The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jenny on 24 Feb 2010 20:45 On Feb 24, 10:27 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Feb 23, 7:54 pm, Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "Particle" and "wave" are just placeholders to help us picture where > > forces are and how forces move. > > "PARTICLES" and "WAVES" are not actual "things" > > In this way of looking at things, forces are the fundamental elements > > occupying spacetime. "Particles", "waves" and "energy" are merely > > convenient illusions. > Our conceptual views of reality, exchanged between members of the same > community, are described in natural language (not math - a sub- > language). As such, we have determined from experience that our > language scheme should be based on nouns (things) and verbs (actions & > relationships). I think science is about more than "experience" it's about looking beneath surface appearaces. > Thus, the dual bases of physics (another sub- > language) are fundamental things (e.g. electrons) that exist and > interactions between these things (defining their properties & effects > on these things). It's quite debatable wherher electrons are "fundamental things" or even "exist" at all outside of our imaginations. > Thus, FORCE is a derived concept (assuming > continuous interactions between things) and is NOT fundamental. My point was though force is a derived concept, it might be more fundamental than it first appeared. The concept of a "soul" is a derived concept, but if souls do exist, then they might quite reasonably be considered fundamental. Chance order of discovery does not dictate relative importance. > The > fact that Newton started with 'force' (actually non-continuous > impulse) was his magnificent attempt to get the game started in simple > mathematical terms, hence the title of his masterpiece: "The > Mathematical Principles OF Natural Philosophy" (i.e. concepts first, > math second). Newton started with his experience and some shoulders to stand on. His concepts were formed by those "forces". Love, Jenny
From: BURT on 24 Feb 2010 20:50 On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 10:27 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 7:54 pm, Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Particle" and "wave" are just placeholders to help us picture where > > > forces are and how forces move. > > > "PARTICLES" and "WAVES" are not actual "things" > > > In this way of looking at things, forces are the fundamental elements > > > occupying spacetime. "Particles", "waves" and "energy" are merely > > > convenient illusions. > > Our conceptual views of reality, exchanged between members of the same > > community, are described in natural language (not math - a sub- > > language). As such, we have determined from experience that our > > language scheme should be based on nouns (things) and verbs (actions & > > relationships). > > I think science is about more than "experience" it's about looking > beneath surface appearaces. > > > Thus, the dual bases of physics (another sub- > > language) are fundamental things (e.g. electrons) that exist and > > interactions between these things (defining their properties & effects > > on these things). > > It's quite debatable wherher electrons are "fundamental things" or > even "exist" at all outside of our imaginations. > > > Thus, FORCE is a derived concept (assuming > > continuous interactions between things) and is NOT fundamental. > > My point was though force is a derived concept, it might be more > fundamental than it first appeared. > > The concept of a "soul" is a derived concept, but if souls do exist, > then they might quite reasonably be considered fundamental. > > Chance order of discovery does not dictate relative importance. > > > The > > fact that Newton started with 'force' (actually non-continuous > > impulse) was his magnificent attempt to get the game started in simple > > mathematical terms, hence the title of his masterpiece: "The > > Mathematical Principles OF Natural Philosophy" (i.e. concepts first, > > math second). > > Newton started with his experience and some shoulders to stand on. > > His concepts were formed by those "forces". > > Love, > Jenny Energy is in two states; finite and infinite density. One is mass point that weighs the other does not. Mitch Raemsch
From: John Polasek on 24 Feb 2010 22:00 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:13:51 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 23, 3:48�pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a >> part of the universe as space, time and matter. > >It is a measurable property of systems which seems to have an >extraordinarily consistent rule that applies to it, making it of >fundamental interest in science. I'm not sure what you mean by "a >fundamental part of the universe". In order to back up the statement that energy is measurable, please name an instrument that measures energy. There is none. Where energy has a specific value, it exists only as a scalar product of two other quantities. A watt-hour meter has a wheel that turns as the scalar product of a voltage coil and a current coil and thus integrates power over time. >> In Newtonian >> mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a >> directly measurable part of any dynamical system. John Polasek
From: PD on 25 Feb 2010 11:22 On Feb 24, 9:00 pm, John Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:13:51 -0800 (PST), PD > > <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 23, 3:48 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a > >> part of the universe as space, time and matter. > > >It is a measurable property of systems which seems to have an > >extraordinarily consistent rule that applies to it, making it of > >fundamental interest in science. I'm not sure what you mean by "a > >fundamental part of the universe". > > In order to back up the statement that energy is measurable, please > name an instrument that measures energy. There is none. Where energy > has a specific value, it exists only as a scalar product of two other > quantities. A watt-hour meter has a wheel that turns as the scalar > product of a voltage coil and a current coil and thus integrates power > over time. A thermometer. Please remember the experiments that Joule did. > > >> In Newtonian > >> mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a > >> directly measurable part of any dynamical system. > > John Polasek
From: funkenstein on 25 Feb 2010 13:09
On Feb 25, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 9:00 pm, John Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:13:51 -0800 (PST), PD > > > <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Feb 23, 3:48 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a > > >> part of the universe as space, time and matter. > > > >It is a measurable property of systems which seems to have an > > >extraordinarily consistent rule that applies to it, making it of > > >fundamental interest in science. I'm not sure what you mean by "a > > >fundamental part of the universe". > > > In order to back up the statement that energy is measurable, please > > name an instrument that measures energy. There is none. Where energy > > has a specific value, it exists only as a scalar product of two other > > quantities. A watt-hour meter has a wheel that turns as the scalar > > product of a voltage coil and a current coil and thus integrates power > > over time. > > A thermometer. Please remember the experiments that Joule did. > > > > > >> In Newtonian > > >> mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a > > >> directly measurable part of any dynamical system. > > > John Polasek > > I was going to say a calorimeter, but I guess a thermometer gets the job done too :) |