If the law of conservation of mass states, in a closed system mass is never lost, how is it, when matter is annihilated, effectively creating photons (which are not considered to be matter) does this law stand true?
This thread is intended for serious consideration, not for people who have no questions about what some teacher or college professor told them.Sorry santhony, I don't think we need to go through this again.
The word vacuum refers specifically to an area of space devoid of matter. It is only meant to define a lack of matter, nothing else.
Just because they are combined as above, doesn't make them equivalent under the definition. Matter is matter, energy is energy so far as a vacuum is concerned.
If you had an area with a gas cloud of matter and anti-matter, that wouldn't be a vacuum. But, if they annihilated each other you are left with a vacuum.
There's already a four page thread on this, I don't think you need another one.
The definition is the definition. We really don't need to go through this again. If you want a word to cover matter and energy then invent one. Vacuum is not and was never intended to be that word.Don't make the mistake of codifying scientific definitions as religionists codify their beliefs. Eventhough everyone seems to agree with something doesn't necessarily make it right.
And, this thread is not about vacuums. It's about the conservation of mass.
We spent four pages discussing exactly what you just asked in your last thread.Then, why is a "vacuum" defined as the absence of matter but not of energy?