation", and so on.  Your statement just
> doesn't make any sense in scientific terms.
>
> >
> > >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are
> > >other energies that effect humans that may cause
> > >electromagnetic fields based on the time.
> > >(if you haven't already became radiation.)
>
> Electromagnetic fields and radiation are all around us, and all bodies
> emit, absorb, and reflect radiation in various ways that are quite
> well understood.  This doesn't normally have much to do with e=mc2,
> however, at the level at which it is practiced by engineers and
> scientists.
>
> > >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand
> > >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time)
>
> This is so disjointed I don't know what I could say to help here.
> On a completely different tangent, I think understanding awareness is
> extremely important to humans and human society, since increasing
> awareness tends to lead to better decision-making.  I also think it is
> important to understand what we mean by both subjective and objective
> awareness.
>
> > >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.!
> > >(I won't tell her it was Buddha)
>
> To become "fully conscious" as the Buddha teaches is about quieting
> the mind and becoming more aware of the inner chatter, mental filters
> and preconceptions that interfere with seeing things more clearly.
>
> > >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness?
>
> Awareness can be tested and measured in specific terms under specific
> conditions, but some philosophers continue to argue about what
> "awareness" really means.
>
>
> >
> > >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome,
> > >it makes me smarter
> > >Thanks Anna
>
>
> I would comment that there is much we already know and understand
> about the world we live in.  There is even more that we don't yet know
> and understand.  A scientific approach is the best approach we
> currently have toward refining what we think we already know and
> uncovering further mysteries and new questions we can ask.
>
> I wish you a delightful and rewarding journey along whichever path you follow.
>
> - Jef
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>