Energy

[keelanz]

Energy cant be destroyed or created only changed so you cant make energy only use the energy that already exists.

 

 

I should think that would depend on the definition of energy.

 

Heres my analogy: to create an IC (integrated circuit) we must necessarily have metal to manipulate into tracks and transistors to manipulate the throughput (changing the energy) but to create or discover the logical manipulation is the actual creation of energy because you have physically created something that didnt before hand exist (essentially creating a new system), this takes the same approach as pragmatism whereby we progress from past experience and try to take into account our own experience and then build on and create thing's that wouldnt otherwise exist (without the progression of past knowledge)

 

in other words im defining energy as a logical system and everything in existence must already be logical of the system, however if you were to manipulate that logic to create or build upon logic that already exist's then you are creating what could be defined as new energy (new logic), this is actually quite simple in practice...inventors and scientist's have been leading developers in the creation of new energy since the dawn of time......Music artists, actors, religions .... they all progress energy, create new systems of thought or systems of constraint or whatever systems they would like to create (ooooh like numbering systems)

 

i define logic as energy because it would be the simplest deduction we could make, 1's & 0's are transferable within the logic manipulation so the relativity of energy could be simplified (this is too say that electricity would have a more complex numbering array than sound but both will be true of the system and that system comes down to true or false)

 

i think you'll probably find there is almost no exclusiveness in the definition of the energies, if energies are phenomenologies of physical change it would assert that mostly all energies are relative (exist because of each other rather than exclusively)

 

So to conclude if we define all energies in a logical sense then to create energy you simply manipulate the already existing logic to something that doesnt yet exist, sound was defined because it was needed for the definition of electricity or heat, heat is defined because it is needed for the definition of electricity etc etc, the further you go up the tree the less relative the branches become but still hold fundamental relationships, so to create energy you simply pick a branch, examine the fractals of the leaf and create your own, or you could do as i do and go for the tree trunk and roots

Edited April 14, 2011 by keelanz

[swansont]

I should think that would depend on the definition of energy.

 

 

You don't get to make up your own definition of energy.

[keelanz]

energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created.

 

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

 

im playing on words but the concept is simple, energy is a form of Anything

 

energy has lots of beautiful forms, lots of anything is certainly something, if its not our time or place to define E it doesnt matter given that we can distinguish between something and nothing E is defined for us. Anything is (or can be a form of) Energy, something that is nothing (absolute 0) lacks Anything and something must be anything to be a form of energy. im fairly safe to think that to create energy you simply create something that didnt before exist and in my own thinking (although philosophical as it might be) an idea isnt enough for creation of energy alone, the creation of anything must materialize from an idea to physical existence for it to be actually defined as energy

 

i like the questioners name, Solve.

 

Q: how to create energy?

A: create something that doesnt exist (its easy when you know how)

 

You don't get to make up your own definition of energy.

 

why? =D someone must have for you to tell me i cant

 

in my own defense im not stupid enough to actually believe im creating something physical from something non physical, im using something physical(materials) & something physical(human brain) to create something that otherwise wouldnt exist in the physical world

 

yes people im saying turning clay into a plate or a tree into a book is ENERGY

 

<3 u swansont

 

 

for the luls

(berty kills it)

 

how come i cant reply on philosophy forums, i get this code #103133

 

 

Create a new universe without conservation laws!

 

<3

Edited April 14, 2011 by keelanz

[Zant]

I should think that would depend on the definition of energy.

 

Heres my analogy: to create an IC (integrated circuit) we must necessarily have metal to manipulate into tracks and transistors to manipulate the throughput (changing the energy) but to create or discover the logical manipulation is the actual creation of energy because you have physically created something that didnt before hand exist (essentially creating a new system), this takes the same approach as pragmatism whereby we progress from past experience and try to take into account our own experience and then build on and create thing's that wouldnt otherwise exist (without the progression of past knowledge)

 

in other words im defining energy as a logical system and everything in existence must already be logical of the system, however if you were to manipulate that logic to create or build upon logic that already exist's then you are creating what could be defined as new energy (new logic), this is actually quite simple in practice...inventors and scientist's have been leading developers in the creation of new energy since the dawn of time......Music artists, actors, religions .... they all progress energy, create new systems of thought or systems of constraint or whatever systems they would like to create (ooooh like numbering systems)

 

i define logic as energy because it would be the simplest deduction we could make, 1's & 0's are transferable within the logic manipulation so the relativity of energy could be simplified (this is too say that electricity would have a more complex numbering array than sound but both will be true of the system and that system comes down to true or false)

 

i think you'll probably find there is almost no exclusiveness in the definition of the energies, if energies are phenomenologies of physical change it would assert that mostly all energies are relative (exist because of each other rather than exclusively)

 

So to conclude if we define all energies in a logical sense then to create energy you simply manipulate the already existing logic to something that doesnt yet exist, sound was defined because it was needed for the definition of electricity or heat, heat is defined because it is needed for the definition of electricity etc etc, the further you go up the tree the less relative the branches become but still hold fundamental relationships, so to create energy you simply pick a branch, examine the fractals of the leaf and create your own, or you could do as i do and go for the tree trunk and roots

 

 

If energy is in this system then wouldn't you be referring to string theory that if you tweak these strings it becomes a dark matter particle and if you tweak it again it becomes energy? since you can make any particle by changing the wary bottom of it (roots/strings) still you wouldn't "make" energy you would only change already existing matter

Edited April 14, 2011 by Zant

[swansont]

why? =D someone must have for you to tell me i cant

 

It's called physics. We already have defined by what is meant by energy. Either conform your thoughts to the existing definitions, or come up with a new term for it.

[Spyman]

You don't get to make up your own definition of energy.

why? =D someone must have for you to tell me i cant

If everyone would make up their own definition of random words as they pleased, then we would all end up speaking very different individual languages, making it impossible to understand each other.

[mooeypoo]

why? =D someone must have for you to tell me i cant

That "someone" supported the definition with math, observation and experimentation.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I remind you and everyone, this is the physics forum - where mainstream physics is discussed. If you want to produce a proper hypothesis and discuss its merits, please do so in the speculation forum.

 

 

[keelanz]

That "someone" supported the definition with math, observation and experimentation.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I remind you and everyone, this is the physics forum - where mainstream physics is discussed. If you want to produce a proper hypothesis and discuss its merits, please do so in the speculation forum.

 

 

 

you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?

[zapatos]

you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?

 

Try looking in the link you provided.

 

energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created.

 

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

 

Edited April 14, 2011 by zapatos

[keelanz]

Try looking in the link you provided.

 

 

 

Well that clearly states energy is some "form of physical change" so its obviously something. Im not even tryin to define energy, as i stated it defines itself by already existing. what i show is how to create energy.

[zapatos]

Well that clearly states energy is some "form of physical change" so its obviously something. Im not even tryin to define energy, as i stated it defines itself by already existing. what i show is how to create energy.

I was responding to your question, "you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?".

[keelanz]

lots of people have created equations for certain aspects of energy (gravity, heat, electricity) but nothing other than e=mc^2 actually defines E as one transferable force, its fair to say that im only really going against einstein's theory of defining E as mc^2.

 

 

einstein being the "someone" according to my own source..

 

 

E isnt the transference of m to e its creating 2 from 1 or creating a 42" HD 3D TV from LED's, some metal and some plastic....

 

equations for electricity and heat still hold the same fundamental uses(like in the nice 42" 3D HD TV) but the definition and use of E change

[keelanz]

to be honest i dont think it matters whos definition of E i broke, what i showed was Logical of its own Logic, it answered the question that was asked

 

to be honest i dont think it matters whos definition of E i broke, what i showed was Logical of its own Logic, it answered the question that was asked

 

quack

Edited April 15, 2011 by keelanz

[keelanz]

It's called physics. We already have defined by what is meant by energy. Either conform your thoughts to the existing definitions, or come up with a new term for it.

 

its tough to define, i dont think its energy but in a meta sense it feels as though it is. like in a physical world were only manipulating matter but in an idealogical sense were creating the non-existent. hmmmm?

 

lets just say im gona believe what i want anyway, if i decide creating random things is energy....wheres the harm? =D

Edited April 16, 2011 by keelanz

[mooeypoo]

lets just say im gona believe what i want anyway, if i decide creating random things is energy....wheres the harm? =D

 

Absolutely zero harm. Just completely not useful. I can invent my own stuff too, but if they're not supported in reality, there might not be any harm to anyone, but there ain't much good in it, either.

 

Where's the relevance?

[keelanz]

Absolutely zero harm. Just completely not useful. I can invent my own stuff too, but if they're not supported in reality, there might not be any harm to anyone, but there ain't much good in it, either.

 

Where's the relevance?

 

to me and my life its very relevant. its not about creating your own reality but creating something from your own reality which aids your reality ...... it has a very powerful physical aspect.

 

(im not trying to contradict conventional science in anyway, i dont try and claim some equation, i just logically proved how to create energy)

Edited April 16, 2011 by keelanz

[mooeypoo]

(im not trying to contradict conventional science in anyway, i dont try and claim some equation, i just logically proved how to create energy)

 

But you are contradicting reality. The fact you don't understand how things work doesn't mean they don't work the way they do.

 

You're contradicting theories that have prediction power and work, and you propose an idea that has zero predictive power and no evidence. Whether you're trying to or not, you're contradicting reality.

 

So either supply some evidence for what you're claiming (Which is opposite to what conventional science claims) or, instead, spend some time learning what science actually says and why.

 

~mooey

[keelanz]

But you are contradicting reality. The fact you don't understand how things work doesn't mean they don't work the way they do.

 

You're contradicting theories that have prediction power and work, and you propose an idea that has zero predictive power and no evidence. Whether you're trying to or not, you're contradicting reality.

 

So either supply some evidence for what you're claiming (Which is opposite to what conventional science claims) or, instead, spend some time learning what science actually says and why.

 

~mooey

 

if its logical it must be scientific?

its only going againts e=mc^2.

 

einstein wasnt defining energy, he was explaining the transference of mass to light

 

im not saying what you think i am

 

But you are contradicting reality. The fact you don't understand how things work doesn't mean they don't work the way they do.

 

You're contradicting theories that have prediction power and work, and you propose an idea that has zero predictive power and no evidence. Whether you're trying to or not, you're contradicting reality.

 

So either supply some evidence for what you're claiming (Which is opposite to what conventional science claims) or, instead, spend some time learning what science actually says and why.

 

~mooey

 

haha while were at it (drunkeness) what proof do you have that e=mc^2?

theres more than enough proof in all of the science's(biology,physics, chemistry,computer etc) but yet theres still things that cant ever be proven(theoretical (contradiction))......

 

either theories such as e=mc^2 have no place in science or scientist's whom seek truth have no place in science.

 

i totally agree with the pragmatic approach i just dont think energy is as simple as e=mc^2

 

your call

[mooeypoo]

if its logical it must be scientific?

its only going againts e=mc^2.

 

einstein wasnt defining energy, he was explaining the transference of mass to light

 

im not saying what you think i am

 

 

 

haha while were at it (drunkeness) what proof do you have that e=mc^2?

 

 

 

Science requires more than just something to seem logical. In fact, the universe, quite a number of times, is the exact opposite of what you would logically expect of it. Reality requires that you don't just "explain" things for yourself, but also actually be realistic.

 

theres more than enough proof in all of the science's(biology,physics, chemistry,computer etc) but yet theres still things that cant ever be proven(theoretical (contradiction))......

I don't know what you're talking about, really. Science isn't about "proving" things, science is about explaining things. What things are you talking about that your "idea" (it's not even a theory, sorry) explains better?

 

In science we really go by the "better" theory. When two theories compete on an explaining the way the world works, we choose the one that does it better. But "better" isn't necessarily "more logical". Better means that we have the ability to predict how things behave with accuracy, run experiments and explain all phenomena.

 

The way energy is defined does all the above. Yours does none the above.

Beyond that, we showed you why yours is just not making any sense.

either theories such as e=mc^2 have no place in science or scientist's whom seek truth have no place in science.

 

i totally agree with the pragmatic approach i just dont think energy is as simple as e=mc^2

your call

It's not "my call" or "your call", science doesn't care really. It's about explaining reality, which you simply don't. Your idea fails because it doesn't explain actual phenomena.

 

I think your attempts to understand things is noble and great, and if you're still in high school (are you? just curious) I really think you should plan on taking physics classes in college, I think you will enjoy them very much.

 

E=mc^2 is the simplified version of a longer equation; it's not the whole story, it's part of it, but it explains (experimentally proven) exactly how things act. The atomic bomb and the nuclear power were both created on top of this "E=mc^2" revelation. It's not just a "nice idea". It works.

 

The reason things don't make sense to you is because you know half the picture. If you truly think you can replace this theory, you should first know what "power" it has. It's not just "E=mc^2". The fact it's not immediately easy for YOU to understand doesn't mean that's not the way things work. For that matter, good that we're discussing energy and not, say, quantum mechanics. Things are not always intuitive and clear in physics.

 

The point, though, is that if you plan on rebuilding a physical concept, I think you should first study what this concept actually is, and not just rely on what you think it is. You might think you're the next Einstein - and that's fine, I wish you all the luck in the world - but even Einstein learned conventional science BEFORE he shook its foundations.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

haha while were at it (drunkeness) what proof do you have that e=mc^2?

theres more than enough proof in all of the science's(biology,physics, chemistry,computer etc) but yet theres still things that cant ever be proven(theoretical (contradiction))......

 

Science is inductive. One has to learn to deal with it.

[keelanz]

It's not "my call" or "your call", science doesn't care really. It's about explaining reality, which you simply don't. Your idea fails because it doesn't explain actual phenomena.

 

I think your attempts to understand things is noble and great, and if you're still in high school (are you? just curious) I really think you should plan on taking physics classes in college, I think you will enjoy them very much.

 

E=mc^2 is the simplified version of a longer equation; it's not the whole story, it's part of it, but it explains (experimentally proven) exactly how things act. The atomic bomb and the nuclear power were both created on top of this "E=mc^2" revelation. It's not just a "nice idea". It works.

 

The reason things don't make sense to you is because you know half the picture. If you truly think you can replace this theory, you should first know what "power" it has. It's not just "E=mc^2". The fact it's not immediately easy for YOU to understand doesn't mean that's not the way things work. For that matter, good that we're discussing energy and not, say, quantum mechanics. Things are not always intuitive and clear in physics.

 

The point, though, is that if you plan on rebuilding a physical concept, I think you should first study what this concept actually is, and not just rely on what you think it is. You might think you're the next Einstein - and that's fine, I wish you all the luck in the world - but even Einstein learned conventional science BEFORE he shook its foundations.

 

~mooey

 

 

im not german enough to be einstein

 

 

all i asked was for proof that e=mc^2, im fully aware of exactly what the equation is suggesting (http://www.sciencefo...ons-of-science/) but as you said

 

 

"E=mc^2 is the simplified version of a longer equation; it's not the whole story, it's part of it, but it explains (experimentally proven) exactly how things act. The atomic bomb and the nuclear power were both created on top of this "E=mc^2" revelation. It's not just a "nice idea". It works. "

 

e=mc^2 being used in other theoretical equations is just a form of things being logical of its own logic, could you please show me where we have created e from m whereby its mc2? oh please lol

 

now please dont get me mistaken, im not directly saying e=mc^2 is fallacious im saying e is not defined as m, it can be transfered as im sure lots of E's transfer themselves (thermodynamics and all other theoretical jargon) the best way i can describe it would be the fractal equation whereby the equals works both ways, if you changed the = to bi-directional you wouldnt be defining e as m but e as a form of m that constantly changes, therefor e (all forms of) could have a strict definition whereby its existence is defined logically and in relation to lots of other things other than just m.

 

"But you are contradicting reality. The fact you don't understand how things work doesn't mean they don't work the way they do.

 

You're contradicting theories that have prediction power and work, and you propose an idea that has zero predictive power and no evidence. Whether you're trying to or not, you're contradicting reality."

 

if existence is logical how am i contradicting reality?

 

i dont see how an equation being "better" or having more "power" makes it right, its pragmatic but not absolute and i thought science is deduction of absolutes, using lots of proof to back up a theory is a standard of science we are taught from the age of 6 or 7?

 

its hard to get you to understand, ive absolutely nothing to say about 99.9% of science whereby it's proven.

theoretical physics ESPECIALLY any equation dealing directly with energy cannot be proven physically only within human understanding(analogies etc).

 

im almost on the brink of saying energy is the evolution of idea's whereby the idea's spill into our physical existence. I mean logically its simple but scientifically we have trouble when we try tackle "idea's", however we have no issues with evolution in science? (charles darwin makes his way onto the back of my monetary's system of constraint & somehow we have the same birth place)

 

no not high school, second year honours degree in computer science, university. Always been top of mathematics classes as its simple which always helped me alot in physics (also top classes) though after secondary school (finish at 16) i stopped with physics and switched to computers. Certain things make sense, certain things dont, 99.9% of physics can be proven, does the .1 percent prove our existence?

 

i said "your call" because actually it is, the only absolute is our own reality, at some fundamental level you decide what you believe. If you decide e doesnt = mc^2 then it doesnt, its your call. Id like to say again im not saying e doesnt = mc2 im sayin if the equation is to have any truth then e must be a form of m not defined by it

 

id like to conclude with you are right, i dont have a solid theory or an equation, i have an idea. In reality though all my idea actually is

"Better means that we have the ability to predict how things behave with accuracy, run experiments and explain all phenomena."

is a prediction, if you have crude oil and a blast furnace my idea predicts plastic....hopefully it gives people the power to create their own energy too

 

 

final note

"Science requires more than just something to seem logical. In fact, the universe, quite a number of times, is the exact opposite of what you would logically expect of it. Reality requires that you don't just "explain" things for yourself, but also actually be realistic."

 

im not quite sure your understanding of logic? but it doesnt matter how illogical the universe seems because at the most fundamental level it is logical of its own system (in other words its all just an illusion) and thats as real as it gets my friend

Edited April 19, 2011 by keelanz

[mooeypoo]

im not german enough to be einstein

 

 

all i asked was for proof that e=mc^2, im fully aware of exactly what the equation is suggesting (http://www.sciencefo...ons-of-science/) but as you said

You can't possibly expect us to "prove it to you" in a short thread. E=mc^2 is part of a larger statement, it's well supported both experimentally and theoretically with mathematical proof.

 

You need to have a bit of a background in basic physics and in relativity. These are subjects that cannot be just "compressed" into a single "voila!" proof online.

 

Quite honestly, keelanz, you need to cooperate here and do some of the learning yourself. There are quite a number of books out there that explain these concepts, if you want, we can probably recommend a few.

 

With all due respect, physicists don't just spend years to study their stuff before starting research just to get a kick out of college and doctorate diplomas. A *tad* of respect and humility will do you justice; there are things you don't yet understand, and that's absolutely fine. Try to learn them before you declare they're false just because you don't understand how they work.

 

~mooey

[keelanz]

You can't possibly expect us to "prove it to you" in a short thread. E=mc^2 is part of a larger statement, it's well supported both experimentally and theoretically with mathematical proof.

 

You need to have a bit of a background in basic physics and in relativity. These are subjects that cannot be just "compressed" into a single "voila!" proof online.

 

Quite honestly, keelanz, you need to cooperate here and do some of the learning yourself. There are quite a number of books out there that explain these concepts, if you want, we can probably recommend a few.

 

With all due respect, physicists don't just spend years to study their stuff before starting research just to get a kick out of college and doctorate diplomas. A *tad* of respect and humility will do you justice; there are things you don't yet understand, and that's absolutely fine. Try to learn them before you declare they're false just because you don't understand how they work.

 

~mooey

 

I tried to demonstrate in my thread about e=mc^2 that i do understand the concept. Not 1 person said either my explanation or calculation was incorrect. (other than correcting m/s)

 

 

"I believe the best analogy i can give is that einsteins picture of energy in its purest form is a corn popping .... however the variables would be slightly different, so for example the size of a piece of corn that pops would be turned into to say an atom turning into our planet and this probably isnt suffice due to the speed of light"

 

i would like to apologize if i have offended you or your belief system in anyway as i have not come here to contradict science or start my own theory, im here to learn. Specifically im interested in the equation on e=mc^2 so any external links regarding this equation would be much appreciated (especially regarding half the equation, why is this half so focused upon?)

 

i simply offered the answer for this thread and in the most basic of logical terms

 

"energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created."

 

i always had a good grasp of mathematics so i enjoy physics as it shows the relativity of reality in mathematical terms & to mostly all extents i have no quarrels with physics, just this equation (which i even said is true if the equals is bi-directional) perhaps my problem lies with my own education as computers give you a totally different outlook on physics for example timesing something is only a function of addition, things like this arent so obvious without really breaking mathematics down to its fundamentals

 

"You need to have a bit of a background in basic physics and in relativity. These are subjects that cannot be just "compressed" into a single "voila!" proof online."

 

its not that hard to explain e=mc^2 in mathematical terms or linguistic if you actually understand it

relativity = the inverted absolute (that which relies on each other to exist rather than exclusive or in absolute)

 

as i said im sorry for offending you (if i have) but realistically other than telling me that im contradicting reality (without showing me how im doing it) what is wrong with the following (scientifically/logically)

 

"Q: how to create energy?

A: create something that doesnt exist"

 

create 2 from 1, make plastic from heat and crude oil, manipulate electricity for IC's, make a flag out of dye and material, make language from a voice box

all of the above created something that before hand didnt exist, so could that creation Logically/Scientifically be defined as energy?

if not, why not?

 

It doesnt matter what i believe what i really want is to rack your brains for your theoretic scientific beliefs. Specifically an analogy on mc^2 would be nice, a definition of energy wouldnt be bad either.

 

Perhaps im trying to make a little room in science for something else?

 

to be honest an external link that shows how you can test that E = mc^2 would be enough proof i suppose, as long as its a reliable source, adequately explained and proven "TESTED"

[keelanz]

ill take it

A) you cant prove scientifically im wrong or

B) youve given up trying.

 

[mooeypoo]

We gave up because you seem to be utterly convinced you're right despite the comments we're making to the contrary.