well the full picture is roughly like this
everything is created in big bang ( which we don't really understand it fully, nor can we explain why does it happen or how things get there)
all the matter-energy in this universe is already fixed since the beginning of time, for it can't be created nor destroyed, but only transformed (conserved)
of course in the 14+- billion years we get various form of energy transformation.
for the fossil fuel you use?
the power of sun is the source of energy of all living things (for it provides energy for the producer, that is, plant)
the energy got transfered to plants then animals, which they used for living processes, making tissues, growth etc.
then they die, got buried. those carbon based living organisms on earth then transformed into fossil fuel by high pressure n temp underground ( i don't really know the complete process)
today we burn them. the energy is stored chemically. in the bonds between the hydrocarbon chains.

does that answer your question?

thanks for all of your comments although some of it is too complex for me to understand however why energy cannot be created? can someone explain?

wait u dun slp im typing

---

Added on September 7, 2010, 2:42 amowh i'm afraid that there is no other explanation other than mass-energy conversion.
mass=energy,
and they can be inter-converted.
to create energy, you need mass.
to say create is not the appropriate word.
in nuclear fusion, fission or antimatter annihilation,
mass is converted into energy.

in accelerating a mass to the speed of light, you put in energy,
and as it gain speed, it gain mass too.

there's a theory called super string theory, under development,
states that everything that exist today, all particles, matter particles or virtual force carriers, energy, everything in this universe, originated from the same thing,
and are different manifestation of the same thing. a string.
a string that can exist in many forms, give rises to different things,
matter and energy are just two examples.
and from the big bang, we learned that things should be already there by the time.
before big bang, whether they exist, or who created them? we don't now.

matter-energy cant be created, this is the nature's way,
just like 1+1 is 2.
we make such conclusion because this is what we observed,
and nature tells us that they cant be created from nothing.
and we make laws of physics based on our observations and inferences.

in physics however, there's a limit whr we can explain things.
for example, we know mass exhibit gravitational pull , or charges exhibits electrical forces,
but why so?
we can't explain. =) hope i helped.

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 7 2010, 02:42 AM

Thanks, this is simple enough. I will not be able to understand anything more advance. I did not go to science stream. I do remember some of these bonding stuff I did in the science for arts students.

Einstein FAIL !!

Ben Rich Lockheed Former CEO
“We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars. irst, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.”
When Rich was asked how advance propulsion worked, he said, “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?” The questioner responded with, “All points in time and space are connected?” Rich then said, “That’s how it works!”

gravitation: think about your flat mattress, put a bowling ball on it. see it sag down, then put a tennis ball nearby, see it roll towards the bowling ball. bowling ball = big mass, tennis ball = small mass, mattress = space

haha i think you misunderstood what I said.
what you showed is an explanation on the mechanics of gravitation, but not explanation of why it exist.
of course that's a very nice and popular explanation by einstein in his General Relativity.

to show it clearly,
there's 4 fundamental forces in today's universe: Gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear forces.
the mechanics of all 4 forces are almost the same,
the only difference is in their strength, and thus the range.
yes we can explain the mechanics of the forces with mathematical model (in fact every picture/explanation is what we derived from math, including your classical example of gravity's mechanics)
but why do they exist?
no explanation, at least so far.

let's look at electromagnetic force.
charged object possess this force,
the same signs repel and the opposite signs attracts.
but why is this so?
and why is there electrical field in around charged objects?
so far we can only say it's there because it's there,
this is the way it is, what we observed.

Why dont we think this out of the box.. Dont follow the calculation. Redo the calculation. If we keep holding to the old calculation, we still follow the old principle. Paste the gravity, mass and speed calculation and think about it.

"E=mc2" Energy = mass + light.

I get your point.

However, if we look at it that way, then everything has no direct explanation. It is like asking why 1 + 1 = 2. Experimental observation and mathematical modeling together, for me, is adequate.

in fact, the truth,
as stated by physicist like stephen hawking,
is as follow:
though we can define some quantities or explain things or define them in terms of more fundamental quantities (e.g. speed in terms of distance and time),
some concepts are so fundamental that any such attempt leads to a circulation definition like that just stated.
to escape from this, we will have to define such quantities 'operationally', which means we describe what they do,rather than what they are. i.e. we can explain how do they operate.
such as mass, we can explain it through the force an object experiences when exposed to gravity, that is, objects of same mass will experience the same force when placed at the same point or in the same strength of gravitational field.

why physics involves maths so much that one can't really understand it without maths?
because the physical world appears to be largely governed by the laws of cause and effect, and maths is used to explain such casual relationship,
and it is used to make prediction and measurement.
every single row of correct maths equation or formula that can be written is a valid representation of certain event in this physical world.

Math is a fail .. dont use it. Think Logic. Think outside the box. Think Nature law. Nature will show us the right way.
Gravity has its highest and lowest point. Like you see earth have Ozone layer. Certian gravity pull ozone together and certian gravity pull dirt and people to the ground. The core.. its there the center of no gravity.

Eg. Nucleus cell. Proton & electron. Sun and planets.

They all follow different gravity to maintain their position. If gravity is but one. We would have all the planets flying side by side with earth.
Same as ozone layer would be at our heads or feet.
Law of gravity has many pulls and push but never as one.

Math is the language of logics. You cannot talk about complex logics without maths. Physics uses maths extensively because there are regularities in nature that can be represented by maths. Maths describes that regularities or patterns precisely, and according to logical rules established in maths, these equations of nature phenomena can be manipulated in forms and structures to yield different perspectives of the same reality. Like looking at the other side of the same coin. In physics, without maths, you can hardly formulate your idea for others to test it out, which again calls for maths to know if the test is good or not. Again the reason being that we expect nature to be rational and consistent, like if we throw the same ball over and over again, we expect to see the same trajectories which can be modeled by maths.

I don't know where you get your information, but what you are saying is perhaps the weirdest thing i have heard of so far

2 corrections here to be done, to prevent misunderstanding of certain concepts,
or we will mislead the public here.
the logic and maths part has been explained by SpikeMarlene, which I strongly agree with.

next, gravity,
it is the weakest force of all the 4 fundamentals.
in the body too small its mass to exhibit significant gravitational force,
the other 3 forces kick in.
in a nucleus or even among the quarks in proton, or between protons and neutrons,
the strong and weak nuclear force dominate at this small scale.
for charged particles such as proton and electron, or quarks or leptons to be more precise,
electromagnetic force plays an important role.

to show how weak is gravitational force as compared to, let's say, electromagnetic force,
try to think of the giant magnet used in lifting cars in junkyard.
with the tremendous mass of earth, the gravitational force that it exerts on the car is easily overcame by using juz a normal electromagnet like this.


centre of zero gravity?
well there is indeed such region beneath our foot.
but it's not in the centre of the earth,
simply because the earth itself as a whole has different densities at different point,
the deeper we get to the core,
the denser it is.
thus we get an imbalance distribution of mass, thus gravitational force.
the neutral point should be in between the surface and the core.

and in fact science, logic and math is what we used to find and explain the law of nature.
so true that it is undeniable since the modern science revolution, at the time of galileo galilei.

2 corrections here to be done, to prevent misunderstanding of certain concepts,
or we will mislead the public here.
the logic and maths part has been explained by SpikeMarlene, which I strongly agree with.

Logic accept for calculation but not all calculation are correct.

next, gravity,
it is the weakest force of all the 4 fundamentals.
in the body too small its mass to exhibit significant gravitational force,
the other 3 forces kick in.
in a nucleus or even among the quarks in proton, or between protons and neutrons,
the strong and weak nuclear force dominate at this small scale.
for charged particles such as proton and electron, or quarks or leptons to be more precise,
electromagnetic force plays an important role.

Still it maintain orbit around the core but not away from the core .. still no answer to how the core maintain gravity pulls.


to show h
ow weak is gravitational force as compared to, let's say, electromagnetic force,
try to think of the giant magnet used in lifting cars in junkyard.
with the tremendous mass of earth, the gravitational force that it exerts on the car is easily overcame by using juz a normal electromagnet like this.
centre of zero gravity?

If we stay on a place govern by high gravity, we will not know its effect as our body tends to adapt to the pulls. As you know astronaut have decrease in their bone mass the longer they stay in space because of absent in gavity in space. Magnetic force which is larger in scale effect larger mass, the magnet lifting the car is but a small concentrated magnetic force with only have the purpose to lift ONE car at a time or a limitied load. Gravity has to pull the mass of the earth together and earth to the sun without getting too close to the sun.
Might say the core pull the earth crust and the crust pull us and the sun pull earth all at the same line of path.


well there is indeed such region beneath our foot.
but it's not in the centre of the earth,

Its from the crust as gravity around the world shift. (eg real document. Car that goes up the hill without any engine assist or any other perpetual stuff cause of force unknown. This one already defies the law of gravity. Insted of going down .. it went up.

simply because the earth itself as a whole has different densities at different point,
the deeper we get to the core,
the denser it is.
thus we get an imbalance distribution of mass, thus gravitational force.
the neutral point should be in between the surface and the core.

FAIL .. Earth is Hollow. Logic not accepted.

well human has the right to stand out for what they believe in and thus has freedom in practicing certain believe.
you believe in your claim, that's very well.
perhaps you have faith in something other then science?
no one in this world can stop you.

but, to my curiosity,
allow me to ask,
where did you get all those information or teachings?
what do you practice if it is not science like much of the human on earth do?

no offense intended.

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 11 2010, 09:02 PM

huh? what talking you?

Science is theorize by thinking but proof is made available until experiment is conducted. Some proof require experience before theory. As the case for "made man of science", they have first experience it before they theorize it.

I will ask you, what is underneath the earth? You might like to picture it as science would .. core, mantle and crust, nothing else. But have you ever gone inside a cave?
Read stories which have connection about the earth.
Ill give you the story of Admiral Byrd and Olaf Jensen. It does have connection with the Jules Vern "Journey to the center of the earth".

Logic theory require proof but some proof have logic in it which we will never understand and denied it.
I stand with the human science once before, but too many loop holes it provide and some are coverd by just "make-up" science, i turn into Nature science of logics.



This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 12 2010, 10:28 PM

create here does not mean take oil and create heat if I add spark

create here imply to generate or comeout with the energy from NOTHING at all... the moment of big bang...

what we see, hear, experience, feel is what exist from the big bang. Energy existed long before that, we just harvest, change its form to what we want, merge its magnitude and sadly left it in useless state which many people say we run out of energy... which in realty, we left it in useless state. we burn petrol for car emission, left it in carbon monoxide which cant be harvested for anything usefull