The conservation of energy applies both at atomic and massive scale, it causes suns to burn out... If electricity is energy, then it is in fact , massive..
Ah, but see,
how massive? The mass you're talking about, the amount of energy (and therefore mass) lost as an electron moves from an area of higher potential to lower potential, is practically 0. Yes, there is some non zero amount, but it only comes in to play in a purely academic theory-type setting. From a practical engineering standpoint, it's 0.
Anyways this is becoming a debate of words more than fact, as mass and energy have to be equal for the conservation of energy to exist, otherwise you burned things there would be an imbalance in total energy spent, meaning you would produce either less light, ash or other.
No! Well I certainly agree you're using more words than facts But that other part is wrong. You do not need mass-energy equivelance to balance energy conservation in something like a campfire. If you weigh the wood before you start the fire, and then weigh all the ash + gases given off by the fire after it dies, they would be equal*. So what happened to all the energy? The
chemical potential energy of the wood was converted in to radiation (probably in the IR spectrum) and heat (it warmed the air around it using convection). The mass (not counting energy) of the wood was conserved even though you burned it. The energy (not counting mass) was conserved by turning the chemical potential energy in to other forms of energy. At no point was mass converted to energy or vice versa.
*In theory, there would be a small mass difference from the lost chemical energy. But from any practical standpoint this is 0. It's something on the order of like 10^-30 grams. Which is about the mass of an electron (give or take a few orders of magnitude).
Tiny. Quite literally insignificant.
Anyways if no one here is willing to think of energy and neural nets as one in the same, theres no way I can convince any of you, but the laws of thermodynamics are clear cut, the amount for work put out is always equal to the total available energy in a system, including its energy as light, heat, mass and other.
No, not all energy in a system is usable for "work". "Work" has some very specific meanings in physics. But you
can say that the amount of energy in a system remains constant, where energy is sum of its light, kinetic motion (heat), (rest) mass, etc. This is always true. For the vast majority of systems, however, you can go even further and say that the amount of energy in a closed system,
not counting its mass as energy, will remain constant under any conceivable circumstance. And likewise the amount of mass in the system,
not counting energy as mass will remain constant under any conceivable sitation. This conservation of mass is even more useful since it holds even if you're
inputing energy in to the system. Just so long as you don't input
too much energy, (like in an atomic blast). Then you'ld have to take that whole mass-energy equivelance in to account (I think an atom bomb converts a little less than a gram of matter in to energy, IIRC).
hile things may be very small in scale, doesnt mean the same laws do not apply, gravity does paly a role in chemistry, or the Earth would be barren of oxygen and hydrogen...
You mean from the ligh gases floating off in to the void of space? That's not what I'm talking about. That's clearly phenomena on a planetary scale. I mean
chemical reactions, like
one O2 molecule and
two H2 molecules reacting to give off energy and produce two water molecules. At no point in that reaction does mass-energy equivelance or gravitational attraction between the molecules come in to play. The only gravity that does come in to play is the effectively uniform gravitational field of the Earth during the reaction (some reactions occur differently in 0 g).
Maybe if you had a DNA strand the size of a small moon, you would have to take graviational attraction in to account. But otherwise you just don't.
And yes, just remember no matter what the work is, conservation of energy applies constant, its a Universal law in Physics with absolutely no exception.. SO the battery powering the laser runs on the exact same prinicples, ever notice how batteris get hot, its wasting some of its availble energy of electricity in the form of heat...
I'm not arguing against the conservation of energy. That the electrical energy turns in to heat is exactly my point. It doesn't turn in to hydrogen atoms or something like that. It goes from one form of energy to another.
Im not explaining lift vs mass, its energy and mass equivelancy on an atomic level resulting in a singularity of the definition of energy (I.e String Theory).
Huh?
Thermodynamics can be measured witht eh first law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics The Photons emmit light, the photons hit objects and excite the object's photons, and in intense sources like the sun, the photons can give energy/heat to living organisms.
Photons don't emit light. Photons
are light. Or rather they're an abstraction of the rather annoying wave-particle duality of light. When a photon hits an object, it does not "excite the object's photons". Objects don't
have photons. Photons are stuck going at the speed of light (since they
are light) and traveling in a straight* line. When a photon hits an object's
electrons, it can excite that
electron. How can you even
expect me to take you seriously when you confuse photons, electrons, and protons? That's like middle school science class. It would be like confusing mammals and fish.
*Gravitational lensing not withstanding.
Also, the light source does not need to be intense. In fact, it's the frequency of light that determines if it can give energy to an atom. See
the photoelectric effect. You could have an extremely intense light source, but if it's the wrong color, you won't get any photoelectric effect, and thus no energy.
OF coarse the more this happens (energy use) the more entropy occurs, meaning that the next time you try to create the energy, its so widely spraed thin that its more difficult to light the ash remains of paper.
That is the most bogus explanation of entropy I have ever seen. The energy "spreads thin"? Really?
What's really happening is that "energy" as we're used to thinking of it is actually a "flow" of energy (that is, the change in energy). Energy always flows "downhill", from areas of high to areas of low, and it's this flowing that produces "work". So if all of your energy is at the same level, you won't be able to extract any work from it, even if that energy is a relatively highly charged level. That's what happens when a battery dies. The energy level on the front half is equal to the energy level in the back half. In a charged battery, the two halves have different energy levels, so you can extract useful work as the energy flows from the charged half to the uncharged half.
Yes crows know things, but they are no PArrot. So I fail to see the connection mentioned between Alex the parrot and the Crow unless the argument is that Crows are capable of Parrot behaviors, not sure if their vocal box can handle human sounds...
Parrots
are birds though, and so clearly demonstrate that there are at least
some birds with intelligence. You were saying that all birds behave
only instinctively. That they're as dumb as bacteria. But that is clearly not true, since there's at least one counter-example. As for crows specifically, they're entire family is widely regarded as one of the smartest birds. See
Corvidae Intelligence.