But you see it doesn’t say energy is relative to matter, it says energy is equal to matter. Meaning both are equal. Do I not read the right words?
OK, I will go, I know what I know, and you do also.
It doesn’t matter, lekatt. What you are describing is NOT quantum mechanics.
What Voyager is saying is that it describes when energy can be theoretically converted to matter, if of course you could get matter up to the speed of light, which is theoretically impossible.
In the old days, there was conservation of energy, and also conservation of mass. What this equation says in part is that you can convert one to the other, so the conservation is of matter/energy. But that says nothing about equality. Energy and matter have very different properties. They are not equal in any sense.
BTW, this simplifies the creation of the universe tremendously. We don’t have to worry about both where the energy comes from and where the matter comes from. The universe began with energy only, and much of it froze into matter.
No, no, no. The speed of light is just the conversion factor. Fission and fusion emit so much energy because tiny bits of matter, left over in some way, get converted to energy. When matter and anti-matter meet, the mass gets converted into (a lot of) energy. None of this has to happen at the speed of light.
Your heart’s in the right place, but you need to find a physics book on this. Sorry, I don’t have any recommendations.
Maybe only a tiny part of it “froze” into matter, or maybe it only appears as matter due to the frequency and wave formation of the energy. There is more space in matter than “matter.”
Stop making me feel stupid. 
Actually, I’m ok with it. Thanks for disabusing me of my ignorance on this. I am very much in a mode where I am starting to think that I just don’t know enough about science and need to learn. I think I might start with Chemistry. The Idiot’s Guide to Chemistry is really good, I should finish it, then maybe I’ll go to the Idiot’s Guide to Physics, though the Idiot’s Guide to Algebra might be a better first step before getting into Physics.
If all is energy how can there be space between it?
Voyager can correct me on this but I think that empty space is a function of particles. If there is empty space isn’t it what is between particles?
The problem you are presenting here is you are using scientific language to make your case against science. Perhaps embracing science would be better for your understanding of the things you want to know.
I’m pretty sure that the Big Bang theory predicted not only how much froze into matter, but the distribution of the matter into hydrogen and helium (and a few other things). This prediction was confirmed by observation. I have no idea if it was a tiny percentage or not. The leftover heat from the Big Bang is the cosmic background radiation which was another prediction which was confirmed.
You’re getting to the point where you need a physicist, not just someone who reads cosmology books for fun.
It may be more philosophy than science, but I read a book on quantum gravity which made exactly the same point. With one particle, there is no space.
Right, that’s how I’ve always understood it. If photons are waves before bouncing off of a particle then don’t they fill the space between the particles? If all is energy as lekatt is saying then there would be no empty space as energy has no edges it just bleeds together like the color wheel, there’s not an area between red and orange just an arbitrary threshold that we define as the limit of red and the beginning of orange. Orange itself is a combination of red and yellow.
You may consider this just a nitpick but orange is a color in it’s own right. From the Wiki.
Yes, mixing red and yellow paint pigments (subtractive combination of colors) produces orange but on your computer screen (additive combination of colors, RGB) it is a combination of red and green. As is yellow (with more green), btw.
RGB yellow 255, 255, 0; orange 255, 127, 0
All this will be made clear in the Optics chapter of Physics For Dummies.
I make no such claim, I just stated in my intreptation that, “If"God showed Moses a back side He must have been composed of some material matter.” You are intreptating my explaination wrong. For some reason, either I am not makeing myself clear, or you do not want to see my point(which is your right to do so). Consider that both of us could be wrong. There is no scientific proof of Moses even being a historical person so the whole argument could be moot!
No, I’m not. Your interpretation assumes that God’s turning his back on Moses was a literal statement rather than a figure of speech – hence your insistence that this statement implies a physical body part. In other words, your argument assumes that there is only one way to interpret that remark – a strictly literal manner. It’s just that simple.
Huge amounts of space all filled with energy. The void also filled with energy some are calling dark energy. Matter is no more solid than the human body is solid. It is just our perception of such. We live in illusion. A perception illusion.
What has science ever done to you that you abuse it so?
“We live in illusion. A perception illusion.”
There are types of illusions other than those of perception??
Moses appeared to speak to God face to face many times, that person that Moses spoke to in this form may have been Jesus as:
If Jesus is the firstborn, then He may have to be born into human flesh before all others, so was around at the time of Moses. This would presuppose Him coming back many times or non-linear time.
The question is never about what you believe in. It is why? I can repeat the prayers I was taught as a lad in Catechism. I can answer with the responses i was taught to respond with. I think when we had classes about answering the questions people had about religion ,is when I escaped. The answers were terrible. They always distilled down to belief and faith in what you were being taught . It was then ,and is now inadequate.
I addressed that point as well. As I stated in an earlier posting, even if we assume that the references to his “face” or “back” were meant literally (arguably true in some cases, though implausibly so in Exodus 33:23), this still does not prove that God is material. One could just as easily surmise that he has immaterial body parts or (as is consistent with Christian belief) can manifest himself with a physical appearance as he deems fit.
I strongly disagree. The word for “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is prototokos in the original Greek. This can be rendered as “firstborn,” but it also means “pre-eminent” or “foremost.” (It’s easy to see why the two concepts were associated together, since the firstborn son was usually pre-eminent among his brethren.)
The word prototokos is not used exclusively to mean the very first child born. For example, in the Septuagint – the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament – David was referred to as prototokos in Psalm 89:27, despite being the youngest of his brethren. Similarly, Ephraim was described as prototokos in Genesis 41:50-51 and Jeremiah 31:9, despite being younger than Manasseh. In both instances, the word referred to their preeminence rather than their birth.
In the same manner, Jesus being described as prototokos in Colossians 1:15 does not imply any point at which he was created. Rather, it was a reference to his preeminence, and thus, has nothing to do with whether he was inherently material or not. (I say “inherently” because he most certainly was material during his incarnation.)
I think you are missing the point I was making. Of course it is a color in its own right, but that there are intervening colors in between red and orange and that the bleed is gradual from one to the other. Sure there is orange, but there is also red-orange in between red and orange. That’s what I meant.