We all can agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed...a "circle?" if you will?
My question is based on the energy that is stored in our bodies. Our hearts are filled with electricity, and that is evidenced by an EKG and the need for a battery-operated pacemaker to control rhythm.
What happens to the energy when one dies and how is energy created when forming a new life? Does energy stay between specific lifeforms?
Rabbit- I will get to yours, promise. Maybe even later today.
Pink- the part in your equation that you forgot...
Energy is neither created or destroyed, it is merely transformed.
More scientific minds can address this also, but here's how I see it.
When the sperm and egg combine, they begin to divide themselves. Splitting to form 2, then 4, then 16, etc.... The zygote uses energy stored within the first two cells to create the new cells. It can't continue creating cells indefinitely, it MUST implant within the mothers body and use her energy to continue developing its potential.
Which is why you don't see mutant babies in the sewer system from zygotes that failed to implant in the mother's uterine wall.
The energy in the mother's body comes from the food she eats and the oxygen she breathes.
Ultimately, all life comes from the energy of the sun.
Which is why the sun worshippers weren't entirely wrong.
1. What's the top 5 books that have had a profound effect on you and your development as a person.
Oi. This one's a hard one. Hmmmm, I rarely think of books like that and don't mentally categorize them as having a profound influence on me. So it's taken much brain wracking to come up with the ones that I did.
Upon reflection I would have to say that the first book to have a profound effect on me would be Winnie the Pooh: House at Pooh Corner. Not because it was philosophically profound to me, but it was the first book I read that was a real book and not a children's picture book. I still remember sitting in the back seat of the car and reading it on the way home from town. My love of reading started there.
Wasn't sure about which others to add, so instead will say this. If I could only grab a few volumes to have as my sole source of reading material for a rather long length of time I would bring....
Open Marriage- by Nena and George O'Neil Civilization One- by Christopher Knight Atheism: the Case Against God- by George H. Smith Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand- by Leonard Peikoff Beauty: A Retelling of the Story of Beauty and the Beast- by Robin McKinley Morning Glory- by LaVyrle Spencer History of the World by J.M. Roberts
And I'd want the Saxon Math books along as well. I'm currently working through Algebra 2 and absolutely loving it.
2. There are a few different ways to tie shoelaces/buckles/velcro. How do you tie yours.
As a kid, it was shoelaces for tennis shoes (trainers) and buckles for sandals. But then velcro came out and allllll the cool kids wore velcro tennies shoes.
Today- I own 2 pairs of tie them yourself tennis shoes, and 1 pair of leather slip on loafers with no velcro shoes what so ever. And somewhere in the dark recesses of my closet are black slip on dressup shoes that I hope to never have to wear.
3. If you had a single wish. What would you use it on
Genie wishes are hard if there aren't limits placed upon them. Can they effect the entire world/universe? Or do they need to be specific to me personally?
Global/Universal wish- I wish for every person who wields political power to be revealed for who and what they truly are. For the agendas and philosophy to be generally known so people can handle what IS going on instead of what is PERCEIVED to be going on.
Monetary wish- I wish for $500,000 to come from a source that won't hurt anybody with no strings attached. I was going to say I wish for a million, billion, zillion dollars but figured that would be just greedy.
Silly wish- I wish I could fly with no ill effects from super sonic speed.
4. Have you ever done a painting or made something of which you were really proud of (can be in preschool and could just be a stick figure)?
There are several photographs I've taken with my digital camera that I'm particularly proud of. I enjoyed painting by number when I was a kid, though I wasn't particularly good at it. And several times I've decorated Mum's house for christmas and it has turned out really fabulously.
5. How many sound effects can you do accurately with your mouth. i.e. a winter breeze
Never counted them and wouldn't know until they occurred naturally in the course of a conversation, but “winter breeze whistling through the eaves” is definitely one of them. My son is much more of the mouth sound effects person than I am.
6. Have you ever counted out loud past a thousand.
No, but I have sung 100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall all the way down to No Bottles before.
7. Can you/have you ever danced? I enjoy slow dancing (which is an excuse to hold your man and sway back and forth in public.) I would love to learn how to Waltz and the Tango and I find watching Dirty Dancing to be fairly erotic. However, I'm not naturally very graceful on my feet and my body doesn't easily follow another's lead.
8. At this present moment in your life. What is your favourite beverage. What were past favourites?
Depends on what the purpose of the beverage is?
PRESENTLY....
Quenching thirst- distilled water or bottled drinking water WITHOUT added minerals.
Taste (non alcoholic)- Black Cherry pop.
Booze- Long Island Teas or Bourbon and Cola.
PAST-
I've always liked water for quenching thirst. Nothing else satisfies.
Booze- Black Velvet (Canadian Whiskey) and 7-up (a clear soda)
Ummmmm 3 I suppose. because I get a kick out of dividing by 3 (adding up the digits and if they're divisible by 3 then the whole number is divisible by 3. Don't know why. Just do.
10. It has to be over 0. No -666 If it could be any number I probably would have picked 18 because after 12, that was the age that I couldn't wait to turn and even chose that number for my track suit in year 9.
Cool, I dig. I guess I shouldn't have asked the "creation" part so much as the "death" part, because that's what fascinates me.
I read a blog about a woman who had premature twins. One lived, one died. The one who died; well, she held that one in her arms while he actively died. She swears that she felt "something" when he died. What was that? The energy?
I'm no "fundy," just a simpleton who comes here for some really great technical info. I forgot who posted (Richard maybe) about evolution, but it was extremly eye-opening.
So, that's all, really. Just contemplating this shit.
Meh. I thought you might want to read her blog. Or maybe not, but I'll put it out there anyway. Her prose is something that is awe-inspiring, and I don't say that lightly.
As Sweet_Salty herself claims to have felt something when one of her twins died in her arms, I would not argue with her. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm sure she did feel something. In fact, at the instant of her baby's death, had she had electrodes hooked up to her brain or been having a brain scan, the appropriate areas would have lit up to reveal that she was indeed experiencing something.
They would probably be the same areas of the brain that, when stimulated, can produce religious or supernatural experiences. They are created in the brain, by the brain. They don't have a supernatural origin. And investigation into why they occur evolutionarily speaking would be very fascinating.
The energy that existed in a living form when they die, decomposes with them. Although not as much as it would naturally because of the preservatives the morticians use. Which is why I'd like to be buried under a sapling so my body's energy can be used by the tree and continue on. :) The ultimate recyling program.
"Energy", the word, has several uses that apply to "vigor", "Life", "Chi" and the scientific notions of "Potential" and "Kinetic" Energy...
{vigor} A kid running about at play, is said to "have a lot of energy". Of course, that is not energy in the sense of electricity or gasoline, it is more about his spirited approach to what he is doing. He is actually not "energetic", he is invigorated by his state of mind. True, he is using energy, as he runs about, but that is not really the point of this usage. After all, he has and uses a lot of energy when he sleeps too.
{Life} There is also "Life Energy" which some construe as a mystical force, while others just think it's there when you are alive and vanishes when you die. The former use can be rejected out of hand, there isn't anything but the natural. The second 'something' may just be the integrated functioning of the body. When it fails, it shuts down, like a car engine losing its timing belt. Fuel energy can't be processed and the car 'dies'.
{Chi} The Orientals have "Qi" or "Chi Energy". Chi Energy is rather complicated. It is related to the supposed flow of some kind of 'energy' along the Meridian lines used by acupuncturists, Shiatsu masseurs and other related aspects of Oriental medicine.
Is it real? Well, I lean to "No", with one caveat: our conscious minds clearly operate with some sort of force that is not influenced by electric or magnetic fields, or gravity etc.
Our minds also appear to operate 'with no particular' nerve cells, suggesting the *mind* is not a network like a computer chip, but a field like a magnetic field (think of iron filings) but that is clearly not electro-magnetic.
So, maybe there is a force (not energy) that Oriental medicine has crudely hit upon, and patients occasionally benefit from it.
Now, if there is such a thing as Chi, then Evolution may have found a way of using it via cellular nerve signaling, leading to consciousness, and perhaps even to free will (which would enable concept formation, language, reason and logic).
Okay, look, I work in medicine with Cardiology being one of my specialties. It seems crazy that an EKG can tap into the heart's **electrical** energy and that a pacemaker (with a battery) can alter the heart's rhythm. There is detectible electrical energy at work. There's no denying that.
I broke at this point, because all of the uses of the term "energy", I gave, were not precisely defined. This next, is precise.
Physic’s most simple Energy equation is:
E=1/2(m*v^2),
where m=mass, v=velocity, & the ^ means “exponent” (so in this case 'v' is squared).
You could read the equation as saying: “Energy = the ability of a moving object to make another object move”. However, there are many forms of energy, so Electrical Energy has moving electrons that can make other electrons move, or that can cause radio or light waves, or cause a magnetic field. Similarly, falling water has energy that can turn a turbine fitted with magnets, which forces electrons to move through coiled wire. Heat is rapidly vibrating molecules, so their 'energy' (mass moving) can make other molecules vibrate as each bounces from the other.
However, there is a misconception about the nature of Energy, which I must explain.
It is something teachers never teach! ____________
Equations and Thinking
Consider miles per gallon ("MPG"). Most people know it as “the number of miles a vehicle travels” divided by “the volume of gas burned in doing so”:
MPG = distance / volume.
Please consider that we can see a distance, or a volume of gas, as descriptions of physical things. The specific distance is a very real stretch of land traveled over, and the specific volume of gas can be seen in its container.
Both are ostensive —that is, they are plainly evident to your senses.
Now the point: there is no “thing” that is MPG. It is strictly an idea!
Think about that!
MPG is a conceptual construct! But that, in no way, makes it an invalid idea! It is the way the human mind MUST work.
MPG arises by the mathematical joining (integration) of two other ideas, using division. The division takes two measurable, ostensive, notions and produces a third that is not ostensive!
The result? MPG is not a material thing; but it is an important idea, or concept, about a relationship. There is nothing wrong with that!
The relationship is real! Just as you cannot point to a marriage relationship, though you know it's real, understand that you cannot point to a distance/volume relationship, but you can also know it is real.
You cannot point to MPG but,through math, you can grasp the differences between your car's MPG, and the MPG reported, say on TV, for other models of cars.
The same is true of “Energy”! It is not a material thing; it is only a concept about a very real relationship.
When Scotty, in Star Trek, says, "it's pure energy, Captain", he (or the script writer) shows no understanding of what energy is!
Saying it was "pure energy" is as foolish as saying "it's pure MPG".
Imagine saying, "I just went through a 'cloud' of pure MPG; it reeked of gas and distance!"
MPG and Energy just aren't ostensive!
Ostensive "Energy" is not possible, in any way! The technical name for the error of pretending it is ostensive, is "the reification of a concept" —that is, believing an abstraction (energy, mpg, marriage) is a material thing.
Sorry, Scotty, you just cannot have that; it ain't there!
So Energy is an abstract idea about the relationship between a moving mass-1, that *could* have an impact on the motion of another mass-2, through some kind of force associated with mass-1's mass.
The forgoing could mean a direct impact (speaking in macro terms: as between billiard balls) or a magnetic, electric, photo-electric or gravitational effect, and so on).
Now, in chemical reactions, a rapidly moving atom can smack into another atom. If they have the right electron-orbital structure, they might even bond together, or the second atom might fly off the molecule it was attached to (a break in its bond relation with other atoms), making even more things (atoms) fly about.
In the latter example, the rapidly moving atom has caused a rearrangement of atomic bonds (a chemical reaction), that causes other atoms to fly about rapidly. That "wild flying about" is heat Energy".
Nonetheless, there is still no such ‘thing’ as Energy, even though it is clear that a lot of energy, in the sense of moving masses, exists. Such is the reality & power in "relationships". ...
Next: responding to the 'energy' notions in AtheistHomeschooler's visitor comments. _
Excellent explanation, Richard; however, the basic premis here is that the 'relationship' or what have you, can neither be created or destroyed, only TRANSFORMED, and as you said (It is not a material thing; it is only a concept about a very real relationship.) a "relationship." Point being there is a "circle," no matter how you want to define it or extend it.
I stand by my original question. Where does the "energy" go when someone dies? Is it species/matter-specific?
Pink wrote; “What happens to the energy when one dies and how is energy created when forming a new life? Does energy stay between specific life forms?”
Similarly, Fiery wrote: "The energy that existed in a living form when they die, decomposes with them."
Well, not really. The living thing is composed of molecules, of course. The stored energy in a molecule, such glucose, is Potential Energy. That is, the bonds between the atoms in the sugar could be broken by free, moving oxygen atoms. Then some glucose atoms will fly off and form bonds with the oxygen atoms. The new atomic arrangement allows electrons to move to more stable positions than they were in before. A LOT of movement occurs. That is, the reaction products, H2O and CO2, will be spinning and pinging about quickly, which we on the macro scale see AS heat.
We can figure out how much energy there would be if that reaction were to occur. It is the same, but quite a bit more complicated, as figuring out how much energy a certain quantity of water, falling from the top of a dam to the bottom, will have. So we ask, how big a turbine will it turn? The relationship between velocity and mass, that is energy, can be calculated.. Whether the energy is transferred or not is, in Physics, irrelevant.
(Please note, “Kinetic Energy” is the same calculation, but it is calculated as an ongoing, or active, event.)
In living tissue, enzymes control reactions, but as the cells run out of oxygen other chemical reactions begin to take over, as the first steps of non-bacterial decay. The body tissues cool. First, the organized metabolic reactions that used oxygen and kept us warm ceased. Second, the remaining reactions are disorganized (!), though many still occur. Different combinations of atoms form different types of molecules that the cells would not make under normal living conditions. These new molecules are always a shift to lower energy states, with a slow release of heat… not enough for us to notice. At this point, the tissues are just compost.
You may see from the above that it’s not “energy” decomposing; it is body molecules that rearrange to reach lower energy states. In the dead body there are initial Potential Energy states between the reacting molecules. That energy is released as the Kinetic Energy of heat, which is the energy ‘released’ as the reaction finishes.
She “felt something when one of her twins died in her arms”
This is clearly an expression of the energy of physics. But is it any kind of ‘energy’ at all? Knowing the life has gone out of a living body is a traumatic, emotional experience for pet owners, family members etc. Emotions are near instantaneous value-responses to new experiences. Was the awareness of that tell-tale stillness of death a near instant value response? Surely, the death of a child is an incredible emotional experience for the mother. I contest that it is no wonder she “felt something”, but that “something” arose through her own emotional and physiological systems,and not some, inexplicable ‘energy’.
In my first comment in this thread, I mentioned Chi Energy. If such a force, or power, exists, which the human body uses, then perhaps the dying child’s Chi ceased to influence the Chi of the mother. E.g. if Chi is in anyway involved in the workings of the conscious mind, then perhaps whatever the mother “felt” —as the barely developed mind of the baby died— is explicable. However, until Science figures this out, Chi is an arbitrary claim, not to be taken too seriously. If you consider it possible, it is only through true (non-Popperian) scientific methods that Chi will be discovered. (There is a lot of pseudo-science in such matters as the Para-normal, Oriental medicine, Environmentalism, etc.)
It seems crazy that an EKG can tap into the heart's **electrical** energy and that a pacemaker (with a battery) can alter the heart's rhythm. There is detectible electrical energy at work.
Neural electric signalling is very different from the flow of electrons in a wire in your house. The inside and immediate outside of a nerve’s cell membranes has small charge difference (a microvoltage) caused by a difference in the ions (Ca++ K+ Na+) pumped in and out of the cell. A nerve signal is not a flow of electrons (as is electricity). Instead ‘gates’ in the nerve cell membrane pop open to let ions flow across. This change in charge causes more ‘downstream’ gates to pop open, so in effect, a wave or pulse travels along the nerve. That difference in charge is a form of energy, but the “energy” is still the abstract concept concerning the mass and motion of, in this case.
Of course, that charge difference can be detected by ECG & EEG machines. Also, a slight electrical jolt in the right location can start a nerve signal (as occurs with pacemakers and those muscle ‘trainers’.
Pink, I just had not reached the point of answering the specifics. Once I had given the background, then the specific questions are much easier to answer.
That is why, above your last comment, I wrote: "Next: responding to the 'energy' notions in AtheistHomeschooler's visitor comments."
Now I have to quit for the night, if clarifications are still needed, or if there is a question I have not answered at all, let me know.
“What happens to the energy when one dies and how is energy created when forming a new life? Does energy stay between specific life forms?”
I wonder if the following further explanation will be clearer.
Keep in mind that energy is only a measure or index of the amount of moving mass, or mass with the potential to move. So when someone dies the mass with the potential to move is even less likely to move. So, it just sits there.
The energy is only potential, not actual because nothing about the mass or object is moving relative to anything else. Now, chemical decay tends to release some heat as the products of the reactions largely have to have less energy than the reactants. So some of the energy that was in the living body is lost has heat (as I mentioned).
Then bacteria, etc. come along with metabolic systems that can get a lot more energy out of the molecules of the body. They use it to run their own metabolism --releasing heat, moving cellular parts about, and moving themselves about. That's it. That's where the energy goes.
"Then bacteria, etc. come along with metabolic systems that can get a lot more energy out of the molecules of the body. They use it to run their own metabolism --releasing heat, moving cellular parts about, and moving themselves about. That's it. That's where the energy goes."
Sweet. Thanks for summing it up (and providing a thorough examination scientifically). Makes TOTAL sense, the circle it is. Damn, I sound like Yoda. :-)
My next pressing question is whether or not you have a cure for these "man hairs" that start to grow on a postmenopausal woman's face. Cuz, it's fucking grossing me out seeing this sprout from my FACE! (I know, it is the testotsterone). Adding levity and a little joke. :-)
20 comments:
I'll start
1. What's the top 5 books that have had a profound effect on you and your development as a person.
2. There are a few different ways to tie shoelaces/buckles/velcro. How do you tie yours
3. If you had a single wish. What would you use it on
4. Have you ever done a painting or made something of which you were really proud of (can be in preschool and could just be a stick figure)
5. How many sound effects can you do accurately with your mouth. i.e. a winter breeze
6. Have you ever counted out loud past a thousand.
7. Can you/have you even danced
8. At this present moment in your life. What is your favourite beverage. What were past favourites
9. What's your favourite number under 10
10. It has to be over 0. No -666
Okay, here's one that I ponder.
We all can agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed...a "circle?" if you will?
My question is based on the energy that is stored in our bodies. Our hearts are filled with electricity, and that is evidenced by an EKG and the need for a battery-operated pacemaker to control rhythm.
What happens to the energy when one dies and how is energy created when forming a new life? Does energy stay between specific lifeforms?
Rabbit- I will get to yours, promise. Maybe even later today.
Pink- the part in your equation that you forgot...
Energy is neither created or destroyed, it is merely transformed.
More scientific minds can address this also, but here's how I see it.
When the sperm and egg combine, they begin to divide themselves. Splitting to form 2, then 4, then 16, etc.... The zygote uses energy stored within the first two cells to create the new cells. It can't continue creating cells indefinitely, it MUST implant within the mothers body and use her energy to continue developing its potential.
Which is why you don't see mutant babies in the sewer system from zygotes that failed to implant in the mother's uterine wall.
The energy in the mother's body comes from the food she eats and the oxygen she breathes.
Ultimately, all life comes from the energy of the sun.
Which is why the sun worshippers weren't entirely wrong.
1. What's the top 5 books that have had a profound effect on you and your development as a person.
Oi. This one's a hard one. Hmmmm, I rarely think of books like that and don't mentally categorize them as having a profound influence on me. So it's taken much brain wracking to come up with the ones that I did.
Upon reflection I would have to say that the first book to have a profound effect on me would be Winnie the Pooh: House at Pooh Corner. Not because it was philosophically profound to me, but it was the first book I read that was a real book and not a children's picture book. I still remember sitting in the back seat of the car and reading it on the way home from town. My love of reading started there.
Wasn't sure about which others to add, so instead will say this. If I could only grab a few volumes to have as my sole source of reading material for a rather long length of time I would bring....
Open Marriage- by Nena and George O'Neil
Civilization One- by Christopher Knight
Atheism: the Case Against God- by George H. Smith
Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand- by Leonard Peikoff
Beauty: A Retelling of the Story of Beauty and the Beast- by Robin McKinley
Morning Glory- by LaVyrle Spencer
History of the World by J.M. Roberts
And I'd want the Saxon Math books along as well. I'm currently working through Algebra 2 and absolutely loving it.
2. There are a few different ways to tie shoelaces/buckles/velcro. How do you tie yours.
As a kid, it was shoelaces for tennis shoes (trainers) and buckles for sandals. But then velcro came out and allllll the cool kids wore velcro tennies shoes.
Today- I own 2 pairs of tie them yourself tennis shoes, and 1 pair of leather slip on loafers with no velcro shoes what so ever. And somewhere in the dark recesses of my closet are black slip on dressup shoes that I hope to never have to wear.
3. If you had a single wish. What would you use it on
Genie wishes are hard if there aren't limits placed upon them. Can they effect the entire world/universe? Or do they need to be specific to me personally?
Global/Universal wish- I wish for every person who wields political power to be revealed for who and what they truly are. For the agendas and philosophy to be generally known so people can handle what IS going on instead of what is PERCEIVED to be going on.
Monetary wish- I wish for $500,000 to come from a source that won't hurt anybody with no strings attached. I was going to say I wish for a million, billion, zillion dollars but figured that would be just greedy.
Silly wish- I wish I could fly with no ill effects from super sonic speed.
4. Have you ever done a painting or made something of which you were really proud of (can be in preschool and could just be a stick figure)?
There are several photographs I've taken with my digital camera that I'm particularly proud of. I enjoyed painting by number when I was a kid, though I wasn't particularly good at it. And several times I've decorated Mum's house for christmas and it has turned out really fabulously.
5. How many sound effects can you do accurately with your mouth. i.e. a winter breeze
Never counted them and wouldn't know until they occurred naturally in the course of a conversation, but “winter breeze whistling through the eaves” is definitely one of them. My son is much more of the mouth sound effects person than I am.
6. Have you ever counted out loud past a thousand.
No, but I have sung 100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall all the way down to No Bottles before.
7. Can you/have you ever danced?
I enjoy slow dancing (which is an excuse to hold your man and sway back and forth in public.) I would love to learn how to Waltz and the Tango and I find watching Dirty Dancing to be fairly erotic. However, I'm not naturally very graceful on my feet and my body doesn't easily follow another's lead.
8. At this present moment in your life. What is your favourite beverage. What were past favourites?
Depends on what the purpose of the beverage is?
PRESENTLY....
Quenching thirst- distilled water or bottled drinking water WITHOUT added minerals.
Taste (non alcoholic)- Black Cherry pop.
Booze- Long Island Teas or Bourbon and Cola.
PAST-
I've always liked water for quenching thirst. Nothing else satisfies.
Booze- Black Velvet (Canadian Whiskey) and 7-up (a clear soda)
Favorite pops/soda/fizzy drink-
Sunkist, Grape Crush, A&W Rootbeer, Dr. Pepper, Cherry pop.
9. What's your favourite number under 10?
Ummmmm 3 I suppose. because I get a kick out of dividing by 3 (adding up the digits and if they're divisible by 3 then the whole number is divisible by 3. Don't know why. Just do.
10. It has to be over 0. No -666
If it could be any number I probably would have picked 18 because after 12, that was the age that I couldn't wait to turn and even chose that number for my track suit in year 9.
thanks for the fun questions rabbit!!!!!!
Cool, I dig. I guess I shouldn't have asked the "creation" part so much as the "death" part, because that's what fascinates me.
I read a blog about a woman who had premature twins. One lived, one died. The one who died; well, she held that one in her arms while he actively died. She swears that she felt "something" when he died. What was that? The energy?
I'm no "fundy," just a simpleton who comes here for some really great technical info. I forgot who posted (Richard maybe) about evolution, but it was extremly eye-opening.
So, that's all, really. Just contemplating this shit.
Meh. I thought you might want to read her blog. Or maybe not, but I'll put it out there anyway. Her prose is something that is awe-inspiring, and I don't say that lightly.
http://www.sweetsalty.com/
As Sweet_Salty herself claims to have felt something when one of her twins died in her arms, I would not argue with her. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm sure she did feel something. In fact, at the instant of her baby's death, had she had electrodes hooked up to her brain or been having a brain scan, the appropriate areas would have lit up to reveal that she was indeed experiencing something.
They would probably be the same areas of the brain that, when stimulated, can produce religious or supernatural experiences. They are created in the brain, by the brain. They don't have a supernatural origin. And investigation into why they occur evolutionarily speaking would be very fascinating.
The energy that existed in a living form when they die, decomposes with them. Although not as much as it would naturally because of the preservatives the morticians use. Which is why I'd like to be buried under a sapling so my body's energy can be used by the tree and continue on. :) The ultimate recyling program.
"The energy that existed in a living form when they die, decomposes with them."
I thought energy was "transformed" not "decomposed."
FWIW, I read somewhere that one can have their ashes and concrete (?) made into a "reef ball" and dumped into the ocean. I am SO DOING that.
"The energy that existed in a living form when they die, decomposes with them."
Yep should have edited for clarity. And I am really speaking way beyond my level of experience here. Will appeal to Richard to continue this one.
Will probably have to do with bacteria breaking things down, worms, biodegradable type things etc.. etc..
Hi Fiery, I will give it a shot.
"Energy", the word, has several uses that apply to "vigor", "Life", "Chi" and the scientific notions of "Potential" and "Kinetic" Energy...
{vigor}
A kid running about at play, is said to "have a lot of energy". Of course, that is not energy in the sense of electricity or gasoline, it is more about his spirited approach to what he is doing. He is actually not "energetic", he is invigorated by his state of mind. True, he is using energy, as he runs about, but that is not really the point of this usage. After all, he has and uses a lot of energy when he sleeps too.
{Life}
There is also "Life Energy" which some construe as a mystical force, while others just think it's there when you are alive and vanishes when you die. The former use can be rejected out of hand, there isn't anything but the natural. The second 'something' may just be the integrated functioning of the body. When it fails, it shuts down, like a car engine losing its timing belt. Fuel energy can't be processed and the car 'dies'.
{Chi}
The Orientals have "Qi" or "Chi Energy". Chi Energy is rather complicated. It is related to the supposed flow of some kind of 'energy' along the Meridian lines used by acupuncturists, Shiatsu masseurs and other related aspects of Oriental medicine.
Is it real? Well, I lean to "No", with one caveat: our conscious minds clearly operate with some sort of force that is not influenced by electric or magnetic fields, or gravity etc.
Our minds also appear to operate 'with no particular' nerve cells, suggesting the *mind* is not a network like a computer chip, but a field like a magnetic field (think of iron filings) but that is clearly not electro-magnetic.
So, maybe there is a force (not energy) that Oriental medicine has crudely hit upon, and patients occasionally benefit from it.
Now, if there is such a thing as Chi, then Evolution may have found a way of using it via cellular nerve signaling, leading to consciousness, and perhaps even to free will (which would enable concept formation, language, reason and logic).
cont'd...
_
Thank you, Richard.
Okay, look, I work in medicine with Cardiology being one of my specialties. It seems crazy that an EKG can tap into the heart's **electrical** energy and that a pacemaker (with a battery) can alter the heart's rhythm. There is detectible electrical energy at work. There's no denying that.
Thus, my conundrum.
I broke at this point, because all of the uses of the term "energy", I gave, were not precisely defined. This next, is precise.
Physic’s most simple Energy equation is:
E=1/2(m*v^2),
where m=mass, v=velocity, & the ^ means “exponent” (so in this case 'v' is squared).
You could read the equation as saying:
“Energy = the ability of a moving object to make another object move”.
However, there are many forms of energy, so Electrical Energy has moving electrons that can make other electrons move, or that can cause radio or light waves, or cause a magnetic field. Similarly, falling water has energy that can turn a turbine fitted with magnets, which forces electrons to move through coiled wire. Heat is rapidly vibrating molecules, so their 'energy' (mass moving) can make other molecules vibrate as each bounces from the other.
However, there is a misconception about the nature of Energy, which I must explain.
It is something teachers never teach!
____________
Equations and Thinking
Consider miles per gallon ("MPG"). Most people know it as “the number of miles a vehicle travels” divided by “the volume of gas burned in doing so”:
MPG = distance / volume.
Please consider that we can see a distance, or a volume of gas, as descriptions of physical things. The specific distance is a very real stretch of land traveled over, and the specific volume of gas can be seen in its container.
Both are ostensive —that is, they are plainly evident to your senses.
Now the point: there is no “thing” that is MPG. It is strictly an idea!
Think about that!
MPG is a conceptual construct! But that, in no way, makes it an invalid idea! It is the way the human mind MUST work.
MPG arises by the mathematical joining (integration) of two other ideas, using division. The division takes two measurable, ostensive, notions and produces a third that is not ostensive!
The result? MPG is not a material thing; but it is an important idea, or concept, about a relationship. There is nothing wrong with that!
The relationship is real! Just as you cannot point to a marriage relationship, though you know it's real, understand that you cannot point to a distance/volume relationship, but you can also know it is real.
You cannot point to MPG but,through math, you can grasp the differences between your car's MPG, and the MPG reported, say on TV, for other models of cars.
The same is true of “Energy”! It is not a material thing; it is only a concept about a very real relationship.
When Scotty, in Star Trek, says, "it's pure energy, Captain", he (or the script writer) shows no understanding of what energy is!
Saying it was "pure energy" is as foolish as saying "it's pure MPG".
Imagine saying, "I just went through a 'cloud' of pure MPG; it reeked of gas and distance!"
MPG and Energy just aren't ostensive!
Ostensive "Energy" is not possible, in any way! The technical name for the error of pretending it is ostensive, is "the reification of a concept" —that is, believing an abstraction (energy, mpg, marriage) is a material thing.
Sorry, Scotty, you just cannot have that; it ain't there!
So Energy is an abstract idea about the relationship between a moving mass-1, that *could* have an impact on the motion of another mass-2, through some kind of force associated with mass-1's mass.
The forgoing could mean a direct impact (speaking in macro terms: as between billiard balls) or a magnetic, electric, photo-electric or gravitational effect, and so on).
Now, in chemical reactions, a rapidly moving atom can smack into another atom. If they have the right electron-orbital structure, they might even bond together, or the second atom might fly off the molecule it was attached to (a break in its bond relation with other atoms), making even more things (atoms) fly about.
In the latter example, the rapidly moving atom has caused a rearrangement of atomic bonds (a chemical reaction), that causes other atoms to fly about rapidly. That "wild flying about" is heat Energy".
Nonetheless, there is still no such ‘thing’ as Energy, even though it is clear that a lot of energy, in the sense of moving masses, exists. Such is the reality & power in "relationships".
...
Next: responding to the 'energy' notions in AtheistHomeschooler's visitor comments.
_
Excellent explanation, Richard; however, the basic premis here is that the 'relationship' or what have you, can neither be created or destroyed, only TRANSFORMED, and as you said (It is not a material thing; it is only a concept about a very real relationship.) a "relationship." Point being there is a "circle," no matter how you want to define it or extend it.
I stand by my original question. Where does the "energy" go when someone dies? Is it species/matter-specific?
Pink wrote;
“What happens to the energy when one dies and how is energy created when forming a new life? Does energy stay between specific life forms?”
Similarly, Fiery wrote:
"The energy that existed in a living form when they die, decomposes with them."
Well, not really. The living thing is composed of molecules, of course. The stored energy in a molecule, such glucose, is Potential Energy. That is, the bonds between the atoms in the sugar could be broken by free, moving oxygen atoms. Then some glucose atoms will fly off and form bonds with the oxygen atoms. The new atomic arrangement allows electrons to move to more stable positions than they were in before. A LOT of movement occurs. That is, the reaction products, H2O and CO2, will be spinning and pinging about quickly, which we on the macro scale see AS heat.
We can figure out how much energy there would be if that reaction were to occur. It is the same, but quite a bit more complicated, as figuring out how much energy a certain quantity of water, falling from the top of a dam to the bottom, will have. So we ask, how big a turbine will it turn? The relationship between velocity and mass, that is energy, can be calculated.. Whether the energy is transferred or not is, in Physics, irrelevant.
(Please note, “Kinetic Energy” is the same calculation, but it is calculated as an ongoing, or active, event.)
In living tissue, enzymes control reactions, but as the cells run out of oxygen other chemical reactions begin to take over, as the first steps of non-bacterial decay. The body tissues cool. First, the organized metabolic reactions that used oxygen and kept us warm ceased. Second, the remaining reactions are disorganized (!), though many still occur. Different combinations of atoms form different types of molecules that the cells would not make under normal living conditions. These new molecules are always a shift to lower energy states, with a slow release of heat… not enough for us to notice. At this point, the tissues are just compost.
You may see from the above that it’s not “energy” decomposing; it is body molecules that rearrange to reach lower energy states. In the dead body there are initial Potential Energy states between the reacting molecules. That energy is released as the Kinetic Energy of heat, which is the energy ‘released’ as the reaction finishes.
She “felt something when one of her twins died in her arms”
This is clearly an expression of the energy of physics. But is it any kind of ‘energy’ at all? Knowing the life has gone out of a living body is a traumatic, emotional experience for pet owners, family members etc. Emotions are near instantaneous value-responses to new experiences. Was the awareness of that tell-tale stillness of death a near instant value response? Surely, the death of a child is an incredible emotional experience for the mother. I contest that it is no wonder she “felt something”, but that “something” arose through her own emotional and physiological systems,and not some, inexplicable ‘energy’.
In my first comment in this thread, I mentioned Chi Energy. If such a force, or power, exists, which the human body uses, then perhaps the dying child’s Chi ceased to influence the Chi of the mother. E.g. if Chi is in anyway involved in the workings of the conscious mind, then perhaps whatever the mother “felt” —as the barely developed mind of the baby died— is explicable. However, until Science figures this out, Chi is an arbitrary claim, not to be taken too seriously. If you consider it possible, it is only through true (non-Popperian) scientific methods that Chi will be discovered. (There is a lot of pseudo-science in such matters as the Para-normal, Oriental medicine, Environmentalism, etc.)
It seems crazy that an EKG can tap into the heart's **electrical** energy and that a pacemaker (with a battery) can alter the heart's rhythm. There is detectible electrical energy at work.
Neural electric signalling is very different from the flow of electrons in a wire in your house. The inside and immediate outside of a nerve’s cell membranes has small charge difference (a microvoltage) caused by a difference in the ions (Ca++ K+ Na+) pumped in and out of the cell. A nerve signal is not a flow of electrons (as is electricity). Instead ‘gates’ in the nerve cell membrane pop open to let ions flow across. This change in charge causes more ‘downstream’ gates to pop open, so in effect, a wave or pulse travels along the nerve. That difference in charge is a form of energy, but the “energy” is still the abstract concept concerning the mass and motion of, in this case.
Of course, that charge difference can be detected by ECG & EEG machines. Also, a slight electrical jolt in the right location can start a nerve signal (as occurs with pacemakers and those muscle ‘trainers’.
Pink, I just had not reached the point of answering the specifics. Once I had given the background, then the specific questions are much easier to answer.
That is why, above your last comment, I wrote:
"Next: responding to the 'energy' notions in AtheistHomeschooler's visitor comments."
Now I have to quit for the night, if clarifications are still needed, or if there is a question I have not answered at all, let me know.
“What happens to the energy when one dies and how is energy created when forming a new life? Does energy stay between specific life forms?”
I wonder if the following further explanation will be clearer.
Keep in mind that energy is only a measure or index of the amount of moving mass, or mass with the potential to move. So when someone dies the mass with the potential to move is even less likely to move. So, it just sits there.
The energy is only potential, not actual because nothing about the mass or object is moving relative to anything else. Now, chemical decay tends to release some heat as the products of the reactions largely have to have less energy than the reactants. So some of the energy that was in the living body is lost has heat (as I mentioned).
Then bacteria, etc. come along with metabolic systems that can get a lot more energy out of the molecules of the body. They use it to run their own metabolism --releasing heat, moving cellular parts about, and moving themselves about. That's it. That's where the energy goes.
"Then bacteria, etc. come along with metabolic systems that can get a lot more energy out of the molecules of the body. They use it to run their own metabolism --releasing heat, moving cellular parts about, and moving themselves about. That's it. That's where the energy goes."
Sweet. Thanks for summing it up (and providing a thorough examination scientifically). Makes TOTAL sense, the circle it is. Damn, I sound like Yoda. :-)
My next pressing question is whether or not you have a cure for these "man hairs" that start to grow on a postmenopausal woman's face. Cuz, it's fucking grossing me out seeing this sprout from my FACE! (I know, it is the testotsterone). Adding levity and a little joke. :-)
Hey, Pink! Thank-you.
As for the hair thing... EEEeeeeeuuuuUCK, that's SOoo gross.
I recommend electolysis or estrogen supplements, but then there is always these, unless you need one of these!
Post a Comment