Continuation of energy concept!

[walkntune]

This is my speculation

I believe energy is the only thing that exists.

It is either with mass or without.

It is either in kinetic or potential state.

Everything you observe is energy in its least resistant state in that particular instant.

It is always changing in and out of form never being created or destroyed.

I don't think we necessarily have the freewill we think we do.

Sure we can make choices but if they make us more resistant to energy then we pay a price with our health!

This energy acts like it has its own mind taking the least resistant path like water!

People might pick up this energy through intuition and make Gods and religions and all kinds of belief systems.

None the less they all have one thing in common and that's a force they sense and I speculate it to be energy!

This is what I believe is the God of Einstein and Spinoza!

You want me to come up with raw data that everything is energy!

Hmmmm! This one was tough even for Einstein!

 

Is E= MC2 Not saying that mass is a form of stored energy?

Is energy able to be created or destroyed?

Is mass able to be created or destroyed?

 

Which one would most likely be the cause of the other?

Can we come to any conclusions by trying to observe over and over again(with logic) that which has mass to get a complete understanding of energy?

Since energy can never be destroyed and mass can, which one probably created the other?

Can you get to the root of understanding or a problem by trimming the leaves and pruning the branches?No!

You have to dig at the root.

 

E=MC2 was a beautiful math formula but that's only what is says on the surface!

You really dig deep and it shows the beauty of simplicity!

 

Now you want some raw data to prove that there is energy that can't be measured with any instruments of some kind!It can't be studied with our five basic senses and the use of logic and rational thinking!

I knew there had to be a purpose for some kind on intuition! People intuitively sense a force or energy daily. They make a God in there life with it!

 

I believed this this to be a new concept I discovered and started searching science forums for answers and understanding since I am more intuitive than scientific!

 

This is something I have recently found!This concept was discovered a long time ago! People just don't see it.

 

The following passage comes when Einstein and Herrmanns are talking about the Nazis and the flaw in the German national character that lead to Hitler's appeal.

Einstein nodded: he was a good listener. After a pause he said, "The cosmic man must be restored, the whole man who is made in the image and likeness of the arch-force, which you may call God. This man thinks with his heart and not with party dogma. As I've explained before, there is an order in the universe – a cosmic order – and humans have the possibility of understanding these laws."

Einstein leaned back in his chair; so did I,putting my writing pad on my knees. He added, "I have no doubt that the allies will win the war."

I smiled, "Oh, you are my prophet again."

"Prophet or not," he scratched his head, "what I say is more often felt through intuition than thought through intellect."

 

 

Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism.

He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say

—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.

 

I pulled out some notes. "Once, in England, I was at dinner with people highly trained in meditation, among them Professor Suzuki who asked me to ask you if spiritual vibrations and electricity have the same original cause or force."

"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."

 

 

This acknowledgment of at least certain types of energy that cannot, or not yet, be measured by instruments is noteworthy but it is perhaps not completely surprising. Einstein was responsible for showing us that matter and energy are interchangeable. He understood empiricism to be only a tool of intuition. Finally like Spinoza, he saw God, the universe, and all of life as a harmonious whole.

I have tried debating with this point of view realizing Einstein quoting this concept, surely people will see where he was coming from! Instead I got pushed into the direction of Nikola Tesla and how he viewed the world he studied. So not being a scientist and being all to familiar with Tesla and searched him out and came to another surprise!

 

What has the future in store for this strange being, born of a breath, of perishable tissue, yet Immortal, with his powers fearful and Divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?

Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in nature? Can he harness her inexhaustible energies to perform all their functions at his bidding? more still cause them to operate simply by the force of his will?

If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural. At his command, with but a slight effort on his part, old worlds would disappear and new ones of his planning would spring into being. He could fix, solidify and preserve the ethereal shapes of his imagining, the fleeting visions of his dreams. He could express all the creations of his mind on any scale, in forms concrete and imperishable. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, guide it along any path he might choose through the depths of the Universe. He could cause planets to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms.

Nikola Tesla

 

Now as I examine closer and learning that Newton, Einstein, and Tesla were all introverts. Now I know Einstein and Tesla saw it as a force of nature but not sure about Newton:; though he was a theologian so he must have related to a force also!

Anyway I found answers as I was pushed to look into the great scientists through much debate in the forums. Although they would have been much more capable of getting their point across than I can, at least now I can see where they were coming from!

And to view the world this way has helped tremendously in maybe not knowing how things completely operate, but I have a strong sense of why.

I suppose this is what Einstein meant when he said;

"I want to know the mind of God ; everything else is just details."

Albert Einstein

[Mr Skeptic]

This is my speculation

I believe energy is the only thing that exists.

It is either with mass or without.

It is either in kinetic or potential state.

 

I call it mass-energy. It is always with relativistic mass (E=mc^2), but not always with rest mass. As I understand it, the rest mass is a measure of it's potential energy, but the relativistic mass a measure of its total energy (both kinetic and potential).

 

But what about other things that exist, such as charge and particle type? If you can define these in terms of energy, please do.

 

Everything you observe is energy in its least resistant state in that particular instant.

 

Not sure what you mean by this. Energetic things tend to move toward their state of lowest energy and greatest entropy.

 

It is always changing in and out of form never being created or destroyed.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics requires that mass-energy be conserved, but allows (but does not require) it to change form. For example, if I have a kg of hydrogen, what form is all that massive amount of mass-energy changing into?

 

I don't think we necessarily have the freewill we think we do.

 

Freewill as many want it is impossible, as all known processes are either random or deterministic, and people don't like to include those in their definition of free will.

 

Sure we can make choices but if they make us more resistant to energy then we pay a price with our health!

This energy acts like it has its own mind taking the least resistant path like water!

People might pick up this energy through intuition and make Gods and religions and all kinds of belief systems.

 

Given that work (an energy change) is [math]W = \int^{\vec b}_{\vec a} \vec F \cdot d \vec r[/math], how does this relate to anything you said? Of if you prefer the simplified form, [math]W = F \cdot \Delta X[/math] for work done by a constant force with motion parallel to it.

 

You're just throwing in some metaphysics and calling it energy as if you knew what you were talking about.

 

None the less they all have one thing in common and that's a force they sense and I speculate it to be energy!

 

Nope, a force relates to energy as the previous equation. You can also define force as [math]\vec F = \frac{d \vec p}{dt}[/math] as the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. Or you could deduce the definition of force in terms of energy from the previous equation relating the two.

 

This is what I believe is the God of Einstein and Spinoza!

You want me to come up with raw data that everything is energy!

Hmmmm! This one was tough even for Einstein!

 

Well yes, when you propose a theory you need to provide evidence. You don't have a theory, since your supposed theory makes no predictions. Please note that when you have a theory, it is your theory and not you that must make the prediction. Absolutely anyone must be able to derive the exact same prediction from your theory.

 

Is E= MC2 Not saying that mass is a form of stored energy?

Is energy able to be created or destroyed?

Is mass able to be created or destroyed?

 

Mass is a form of energy, and can change to other forms of energy, but the total quantity must be conserved. This is the basis of nuclear fission reactors, and fusion reactors such as the sun.

 

Which one would most likely be the cause of the other?

Can we come to any conclusions by trying to observe over and over again(with logic) that which has mass to get a complete understanding of energy?

Since energy can never be destroyed and mass can, which one probably created the other?

 

I thought you said they were the same thing? Just so you know, you can go the other direction and create mass from energy.

 

Can you get to the root of understanding or a problem by trimming the leaves and pruning the branches?No!

You have to dig at the root.

 

E=MC2 was a beautiful math formula but that's only what is says on the surface!

You really dig deep and it shows the beauty of simplicity!

 

And dig you should. First thing I recommend digging up is an understanding of what energy is, and it would also help to understand force as well.

 

Now you want some raw data to prove that there is energy that can't be measured with any instruments of some kind!It can't be studied with our five basic senses and the use of logic and rational thinking!

I knew there had to be a purpose for some kind on intuition! People intuitively sense a force or energy daily. They make a God in there life with it!

 

You can't provide proof of that, since if it couldn't be measured then it wouldn't be energy. If you want to propose a new metaphysical concept, please call it by a different name since it has completely different properties. May I suggest you call it Gibblydash. If you still want to call it energy, then you first must show that your Gibblydash has exactly the same properties as energy. Also, since Einstein's equation makes no mention of Gibblydash, you can't really use that.

[insane_alien]

also, using the correct equation woul be a good idea too.

 

its E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

 

E=mc^2 only applies to the very specific scenario where momentum equals zero. all factors must be considered otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

insane_alien, the above equation uses m_0, the rest mass, and only that. The other equation uses the relativistic mass, which if at rest is the same as the rest mass.

[insane_alien]

mixing masses like that is a bad idea, it only leads to confusion.

[Mr Skeptic]

But he's already confused, so where's the harm?

[walkntune]

You can't provide proof of that, since if it couldn't be measured then it wouldn't be energy. If you want to propose a new metaphysical concept, please call it by a different name since it has completely different properties. May I suggest you call it Gibblydash. If you still want to call it energy, then you first must show that your Gibblydash has exactly the same properties as energy. Also, since Einstein's equation makes no mention of Gibblydash, you can't really use that.

Please understand again that this is not a new concept from me since Einstein quoted it many years ago.

"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation.

And dig you should. First thing I recommend digging up is an understanding of what energy is, and it would also help to understand force as well.

Einstein used in a correct enough definition for me!

I thought you said they were the same thing? Just so you know, you can go the other direction and create mass from energy.

That's what I am saying!Mass is energy in a potential state!Outside forces/energy determine whether it stays in same state or takes a different balance of the two states

Well yes, when you propose a theory you need to provide evidence. You don't have a theory, since your supposed theory makes no predictions. Please note that when you have a theory, it is your theory and not you that must make the prediction. Absolutely anyone must be able to derive the exact same prediction from your theory.

I believe energy being forced to change states is the very reason for our existence.We are part of the circle of life just as plants rely on the sun for photosynthesis , we also rely on the sun for this source of energy I am referring to.

None the less they all have one thing in common and that's a force they sense and I speculate it to be energy!

 

Nope, a force relates to energy as the previous equation. You can also define force as \vec F = \frac{d \vec p}{dt} as the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. Or you could deduce the definition of force in terms of energy from the previous equation relating the two.

There must be some kind of energy conversion to cause the force.

But what about other things that exist, such as charge and particle type? If you can define these in terms of energy, please do.

I am very interested if the positive or negative roles of a charge play a role in behavior such as extroverts being charged around each other in groups and introverts being charged as they go off alone! Sub atomic particles are very mysterious.

 

But he's already confused, so where's the harm?

Yes it can be very difficult to get someone to understand who sees the surface of the letters and formulas under a scientific logical method , that which can be seen so easily through intuition and reasoning mind even from someone like me with just a high school education.

I have come to a conclusion and understanding now as I get into the mind of Einstein and Tesla; and see an understanding of how the world operates from such a beautiful force of creation.

[Phi for All]

Yes it can be very difficult to get someone to understand who sees the surface of the letters and formulas under a scientific logical method , that which can be seen so easily through intuition and reasoning mind even from someone like me with just a high school education.

It's even more difficult when someone ignores all the times they are wrong and just insists they only need an intuitive mind to understand things the way Einstein and Tesla did (even though they are often wrong about Einstein and Tesla). walkntune, so many people are giving you great advice on what to study to gain a better grasp of what you're talking about but you don't seem to want to do the hard part and actually study. Does the convenience of having "intuition and reasoning mind" override being wrong so often?

[walkntune]

Does the convenience of having "intuition and reasoning mind" override being wrong so often?

Tell me what is wrong and why!

people are giving you great advice

There has been no great advice! Only childish sort of puns that I never assumed would have been in a forum with supposed scientists! I was searching for some real scientific answers and reasons as to how I found my way to this conclusion and was amazed at the integrity levels in science forums. I am not sure if there are professionals in here or not but it seems people want to try and use knowledge to degrade others and try and think themselves better than others. What is knowledge without wisdom? What is the best way to use knowledge?

It's knowledge to be able to break into a car and steal it but wisdom is the choice not too!

I guess it's my fault for expecting different.

[Bignose]

Tell me what is wrong and why!

 

Insisting that force and energy are the same is wrong. Why is because they are defined to be two different things.

 

Einstein's quote is one where he is speaking artistically, not scientifically. Einstein did not equate force and energy, he knew the difference between them, which is more than clear enough if you actually study his scientific works. Because he was a famous scientist, he was often sought out for quotes and his thoughts on things, and the like; Einstein was not above giving out a good PR quote or quip that makes good reading. "Energy is the basic force in creation." is the same thing.

 

Einstein is also quoted as saying "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity". Again, a nice quip, but you cannot start reading any scientific knowledge into it.

[walkntune]

Insisting that force and energy are the same is wrong. Why is because they are defined to be two different things.

but you cannot start reading any scientific knowledge into it.

And you are right. I was not trying to be scientific.I am not scientific and have been doing my best to try and explain my thoughts in terms that others can understand.

Maybe I am confused about how a force can happen without some kind of energy conversion causing a force to act on another!

I see a force as a cause and then an energy conversion as an effect and possibly a force on another!Is this not correct?

I can see it on the intuitive side but can't explain where someone sees it on the logical because I guess lack of science.

Maybe because i am introverted I can't explain ideas in away that extroverts can understand(which most people are.)

Maybe that's a science in itself that should be looked at.Why the difference in perspectives?

[Mr Skeptic]

Please understand again that this is not a new concept from me since Einstein quoted it many years ago.

 

 

Einstein used in a correct enough definition for me!

 

Yes, and I told you what it was and that you aren't using his definition. You're making up a new one. Evidence: you are suggesting some sort of unmeasurable energy, but energy is measurable so you are suggesting something that is not energy. As Einstein said, E=mc^2, mass is measurable and furthermore interacts gravitationally with any instrument that has mass.

 

That's what I am saying!Mass is energy in a potential state!Outside forces/energy determine whether it stays in same state or takes a different balance of the two states

I believe energy being forced to change states is the very reason for our existence.We are part of the circle of life just as plants rely on the sun for photosynthesis , we also rely on the sun for this source of energy I am referring to.

 

There must be some kind of energy conversion to cause the force.

 

False. If you understood force and energy, you would realize that if a force does not move an object parallel to the force, then there is no change in the energy.

 

Again, you need to study the basics since your intuition is just not as good as you think it is.

 

I am very interested if the positive or negative roles of a charge play a role in behavior such as extroverts being charged around each other in groups and introverts being charged as they go off alone! Sub atomic particles are very mysterious.

 

Do you mean to say that you have no idea what charge is either?

 

Yes it can be very difficult to get someone to understand who sees the surface of the letters and formulas under a scientific logical method , that which can be seen so easily through intuition and reasoning mind even from someone like me with just a high school education.

 

Most of us here understand both the equations and the intuitive concepts that the equations relay. You fail to understand both, but say that you understand it better than everyone.

 

I have come to a conclusion and understanding now as I get into the mind of Einstein and Tesla; and see an understanding of how the world operates from such a beautiful force of creation.

 

All you accomplish by comparing yourself to Einstein and Tesla is to rake up points on the crackpot index. These geniuses did not go blindly making stuff up, and they understood the math and the equations and the laws of physics and the definitions of words.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Please, if you intend to accomplish anything other than frustrating yourself and everyone around you, you must understand the basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

 

Stop waving your magical "I have intuition" wand around. You can't use your intuition for this if it gives you the wrong results. Once you understand these, your intuition will be back on track.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe because i am introverted I can't explain ideas in away that extroverts can understand(which most people are.)

Maybe that's a science in itself that should be looked at.Why the difference in perspectives?

 

Actually, most of us here are introverts. You cannot explain because you don't understand what you are talking about. Einstein, who you seem so fond of, said:

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough” ~Albert Einstein

 

I explained energy in 8 letters, a very simple and elegant definition for those that know calculus. You have been going on and on about it but never really said what it is.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[walkntune]

All you accomplish by comparing yourself to Einstein and Tesla is to rake up points on the crackpot index. These geniuses did not go blindly making stuff up, and they understood the math and the equations and the laws of physics and the definitions of words.

 

Well you take a look at Nikola Tesla and Vortex energy for awhile(see what the genius came up with) You might find it interesting!

I found some info.. on Energy and force that I will read.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Most of us here understand both the equations and the intuitive concepts that the equations relay. You fail to understand both, but say that you understand it better than everyone.

I never claimed to understand it better than anyone and referred to the fact that I was lacking in the ability to express it scientifically and so the reason I was in the forum!

Not sure why you are posting with such poor character and integrity?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well you take a look at Nikola Tesla and Vortex energy for awhile(see what the genius came up with) You might find it interesting!

I found some info.. on Energy and force that I will read.

 

I could not find anything about Tesla and vertex energy. Can you give me a link?

 

I never claimed to understand it better than anyone and referred to the fact that I was lacking in the ability to express it scientifically and so the reason I was in the forum!

Not sure why you are posting with such poor character and integrity?

 

Well see, us scientists don't care too much how you express something, we don't have some official scientific way to express something. What we have is methods to see if the ideas are accurate. Some things do not fall into the realm of science, and for these expressing them differently will not change that. We do appreciate things being clear and concise though.

 

My suggestions:

*Clearly state your hypothesis in a sentence or two.

*Define any terms used in the previous, also stating them clearly and concisely.

*Show that your hypothesis makes a prediction (not you!). The prediction has to logically follow from your hypothesis, so that anyone and everyone makes the same prediction, and be such that if false then your hypothesis is false.

*In all the above, use math and equations if appropriate. There is nothing clearer and less vague than math.

 

Avoid:

-Anything vague, because vague things don't say anything nor make predictions.

-Mentioning intuition. Intuition is personal, and your intuition is most certainly not the same as anyone else's intuition. This makes it extremely vague.

[swansont]

And you are right. I was not trying to be scientific.I am not scientific and have been doing my best to try and explain my thoughts in terms that others can understand.

 

The problem here is that this is a science site. We require that you try and be scientific in how you express ideas. What people are doing is trying to get you to employ some rigor in how you are presenting your thoughts. Without that, they are subjective and personal, and it's not easy to translate such thoughts from individual to individual.

[walkntune]

If there is misunderstanding then I apologize.I did get frustrated so sorry to anyone offended(especially Mr. Skeptic)

 

I have a few ideas of how to ask a question to try and see if something is not right.I will put my thoughts together later. I don't recommend looking to much into the Nikola Tesla vortex energy.He went crazy with energy at the end of his life.I can't send links. If you type in Tesla and vortex energy in you tube you will see some videos pop up.

[Phi for All]

If there is misunderstanding then I apologize.

The misunderstanding stems from how scientific methodology differs from what you call intuition. Everyone with a question can arrive at an answer, and everyone uses an intuitive leap to peer into the future and guess what that answer might be.

 

The difference is that a scientist doesn't rely on intuition to take him past that first step, and instead he builds up firm ground to walk on by researching, testing, analyzing, testing further and drawing careful conclusions, always sharing his findings with others so they can either follow him or show where his footing is not on firm ground.

 

Intuition, when used beyond the initial question, is like taking a standing leap ahead to what you think is the next bit of firm ground. It may be firm, but how will you really know until you land? And how will others follow after if you haven't built up firm ground for them to walk on? Asking others to take the leap with you means you all may end up in quicksand instead of on firm ground, and scientists HATE quicksand.

 

Does that make more sense?

[Mr Skeptic]

Tesla had YouTube way back then? No, I looked for written stuff. Stuff in video format is usually extremely watered down, to the point of usually being useless to scientific understanding. And why can't you send links? And why are you telling me to look something up but then not actually study it?

[walkntune]

Tesla had YouTube way back then? No, I looked for written stuff. Stuff in video format is usually extremely watered down, to the point of usually being useless to scientific understanding. And why can't you send links? And why are you telling me to look something up but then not actually study it?

This was not important as scientific but just some of the history of his ideas with energy and him going insane!It's not important but was only a point of interest.

Intuition, when used beyond the initial question, is like taking a standing leap ahead to what you think is the next bit of firm ground. It may be firm, but how will you really know until you land? And how will others follow after if you haven't built up firm ground for them to walk on? Asking others to take the leap with you means you all may end up in quicksand instead of on firm ground, and scientists HATE quicksand.

I will try to share more scientifically and see where i am going wrong or have a wrong idea of energy and force.

 

If I swing a bat i will say that it is kinetic energy.

When the bat strikes a ball I call that a force on the ball from the bat.

The ball moving is the work caused from the force.

I guess I might be confused but I also see the ball moving as a kinetic energy and it also will be a force when it hits the ground.The ground gets a dent from the force of the ball.

Now I guess where it seems to me the confusion is is that for me I see the original kinetic energy from the swing as changing forms and being in the whole process from the swing to the ball hitting the ground and then the energy being absorbed into the ground somehow.

I understand some of the energy turned into heat or whatnot from wind resistance and maybe absorbed in some of the impact through vibrations.

Did the rest of the original energy carry on through the process?

Did some of the kinetic energy from the swing turn into the kinetic energy that was on the ball(by force from bat and work) and then into the ground from force of ball hitting ground?

[Mr Skeptic]

If the ball hits the bat at the correct place in the bat-batter's-arm system, (called the "sweet spot" by baseball folks, and the "center of percussion" by physicists), more of the kinetic energy of the bat gets transferred to the ball. Otherwise, conservation of momentum requires that a relatively larger portion of the kinetic energy remain in the bat.

 

The bat compresses one side of the ball and the ball compresses part of the bat (force X distance = work = energy transfer), but the ball and bat are quite elastic so the internal forces act to restore the bat and ball to the original shape, which requires that they push each other away. You can model this as either the ball doing work on the bat, or the bat doing work on the ball, depending on your frame of reference. Note that from the ground's frame of reference, both the thrown ball and the bat have kinetic energy. Because of the internal friction, work is also done on the molecules composing the bat and the ball, resulting in an increase in their motions that we call heat.

 

The amount of energy transferred is equal to [math]W = \int^{\vec b}_{\vec a} \vec F \cdot d \vec r[/math], where F is the force (from compression) and the difference between a and b is the distance over which the force is applied.

 

The amount of momentum transferred is equal to [math]W = \int^{t}_{t_0} \vec F dt[/math] where the difference between t and t₀ is the time the ball and bat were in contact.

 

By simultaneously satisfying the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum you can find the speed at which the ball will leave the bat. However, this would require knowing the masses, speeds, and rotations of the ball and the bat-batter's-arm, which would be impractical during a ball game.

 

 

Gravity acts on the ball and the earth, via the gravitational force [math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math]. Due to the extreme mass of the earth, the resulting acceleration of the earth is negligible compared to that of the ball. The ball will follow a nearly parabolic path, with a deviation due to air friction, which will reduce its speed and kinetic energy (transferred to heat the air). Also, if the ball is spinning the Bernoulli effect will cause a decrease in air pressure on one side of the ball, resulting in the ball being accelerated toward that side.

 

Eventually the ball will hit the ground (unless you hit the ball at the escape velocity of the earth, 11.2 km/s for the ultimate home run). Again both the ball and the ground are compressed, applying a force to each. The ground is fairly plastic (opposite of elastic), so it will largely not regain its original shape. This means that the work the ball does on the ground is not returned by the ground decompressing, so the ground absorbs the energy as heat.

 

Given that the ball comes to rest on the ground, it is not necessary to calculate the work done on the ground -- it will be equal to the kinetic energy of the ball, minus the loss due to air friction, plus the potential energy the ball had when it hit the ground (equal to m*g*h)

[walkntune]

OK, I think I am pretty much with you on everything. You gave better scientific explanations.

I still see it all as an effect of energy transfer and I am trying to figure out why it might not be? I see force and work as being an effect of energy.

(force X distance = work = energy transfer),

this seems to support it to. I am going to try and think of a situation where it might work out differently.

I want to figure out why I am wrong for considering everything just energy transfer or changing in and out of form is what I called it.

To my understanding, forces cannot exist without an energy source of some kind and work is just a measure of the force but I still see energy as the culprit that is transferring in and out of form throughout any process.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well energy plays a major role in almost all interactions. However, consider a perfectly circular orbit. There is a gravitational force, but the motion is perpendicular to the force. Therefore, there is no work done, no energy transfer. The force, however, is very much there. Consider likewise you sitting on a chair. Again, you apply a force to the chair but not over a distance, so no energy transfer. In this case, the normal force from the ground cancels the gravitational force, so the net force on you is zero and you do not accelerate.

[walkntune]

Consider likewise you sitting on a chair. Again, you apply a force to the chair but not over a distance, so no energy transfer. In this case, the normal force from the ground cancels the gravitational force, so the net force on you is zero and you do not accelerate.

 

I sort of understand energy to be like water as far as taking the easiest path.As water flows down stream it feels the holes and creeks on the side before it can continue down stream sort of like building up potential.It will sit at rest in a hole until forced to continue from overflowing.

As I am sitting in the chair there is no energy transfer but it seems energy builds potential at rest. Do objects at rest become just a form of potential energy?

There will only be an action of energy transfer when energy is forced to move from action to action or object to object or if its the easier path to take.

What is it that makes life want to continue when it seems to not continue would be an easier path to take? For life to exist takes work. Work is caused by force.

The only thing I can think of is that there must be two forces of energy that oppose each other and continuously cause each other to move in and out of form.

[Mr Skeptic]

Again though, how can your concept of energy explain things with no energy transfer? Orbiting and sitting have no energy transfer yet are quite separate.

 

And again, energy is a separate thing from force. Energy for example has no direction, whereas force does.

 

I get the impression that you don't have anything new, rather are re-inventing concepts that are already well-known. Where you deviate from the well-known, you seem to be making mistakes. However, if this helps you learn, it's all good.

 

For example, from a 3D map of potential energy, you can extract the force involved by taking the gradient of the potential.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[foodchain]

Well energy plays a major role in almost all interactions. However, consider a perfectly circular orbit. There is a gravitational force, but the motion is perpendicular to the force. Therefore, there is no work done, no energy transfer. The force, however, is very much there. Consider likewise you sitting on a chair. Again, you apply a force to the chair but not over a distance, so no energy transfer. In this case, the normal force from the ground cancels the gravitational force, so the net force on you is zero and you do not accelerate.

 

It would take energy though to change the orbit in some way though, and it was an energetic process in the first place that established the orbits. Plus gravity relates to mass, and mass relates to energy. Also when you do work against gravity, it does require energy right?

 

I think this is why things can seem fine tuned. If you have discrete packets of energy, such as quanta, down to whatever dimension of subatomic reality or other, and in all of that its being conserved, you would end up with a really fine picture with energy being conserved down to such a fine level. Unless energy conservation does not hold, but it does seem to hole even for quantum tunneling, I just don't know about pair production and its even more curious question is how gravitational fields impact pair production.

 

I mean is pair production a product of spacetime. I mean if you have a gravitational field around a binary black hole like system, would that intense gravitational field cause the creation of pairs more rapidly from a point of view of how often they occur in "time" naturally in some giving amount of space, or does the energy in the gravitational field itself manifest as pairs, as does a stronger field produce more pairs.