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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

screwballX
.... okay, so show us the logic and 'nature science of logic's' way of explanation?
story is story,
i gave up on fiction since I was in standard 2.
started reading science since then.
well if it's not the things mentioned by science,
then wat's in it?
another world? with a sun in it? and high-level living creatures?


awakened_angel.
okay, and ya this is real Okay lmao,
good for emphasizing on the definite meaning of 'create',
it makes things clearer and more understandable.

and,as I can recall,
I've seen d equation
E=mcc
above?
I'd just learnt today, that this equation actually represents the change in mass as a inevitable consequent of the change in energy,
rather than change of mass causing the change in energy.
the real cause of release of energy is in the transformation of the arrangement of the particles into a lower energy state, thus the excess energy is released, which is accompanied by loss in mass,
that is calculated thru this equation

== im lasy to retype things about big bang and how did the matter-energy created/origin from.
find it here, the whole process of big bang.
i posted a reply to the topic of creation of the universe and thus everything in it.
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=36264943


and I'm a science-main stream student.
not quite true to say it that way, or did I get you wrong?
before the acceptance of an idea, we speculate and test it.
'test' does not necessarily means testing in LAB.
just like you learn new ideas on physics from the textbook,
you surely don't carry out all experiment to prove everything for yourself, but you still accept it.
why?
because it makes sense to you.
it is logical
string theory, or M theory,
they are theoretical physics.
and can't be really proven in lab.
theoretical physics require mostly workings on paper, using mostly math.
and how do those theories get so far and dominated?
because they make sense.
they are logical as seemed to all human mind.

for the, there's 2 type of people who practices science.
1. the type that only learns and applies, without questioning much about them.and thus they can't accept new ideas beyond what they've learnt.
2. the type that is standing outside the box, and they can speculate the how correct is the existing theory, and they can develop new ideas.
best example? einstein and stephen hawking and all those string theorists. they are creative.

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 3:21 pmanother way,
using the science's way of getting the trust of people.
logical proof.
prove and explain the formation of a hollow-core planet?
if you succeeded in doing so,
Nobel prize is waiting for u

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 14 2010, 03:21 PM

i've heard of the book's name in my book too.
is it available in any bookstore?
or do I have to order from amazon lol