The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 26 Feb 2010 20:54 On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote: > >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus: "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is possessed by organized portions of matter. glird
From: PD on 27 Feb 2010 10:34 On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote: > > > > >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. > > Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine > replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long > ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what > other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus: > "Energy" is the ability to do work, The above is a common definition, yes. > an ability that is possessed by > organized portions of matter. Not just by matter. > > glird
From: glird on 27 Feb 2010 12:32 On Feb 27, 10:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote: > > > >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. > > > Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine > > replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long > > ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what > > other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus: > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, > > The above is a common definition, yes. > > > an ability that is possessed by > > organized portions of matter. > > Not just by matter. Other than matter, what do YOU think can have that ability? BTW, here is the definition of energy taken from my latest book, The Universe. (The portion in parentheses was in a different font because it followed the first appearance of the defined word.) The rest of the quoted bit is relevant here, but isn't part of the definition. ______ ("Energy" is the capacity to do work, and is equal to mass times acceleration. Matter, not space, possesses this capacity.) Since the only thing that can change the state of motion of a mass is a net pressure, energy is a net pressure, thus is a force. Accordingly, rather than being a basic item or a form of matter, energy is a dimension. Its unit of measure is an erg, which is defined as a force of one dyne exerted for a distance of one centimeter; i.e. 1 gcm²/sec² = m_wv² in which m_w denotes the weight of a given mass rather than the quantity of matter in it. ______ For those who wonder why I spend time defining words such as energy, mass. force, reality, etc on these internet groups, please be aware that (as written in A Flower for Einstein, "Semantics is just as important as mathematical symbols, maybe more so, if one wants to understand one's own equations". And as writen in another of my books, Defective semantics destroyed theoretical physics even more than its own defective mathematics. For those who might be interested, heer is some more from the Universe: "Complementarity says, Sometimes light is a particle and sometimes it is a wave, therefore both aspects are needed to fully explain light. The converse of that is, Sometimes light cannot be a particle and sometimes it cannot be a wave, therefore it is neither. "It is here that the semantics and concepts of present Physics broke down and the adequate existing equations became uninterpretable. That isn't because the laws of nature don't apply at the very small quantum level; it is because the laws of Quantum Physics deal with particles, with masses, with single inertial or accelerating units or with statistical probabilities based on the actions of myriad such separate individuals. "When we consider the actions taking place in a continuous field, actions that have no particles as part of what is happening and mass does not exist the laws and even the logic of what particles might do no longer apply. {'Stop at a red light' does not apply to aircraft.}" glird
From: PD on 27 Feb 2010 13:36 On Feb 27, 11:32 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 10:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote: > > > > >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. > > > > Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine > > > replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long > > > ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what > > > other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus: > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, > > > The above is a common definition, yes. > > > > an ability that is possessed by > > > organized portions of matter. > > > Not just by matter. > > Other than matter, what do YOU think can have that ability? A system containing light, and light alone, also exhibits energy. No matter present. > > BTW, here is the definition of energy taken from my latest book, > The Universe. (The portion in parentheses was in a different font > because it followed the first appearance of the defined word.) The > rest of the quoted bit is relevant here, but isn't part of the > definition. > ______ > > ("Energy" is the capacity to do work, and is equal to mass times > acceleration. The first clause is correct, the second is wrong. That's force, not energy. Two completely different things. You'll notice below you also note the distinction by the units. Energy has units 1 gcm²/sec², but mass times acceleration has different units, 1 gcm/sec². To understand the key difference, as well as the connection between the two (work), please see any introductory physics text. I didn't read further, presuming that the rest followed from this mistake. > Matter, not space, possesses this capacity.) Since the > only thing that can change the state of motion of a mass is a net > pressure, energy is a net pressure, thus is a force. Accordingly, > rather than being a basic item or a form of matter, energy is a > dimension. Its unit of measure is an erg, which is defined as a force > of one dyne exerted for a distance of one centimeter; i.e. > 1 gcm²/sec² = m_wv² > in which m_w denotes the weight of a given mass rather than the > quantity of matter in it. > ______ > > For those who wonder why I spend time defining words such as energy, > mass. force, reality, etc on these internet groups, please be aware > that (as written in A Flower for Einstein, "Semantics is just as > important as mathematical symbols, maybe more so, if one wants to > understand one's own equations". And as writen in another of my books, > Defective semantics destroyed theoretical physics even more than its > own defective mathematics. > > For those who might be interested, heer is some more from the > Universe: > "Complementarity says, Sometimes light is a particle and sometimes it > is a wave, therefore both aspects are needed to fully explain light. > The converse of that is, Sometimes light cannot be a particle and > sometimes it cannot be a wave, therefore it is neither. > "It is here that the semantics and concepts of present Physics broke > down and the adequate existing equations became uninterpretable. That > isn't because the laws of nature don't apply at the very small quantum > level; it is because the laws of Quantum Physics deal with particles, > with masses, with single inertial or accelerating units or with > statistical probabilities based on the actions of myriad such separate > individuals. > "When we consider the actions taking place in a continuous field, > actions that have no particles as part of what is happening and mass > does not exist the laws and even the logic of what particles might do > no longer apply. {'Stop at a red light' does not apply to aircraft.}" > > glird
From: ben6993 on 27 Feb 2010 14:22
> "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is possessed by > organized portions of matter. I have noticed a definition in wiki which seems to imply that energy is more complicated than the definition above: "The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in the context of thermodynamics, can provide a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work." (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy) If energy is the ability to do work, but at the same time entropy implies that some portion of energy is not available to do work, then how do we re-define that portion of the energy in a system not available to do work? Is there a more complex definition of energy? |