Quote:
Originally Posted by coliver
My thinking is that energy exists throughout the universe like Plasma but it is not formed into matter until it has an opposing charge?
|
Right here you need to stop for a moment. Energy does not form into matter because energy is matter. Secondly, you need to reason what you mean by an "opposing" charge and what that has to do with forming matter. Nuclei of the same charge fuse within the sun to form Helium nuclei.
Quote:
|
And that matter exists as long as its between absolute zero and its flashpoint, at which time it would be converted back into Kinetic Energy?
|
This is another sentence that needs some reworking. It is unclear.
Quote:
Also possibly that Radiation slowly eats away at matter with a faster effect as temperature rises.
|
Again this contradicts what occurs within the sun where high temperature and density allows fusion to occur.
Quote:
|
The same as skin cancer has an effect due to the Sun? But with more radiation like fire you would reach the flashpoint and the matter or object be converted back into kinetic energy. If energy cant be made or destroyed then it has to revert to another state right?
|
No. Are you insisting that phase changes are the only changes that take place?
Quote:
|
Space is about 3 degrees above 0
|
So you think space does not exist at 2.726K? Are you trying to tell me that the cosmic microwave background does not exist in space?
Quote:
but when a heat source excites the plasma it reacts right? Like a Supernovae?
|
You are not describing the physics of SN very well nor the physics of plasma very well.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Perhaps this might have something to do with it as well? Im not sure if its the temperature or a combination of temperature and particle/wave duality but Im suggesting something happens at the Boson/Fermion level that creates an opposite charge or particle? Provided the temperature is above 0 but below the object or elements flashpoint, or ignition temperature? Does this make any sense scientifically from what we know? I think it conforms to the mainstraem thinking, only that temperature is a factor?
|
I would study up on this matter a little more carefully before burning up a lot of time throwing terms around that sound like physics to you.
I think I would start with motion; what constitutes motion; what constitutes "rest"; what constitutes shared motions; what constitutes a change in motion and how have experiments over several centuries changed our views concerning the laws of motion. I would then be concerned with the mathematics that allow one to make predictions concerning the laws of motion and that describe the motions we experience.
I would then study waves and ask what it is that waves move with respect to. Water waves move with respect to water. Sound waves move with respect to the air. What do light waves move with respect to? Can one make a part of a wave? What experiments with waves are possible and what is the equipment and the mathematical description that accompanies that equipment and those experiments?
Then I suggest thinking about how many times one can subdivide an object. Can that be done an infinite amount of times? Are there experiments that exist that answer this?
I am not asking for a response. This is not a physics crash course attempt on my part. If anything I am asking you to slow your mental wheels down until you know how to make them stick to the road. You might open up your own eyes first and possibly the rest of us as well if your pursuit continues long enough.