Can anyone describe the concept of EUM (energy upon mass)? For exampe: if there were 2 pieces of iron. One cold and one hot, what is the energy upon that mass of the hot piece of iron?
Since "energy upon mass" seems to be a concept you've come up with, I would like to see you describe it mathematically, because for everyone else its just three known words arranged in a way that has no meaning. While you're at it, you could also try to generalize the term "upon mass" to other physical quantities, like "momentum upon mass".
Have you ever heard of the 'calorie'? Caloric by lavoisier......? ie.... A (element/mass) plus + B (energy) = AB (energy upon mass) To get technical, perhaps keep in mind that any mass (elements) beyond the BEC (cold) that has 'energy upon' that 'mass' comes in one wavelength or another (em/light) (all cases). Or to conform to the current methodology, perhaps look into the 'polariton' the 'exciton' the soliton.... etc etc etc...... there are a whole bunch of people, right now within the sciences representing that 'energy' can be measured and conveyed across space 'upon mass' My question was if anyone on this forum could convey what the 'EUM' is and gave the example of a hot piece of iron versus a cold one. Can you? ie.... what is that "energy"? Dont say 'heat' as the 'heat' is not "the stuff".................... ie... heat is not of the four (per se) forces. Or if you need too, just tell us what is causing that measured difference called 'heat' come on............. i know you know the answer!
wow.................. what moved the mass to cause the fricken? what energy is released from chemical reactions? And which rediactive decay releases what wavelengths of em? basically........... every one of them will have 'what' within the causal description? (All cases)
All are good general answers. To answer these in detail would pretty much involve most of a first year college general chemistry course. Not sure what your point is on all of this, other than nitpicking.
causality. i like causal description. For example: in chemistry, it is said the electron jumps a shell to have the energy to even enable an electron to be shared between elements to make any single molecule. But what people fail to remember is that for that electron to even gain the 'energy' to jump shells it must capture 'what'? see the bohr analogy. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html what must the electron capture to even jump a shell for even a single chemical reaction to take place? what is UPON THAT MASS?
Do you mean YOU? Are there questions directed to you that you are choosing not to answer because they mean you would have to change your discipline of complacency? ie.... In summary: what causes an element to be 'hot'?
Yes, I have a B.S. in Biology and a Master's in Marine Biology. I chose not to answer because basically to answer it to the level of detail that you seem to be asking for would be the equivalent of about a year of basic college chemistry. I told you the basics. The movement of the molecules inside it is what causes an element to be hot. The movement can be caused by a lot of different things. Pretty much any kind of energy can make molecules move (make them hot). For more info: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/1-what-is-heat.html http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/u18l1d.cfm http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/heat.htm http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci771825,00.html http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/p...gy/heatAndTemperature/heatAndTemperature.html
good for you. what was your thesis on? to people who share the same scope of energy being based on plancks constant. ie... which is the rube of all physics and specifically screwed up chemistry and biology. but you have not claimed WHAT is causing the movement. Except to say, 'energy' there ya go again..... what is the energy of upon an element above absolute zero? This is not basic chemistry as YOU are having a hard time comprehending the question. How about another that should be 'basic' to most anyone that could call themself a biologist: what is the p680? What is it capturing and is the single most important complex in which cycle? I am trying to help you learn more than you were ever apparently taught.
P680 absorbs photons to excite its electron to a higher level or is excited by other chlorophylls.... not sure where you are going with this one .... will watch closely
that's cheating. You gave him the answer. The combining of 'mass' to sustain energy (680nm wavelength); technically speaking a progression (growth) versus a chemical reduction. Likewise, 'energy upon mass' (photon at the 680, upon the structures (basic biology 101) the thread is on energy.... but with common sense and cross disciplines being observed, basic common sense shares a huge item that most physicist could not admit, if their lives practically depended on it. The mass is the elements, the energy is the photon (per se) as a wavelength of energy which is bigger than any (individual) particle ever described because it is not a particle at all but a resonating 'field' at perpendicular planes (electromagnetic) combining the mass to sustain, itself.
Ecology--variation in reproduction of Cyprinodon variegatus Of course it's basic chemistry. You're going into strange philosophy, not science. I have little knowledge of botany and biochemistry at all. I don't have the slightest interest in the subject, and have learned almost nothing about it. My field was primarily ichthyology and ecology.
cool. Maybe I will look it up but so far not really appreciative of you knowledge base the principles of how life operates may appear strange to a basic education that is focused on a basic discipline but I am a bit more complex, rationally speaking of course so you're on a thread on "Energy" and conveying in post 4,6,8 and 13 how basic energy is but then claim in this most recent post that you really have no idea how it works nor care. Now can you see why I don't play well with some of the people that claim to be educated? What you just did was make a fool of yourself as well render your thesis has no foundations in the actual comprehension of how Mass and energy work as well that your material comprehension of living processes are a joke. Go play elsewhere as I don't play well with people that rant without even trying to grow up.
