What is energy

[MazerRackhem]

I'm sure Xris will denounce me once more as a deceiving 'high priest' of the 'altar of science' and cry ad hominem following this post but after spending about 2 weeks trying to debate him I feel I can save everyone a bit of trouble. Xris has openly admitted (indeed he seems proud of) the fact that he has no formal training in mathematics or physics and cannot work either of them at even the undergraduate level. He follows the teachings of exiled cold war spy Bill Gaede who's biography can be found on Wikipedia under the heading Bill Gaede and in the source links which follow the article. Gaede believes (and Xris accepts) that invisible ropes smaller than 10^-50 times the size of the proton and which are undetectable even by a cyclotron the size of the solar system (but are none the less 'physical' links) link every atom in the universe to every other atom in the universe and that anyone who disagrees with this version of reality is either a "stooge" of modern physics, a suppressor of the truth, or a lying "high priest" who deceives the "ignorant masses" into "illogical conclusions" in order to get "their billions chasing invented god particles." All of the arguments and complaints he listed during our long debate can be found at Gaede's website (and multi page running personal attack of anyone who engages in empirical physics): http://youstupidrelativist.com/

I feel it's worth mentioning that Bill Gaede does not possess a PhD in either math or physics, believes that humans live in civilizations on other planets, that he has knowledge of their civilizations there, and predicted in 2009 that "we are the last generation of humans on Earth!" since human civilization on earth would collapse "in a matter of months" and that everyone would be reduced to living in "large ant holes called cities" where we would starve to death since the greedy "agricultural corporations" would withhold our food. Xris has denounced these views along with a few other parts of Gaede's work which are incontrovertibly illogical but steadfastly holds that Gaede's invisible ropes are the true picture of reality although there is no evidence to support them. According to him anyone who chooses to accept empirically verified science and the modern theory of physics which took us to the moon, created the digital computer, and has never been found to disagree with laboratory observations does so because of their "Blind Faith," and unwillingness to accept that math and science are fundamentally "illogical." In his own words, his belief in the rope hypothesis does not need evidence to support it since the accepted theory of modern is physics is so illogical that it must be wrong.

I have no intention of continuing the argument with him here (two weeks of patiently replying to his every complaint against modern physics while he ducked any questions I asked regarding his own theory was trying enough), I bring it up only because it took me over a week before he would even cite his sources so that they could be discussed. I have already watched two reasonable conversations on Physics and the Philosophy of Science devolve into a heated debate between him and the rest of the forum over his odd personal views, the original physics questions posed long since forgotten. While he certainly has the right to argue his case, his penchant for turning every discussion of Physics or the interpretation of Physical theory into a forum to display his personal incredulities is troubling. Thus I do not mean to dissuade the reader from engaging with Xris, only to inform him or her of the full scope of Xris's disagreement with modern physics and the sources from which he draws his information in order that as little forum space as possible be devoted to teasing it out once more.

-- Updated April 2nd, 2013, 9:59 am to add the following --

MazerRackhem, so would you say the statement that energy is the ability to do work, is essentially the same as the statement that energy is the potential for events to occur?

Although I had not thought about the concept of Energy in this way it seems to me at first thought an apt enough way to think of the concept. I rather like your take on it, though I'll have to think a bit more to decide if your statement disagrees with that of the physics definition in some way which is not yet clear to me.

[Xris]

I'm sure Xris will denounce me once more as a deceiving 'high priest' of the 'altar of science' and cry ad hominem following this post but after spending about 2 weeks trying to debate him I feel I can save everyone a bit of trouble. Xris has openly admitted (indeed he seems proud of) the fact that he has no formal training in mathematics or physics and cannot work either of them at even the undergraduate level. He follows the teachings of exiled cold war spy Bill Gaede who's biography can be found on Wikipedia under the heading Bill Gaede and in the source links which follow the article. Gaede believes (and Xris accepts) that invisible ropes smaller than 10^-50 times the size of the proton and which are undetectable even by a cyclotron the size of the solar system (but are none the less 'physical' links) link every atom in the universe to every other atom in the universe and that anyone who disagrees with this version of reality is either a "stooge" of modern physics, a suppressor of the truth, or a lying "high priest" who deceives the "ignorant masses" into "illogical conclusions" in order to get "their billions chasing invented god particles." All of the arguments and complaints he listed during our long debate can be found at Gaede's website (and multi page running personal attack of anyone who engages in empirical physics): http://youstupidrelativist.com/

I feel it's worth mentioning that Bill Gaede does not possess a PhD in either math or physics, believes that humans live in civilizations on other planets, that he has knowledge of their civilizations there, and predicted in 2009 that "we are the last generation of humans on Earth!" since human civilization on earth would collapse "in a matter of months" and that everyone would be reduced to living in "large ant holes called cities" where we would starve to death since the greedy "agricultural corporations" would withhold our food. Xris has denounced these views along with a few other parts of Gaede's work which are incontrovertibly illogical but steadfastly holds that Gaede's invisible ropes are the true picture of reality although there is no evidence to support them. According to him anyone who chooses to accept empirically verified science and the modern theory of physics which took us to the moon, created the digital computer, and has never been found to disagree with laboratory observations does so because of their "Blind Faith," and unwillingness to accept that math and science are fundamentally "illogical." In his own words, his belief in the rope hypothesis does not need evidence to support it since the accepted theory of modern is physics is so illogical that it must be wrong.

I have no intention of continuing the argument with him here (two weeks of patiently replying to his every complaint against modern physics while he ducked any questions I asked regarding his own theory was trying enough), I bring it up only because it took me over a week before he would even cite his sources so that they could be discussed. I have already watched two reasonable conversations on Physics and the Philosophy of Science devolve into a heated debate between him and the rest of the forum over his odd personal views, the original physics questions posed long since forgotten. While he certainly has the right to argue his case, his penchant for turning every discussion of Physics or the interpretation of Physical theory into a forum to display his personal incredulities is troubling. Thus I do not mean to dissuade the reader from engaging with Xris, only to inform him or her of the full scope of Xris's disagreement with modern physics and the sources from which he draws his information in order that as little forum space as possible be devoted to teasing it out once more.

When you can face the questions with an open mind and not assume the ignorance of your opponent you might just find reason and debate. You are synonymous with many in the academic world. You believe that education is the only requirement to questioning the illogical conclusions particle physics has imposed on us all. Considering it has taken 80 billion dollars and 80 years to, just possibly, find the god particle you are not exactly covered in glorious success.

[Allinone]

Xris, I was going to point out that your just substituting one word for another, mass, matter and then substance, I was then going to continue by explaining my own definition of mass/matter/substance, but after reading the above post by MazerRackhem, I don't think I'll bother.

MazerRackhem, thank you for the illuminating insight into what's got into xris, I had my doubts about any possible benifits of discussing the subject of energy with a man who doesn't seem to allow for what has been learnt by many people who've dedicated their lifetimes to the subject, I think you've just saved me a frustration headache.

[Xris]

Xris, I was going to point out that your just substituting one word for another, mass, matter and then substance, I was then going to continue by explaining my own definition of mass/matter/substance, but after reading the above post by MazerRackhem, I don't think I'll bother.

MazerRackhem, thank you for the illuminating insight into what's got into xris, I had my doubts about any possible benifits of discussing the subject of energy with a man who doesn't seem to allow for what has been learnt by many people who've dedicated their lifetimes to the subject, I think you've just saved me a frustration headache.

Do as you as please. Did you really believe it was possible to prove photons existed as a particle. You are all the same, inflicted with same confidence that priests enjoy.Bit like asking a priest if god exists and then him refusing to debate because you have not read the bible. None of you can define energy just like you can not define the majority of the mass(plasma) in the universe. lets not even consider the invented dark stuff.

[Allinone]

Xris, so it's gone from mass, to matter, from matter to substance, and now from substance to plasma (which is a superconducting gas), you haven't even managed to define mass, why are you even bothering with this thread. I'm done discussing nonsense, tell someone else about your little stringy things.

[Xris]

Xris, so it's gone from mass, to matter, from matter to substance, and now from substance to plasma (which is a superconducting gas), you haven't even managed to define mass, why are you even bothering with this thread. I'm done discussing nonsense, tell someone else about your little stringy things.

It was never the question if you might have noticed. I played your silly game of mass and matter that had no relevance to the question. Not once could you define energy and now your telling me my description of mass does not live up to your scientific description, how sad is that.I have no interest in your google search on mass nor your belief in invented schizophrenic particles.Those pesky critters that even defy their own description.Faster than light and may even be instantaneous. Yes faith is wonderful thing.

[Allinone]

Xris, your brains shot, maybe your not getting enough carrots.

[MazerRackhem]

I'd just leave it. Xris insists on having the last post on the all the forums I've seen him post to. There comes a point when more posts are just more posts. I don't think we're adding to the conversation anymore. This is why I originally posted the explanation of his views. As you can see we've completely left behind the original question and are now pandering to his wild theories. He manages to turn every philosophical discussion of physics into series of running personal attacks, no one is even talking about Energy anymore. It's really too bad that one person can so derail the conversation. It's up to you but I'd just ignore his future attacks.

[Xris]

Xris, your brains shot, maybe your not getting enough carrots.

Maybe your losing the argument and have to resort to insults.Carrots are supposed to help you see in the dark, not for your brain.Maybe thats why you see particles.You've overdosed.

[Allinone]

Xris, your a funny guy, have you ever considered a life on the road? It's got to be better than farming.

[Xris]

Xris, your a funny guy, have you ever considered a life on the road? It's got to be better than farming.

I have actually. I get so much hilarious material from guys like you, I could carry on for years.

-- Updated Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:19 pm to add the following --

I'd just leave it. Xris insists on having the last post on the all the forums I've seen him post to. There comes a point when more posts are just more posts. I don't think we're adding to the conversation anymore. This is why I originally posted the explanation of his views. As you can see we've completely left behind the original question and are now pandering to his wild theories. He manages to turn every philosophical discussion of physics into series of running personal attacks, no one is even talking about Energy anymore. It's really too bad that one person can so derail the conversation. It's up to you but I'd just ignore his future attacks.

And you have not attacked me? You are the limit.I did not resort to attacking your person as you have on more than one occasion. Is simply disagreeing with you and your associates some kind of crime?

[Dawson]

I visualize an entire universe as a three dimensional field of energy of indeterminate size and it seem clears that the omnipresent energy is gathered into localised clusters of different intensity.

The energy field has no discrete regions which would entail the existence of regions of total absence of energy(or matter since they are the same)but it is seems obvious that the field is 'differentiated' in the sense that it is not perfectly homogeneous.

Someone said that light is not energy. This is incorrect. Energy in the form of light (taken in the broadest sense as the entire spectrum of electromagnetic energy is continuously being radiated from the sun and being received by the earth, providing the energy to enable life.

[Allinone]

I'd just leave it. Xris insists on having the last post on the all the forums I've seen him post to. There comes a point when more posts are just more posts. I don't think we're adding to the conversation anymore. This is why I originally posted the explanation of his views. As you can see we've completely left behind the original question and are now pandering to his wild theories. He manages to turn every philosophical discussion of physics into series of running personal attacks, no one is even talking about Energy anymore. It's really too bad that one person can so derail the conversation. It's up to you but I'd just ignore his future attacks.

Ok MazerRackhem, your right, I'll take your advice and let xris argue with himself.

I think you was going to let me know about if energy as the potential for events to occur, was in anyway conflicting with the scientific viewpoint?

Another question I have for you is the point brought up by Dawson, I understand energy as having qualitys, such as mass, heat and extension, but does this necessarily mean it exists as regional concentrations, or is it possible that energy exists as a singular value, ie, one universe, or one ability to do work, within which it's qualitys are manifested regionally.

-- Updated April 2nd, 2013, 3:24 pm to add the following --

Another question I have, and I don't know how involved you are with quantum field theory, is if there is a posibility that the start of the universal expansion, or the actual big bang, could have been initiated by energy borrowing from a future state, so that the occurrence of events since, has been a constant paying back to the past, and borrowing from the future. It's just something I thought was implied by the behaviour of quantum events. If this was so, then it would explain how something inert, became dynamic.

[A_Seagull]

Energy can be defined as force times distance (E=Fxd). It is about change. Forces can move objects. It allowes for a dynamic universe. Without force and by implication without energy, the univesrse would be static. And if the universe was static there would be no life.

[MazerRackhem]

Energy can be defined as force times distance (E=Fxd).

This is actually the definition for Work, not Energy. You may be confused because this is also the calculation of potential energy in a conservative vector field, but this is only one kind of Energy. Chemical, thermal, etc. do not fall into this definition, as such it is an example of one specific kind of energy but not of energy itself. Energy is defined in physics to be "the capacity of a physical system to perform work." Your formula above would be correct if we substituted PE for E so that we have PE=Fxd where 'd' is the appropriate metric in the conservative vector field under consideration.

I think you was going to let me know about if energy as the potential for events to occur, was in anyway conflicting with the scientific viewpoint?

Another question I have for you is the point brought up by Dawson, I understand energy as having qualitys, such as mass, heat and extension, but does this necessarily mean it exists as regional concentrations, or is it possible that energy exists as a singular value, ie, one universe, or one ability to do work, within which it's qualitys are manifested regionally.

In regards to the first, I would say that the two definitions are probably not perfectly the same but very close parallels. In a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium ('heat death') no further macroscopic events occur because there is no energy differential to drive the processes. Since Energy is the capacity for work where work is force applied over a distance if we are careful about how we define the term 'event' I think that saying Energy is the potential for events to occur is probably sound provided we are careful about how we use our terms. In addition to 'event' I think 'potential' could be confused with the various potential energies and lead to misunderstanding.

In regards to the second, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here. From relativity we have the energy mass equivalency relationships but this does not mean that energy 'has mass' if that is what you are saying. Could you clarify this question for me? I don't think I understand what you are asking well enough to respond.

Another question I have, and I don't know how involved you are with quantum field theory, is if there is a posibility that the start of the universal expansion, or the actual big bang, could have been initiated by energy borrowing from a future state, so that the occurrence of events since, has been a constant paying back to the past, and borrowing from the future. It's just something I thought was implied by the behaviour of quantum events. If this was so, then it would explain how something inert, became dynamic.

Although this 'borrowing' which you describe, or at least something like it, does occur in quantum systems I have never seen it suggested as a start up for the big bang. Most physical theories do not attempt to explain the 'before the big bang' events, if we can say there were any. Some explanations I have seen (though each of these is highly specultive and cannot be taken to be an accepted view) are: the collision of large multidimensional p-branes in a multiverse like system, in some such formulations the universe can be viewed as just the intersecting region of these sheets as they pass by each other in a larger extra universal space. A second is the concept of a reverse singularity, at one time some physicists thought that perhaps an entire universe lay at the 'bottom' of each of our universe's black holes. I do not think that this is widely believed, at least not currently, since Hawking radiation seems to prose some problems for this particular view. However the concept of the big bang being some form of 'white hole' created from an external source still has some merit as far as I know.

One last one I'll mention is the idea that the universe began in something very like the choppy quantum fluctuations we observe over the fabric of space time today, just on a much grander scale. This last view is the one I personally think has the best odds of being right (discovery of evidence in favor of the multiverse hypothesis would change this), but it must be stressed that each of these is purely conjecture at this time and that no evidence exists to support any of them above the other. Your idea of a 'quantum borrowing' may or may not be on equal footing with the above suggestions. One would have to work out the specific mathematics of it in order to determine if it is possible. It sounds as though you don't have the background to do this yourself and I doubt I could accomplish it either. I understand the theory well enough to read the papers published by those with the views above but not to work the theory out from scratch myself. My own work is in a slightly different field.