Energy And Fields - What are they?

[bigfield]

I can't get a bucket of Josues, but I can get a bucket of coal which has energy measured in Joules. I can't get a bucket of kilograms, I can get a bucket of coal with weight in kilograms. I can't get a bucket of meters but I can get a bucket of ibjects that are 1 meter long.

Finish this sentence:

I can't get a bucket of seconds, but I can get a bucket of __________________.

 

[bilby]

I can't get a bucket of Josues, but I can get a bucket of coal which has energy measured in Joules. I can't get a bucket of kilograms, I can get a bucket of coal with weight in kilograms. I can't get a bucket of meters but I can get a bucket of ibjects that are 1 meter long.

Finish this sentence:

I can't get a bucket of seconds, but I can get a bucket of __________________.

...chicken for just $5.95 for a limited time at KFC.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Energy exists. Energy can be measured. Your units in the end do not matter. Energy is energy. It is a very real thing. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

But as Richard Feynmann tells us, we really have no idea what energy is.

A philisophical answer.

Realy exists regardless of how we think or talk about it.

Seconds measures change, meters measures distance, mass measures matter.

Energy is a human fabrication. Reality exist regardless of what we call it. We tend to take our words for reality as reality itself. 'The map is not the countryside.

I can't get a bucket of Josues, but I can get a bucket of coal which has energy measured in Joules. I can't get a bucket of kilograms, I can get a bucket of coal with weight in kilograms. I can't get a bucket of meters but I can get a bucket of ibjects that are 1 meter long.

If I say light is red then that means the definition f the red wavelength.

Does wavelength exists? I don't think so. Light or EM radiation exists, wavlength is a term we use to quantify it.

You are finally shifting towards metaphysics. The trouble is you asked a question and Atrib answered it.

Now you are shifting a bit towards our measurements not being fundamental. IE there is no fundamental charge or temperature or mads values (yet). Ultimately we measure differentials.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok.

Metaphysics as thought abstractions does not have to relate to physical reality.

Energy is energy souds like a tautology. It is what it is.

Energy is mesured, but in terms of the abstractions of kg, seconds, and meters. Arbitrary definitions.

Mass, time, ad space are arbitray metrics used to describe reality by us humans.



Whatever you say about energy brings in the meaning f the MKS system. Philosophically does velocity exist? Velocity being meters/second.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Demonstratably real things trump metaphysical bullshit, theological buffooneries and pseudo-science gibberish.

 

[Jarhyn]

In some respects metaphysically velocity is something different from meters/seconds.

For instance I can describe many things which have a velocity which exist in neither scale of the things we call meters nor seconds.

Let's look at a simulated universe that has objects which have velocities and in fact can have both a perfectly known momentary position and moment force.

Obviously, those things have a change in position relative to their previous position in a field, and that this conforms to the philosophical metaphysical idea of velocity: how many cardinal units it will move every unit of ticks.

There is in fact a planck second even in this simulated universe but it is not defined in the same way our second is, even if it does satisfy our definition of time: a dimension along which gradients of state follow least action to more stable states.

Where did the energy within the system come from originally? It came from an ordering of states in a field. What is this field? Nothing that makes sense within the system, that's for sure.

Velocity is not meters over seconds, it is a description of the rate at which a conserved object within a field traverses the field's cardinalities, HOWEVER those are measured.

 

[steve_bank]

Demonstratably real things trump metaphysical bullshit, theological buffooneries and pseudo-science gibberish.

Yes they do, and that is the point. The initial conditions are theoretical and not demonstrable.

The initail conditions and the vent are not demonsted real events.

T think in TOE abiogeneisis in some form of self replcating structres will eventually be denonstated. That would put the beginning of evolution on an experimental basis.

That is not possible for the BB.

Time dilation is a demonstrated fact. Einstein's prediction that light will be affected by gravity is a demonstratedfact.

Energy, work, and heat are experimentally demonstrate to work as quantitatively defined.

 

[bilby]

Whatever you say about energy brings in the meaning f the MKS system.

That cart is doing a terrible job of pulling your horse.

It's perfectly possible to have a long, detailed and accurate discussion of energy without using MKS or SI at all; They are just two from an infinitude of possible metrologies. We can talk about energy in ergs (CGS), horsepower (Imperial), pound.furlong².fortnight^-2 (why the hell not), or any other units that have the appropriate dimensionality.

 

[bilby]

T think in TOE abiogeneisis in some form of self replcating structres will eventually be denonstated.

Then you are wrong. The Theory of Evolution doesn't consider or involve abiogenesis, and any such demonstration would be outside the scope of the theory.

The existence of self replicating structures (aka "life") is a foundational assumption of the ToE; It predicts what will occur if such structures exist (as we observe they do), and says nothing whatsoever about how they might arise.

It's very likely that biochemistry will eventually demonstrate one or more plausible pathways from the pre-biotic conditions of the Hadean era, to the emergence of replicators to which ToE could then be relevant. But ToE cannot, will not, and is not even the kind of thing that could, lead to such discoveries.

You appear to have been reading too much Christian literature.

The Theory of Evolution explains how, given simple replicators as an initial condition, the wide variety of life we see today could plausibly have arisen by purely natural means.

The Big Bang Theory. explains how, given a small, hot, and super-dense universe as an initial condition, the cool, sparse universe containing structures such as galaxies, galactic clusters, stars, planets, etc., that we see today could plausibly have arisen by purely natural means.

Neither theory attempts to explain how the initial conditions arose; Both simply accept that our observations today imply that those conditions must have existed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Demonstratably real things trump metaphysical bullshit, theological buffooneries and pseudo-science gibberish.

Yes they do, and that is the point. The initial conditions are theoretical and not demonstrable.

The initail conditions and the vent are not demonsted real events.

Isn't the "initial condition" exist at a point before the big bang? As in the Big Bang is postulating what happens when the banging has gone bung.

 

[Jarhyn]

Demonstratably real things trump metaphysical bullshit, theological buffooneries and pseudo-science gibberish.

Yes they do, and that is the point. The initial conditions are theoretical and not demonstrable.

The initail conditions and the vent are not demonsted real events.

Isn't the "initial condition" exist at a point before the big bang? As in the Big Bang is postulating what happens when the banging has gone bung.

More... We have everything back to the first frame, but we're running into problems trying to determine what happened to set up the first frame. My point has always been that this particular question is being asked wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Have fun and enjoy yourselves.

 

[SIB]

I'll put this here instead of science.

What is energy? Can you kick it, taste it, or feel it? Can you get a bucket of energy?

Is it an invisible field that appears on Star Trek sensors?

They don't know what energy is. basically, when you see velocity change ... something caused it. We call that energy.

You taste it, feel it, experience it because it changes "form". You used "energy" to get the bucket. Remember, there are no things only events. Only your brain says "That's a solid". Events that "we experience" due to potential differences.

Its not "invisible", other wise it doesn't appear on the sensors.

You have to learn young grass hopper. I do not mean that as derogatory in any way. I say it with tenderness.

 

[SIB]

Demonstratably real things trump metaphysical bullshit, theological buffooneries and pseudo-science gibberish.

Yes they do, and that is the point. The initial conditions are theoretical and not demonstrable.

The initail conditions and the vent are not demonsted real events.

Isn't the "initial condition" exist at a point before the big bang? As in the Big Bang is postulating what happens when the banging has gone bung.

More... We have everything back to the first frame, but we're running into problems trying to determine what happened to set up the first frame. My point has always been that this particular question is being asked wrong.

Not really. We do not know what started it. That's it. There is no turtle.

We are here now. We know enough to make a cell phone so we something. What is the best descriptor we have of the system around us? Lets keep it to just earth. We are small enough that the just the earth's systems would seem infinite to a person.

 

[steve_bank]

I'll put this here instead of science.

What is energy? Can you kick it, taste it, or feel it? Can you get a bucket of energy?

Is it an invisible field that appears on Star Trek sensors?

They don't know what energy is. basically, when you see velocity change ... something caused it. We call that energy.

You taste it, feel it, experience it because it changes "form". You used "energy" to get the bucket. Remember, there are no things only events. Only your brain says "That's a solid". Events that "we experience" due to potential differences.

Its not "invisible", other wise it doesn't appear on the sensors.

You have to learn young grass hopper. I do not mean that as derogatory in any way. I say it with tenderness.

Gosh darn it to heck, now I am blushing.


Scientifically it is defined in Systems International as the Joule in terms of kilograms. meters, and seconds, arbitrary reference points.

Joule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1935, the International Electrotechnical Commission (as the successor organisation of the International Electrical Congress) adopted the "Giorgi system", which by virtue of assuming a defined value for the magnetic constant also implied a redefinition of the Joule. The Giorgi system was approved by the International Committee for Weights and Measures in 1946. The joule was now no longer defined based on electromagnetic unit, but instead as the unit of work performed by one unit of force (at the time not yet named newton) over the distance of 1 metre. The joule was explicitly intended as the unit of energy to be used in both electromagnetic and mechanical contexts.[13] The ratification of the definition at the ninth General Conference on Weights and Measures, in 1948, added the specification that the joule was also to be preferred as the unit of heat in the context of calorimetry, thereby officially deprecating the use of the calorie.[14] This definition was the direct precursor of the joule as adopted in the modern International System of Units in 1960.

The definition of the joule as J = kg⋅m2⋅s−2 has remained unchanged since 1946, but the joule as a derived unit has inherited changes in the definitions of the second (in 1960 and 1967), the metre (in 1983) and the kilogram (in 2019).

Energy is a number.

In terms of philosophy and science fiction energy is anything you imagine it to be.

 

[bilby]

In terms of philosophy and science fiction energy is anything you imagine it to be.

Not really. Energy is the ability to do work; That is, to accelerate a mass, or to lift it against the acceleration due to the local gravitational field. It's a force applied over a distance.

 

[SIB]

I'll put this here instead of science.

What is energy? Can you kick it, taste it, or feel it? Can you get a bucket of energy?

Is it an invisible field that appears on Star Trek sensors?

They don't know what energy is. basically, when you see velocity change ... something caused it. We call that energy.

You taste it, feel it, experience it because it changes "form". You used "energy" to get the bucket. Remember, there are no things only events. Only your brain says "That's a solid". Events that "we experience" due to potential differences.

Its not "invisible", other wise it doesn't appear on the sensors.

You have to learn young grass hopper. I do not mean that as derogatory in any way. I say it with tenderness.

Gosh darn it to heck, now I am blushing.


Scientifically it is defined in Systems International as the Joule in terms of kilograms. meters, and seconds, arbitrary reference points.

Joule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1935, the International Electrotechnical Commission (as the successor organisation of the International Electrical Congress) adopted the "Giorgi system", which by virtue of assuming a defined value for the magnetic constant also implied a redefinition of the Joule. The Giorgi system was approved by the International Committee for Weights and Measures in 1946. The joule was now no longer defined based on electromagnetic unit, but instead as the unit of work performed by one unit of force (at the time not yet named newton) over the distance of 1 metre. The joule was explicitly intended as the unit of energy to be used in both electromagnetic and mechanical contexts.[13] The ratification of the definition at the ninth General Conference on Weights and Measures, in 1948, added the specification that the joule was also to be preferred as the unit of heat in the context of calorimetry, thereby officially deprecating the use of the calorie.[14] This definition was the direct precursor of the joule as adopted in the modern International System of Units in 1960.

The definition of the joule as J = kg⋅m2⋅s−2 has remained unchanged since 1946, but the joule as a derived unit has inherited changes in the definitions of the second (in 1960 and 1967), the metre (in 1983) and the kilogram (in 2019).

Energy is a number.

In terms of philosophy and science fiction energy is anything you imagine it to be.

Yuppers ... a joule is a newton meter. kg.(m/s^2) .m. A mass changed its velocity, over simplified of course. Work was done.

I wonder what would happed if we could stop, relative to "space". Like absolutely. No change in our position in space-time. If that is even possible that is. Take a measurement with "absolutely" no acceleration.

I kind of disagree you, energy is NOT a number. We assign it a number ... a human number.

 

[SIB]

In terms of philosophy and science fiction energy is anything you imagine it to be.

Not really. Energy is the ability to do work; That is, to accelerate a mass, or to lift it against the acceleration due to the local gravitational field. It's a force applied over a distance.

I think they ignore gravity to much. And time is an issue. I don't think its a dimension. dt is a math trick to me. But then again, I dont know what I dont know. I just know its a lot.

 

[bilby]

I wonder what would happed if we could have stop, relative to "space". Like absolutely. No change in our position in space-time. If that is even possible that is.

If that were possible, Newton would be right and Mach and Einstein would be wrong. But they're not, we checked.

Take a measurement with "absolutely" no acceleration.

That's easy. Just have your equipment and observer free-fall. If no forces are being applied to an object with a non-zero rest mass, then its acceleration is zero (F=mA, so if F=0, A=0 for all non-zero values of m).

In special relativity this holds true exactly as it does in Newtonian mechanics, with the note that in relativity, A is acceleration in any of at least four spacetime dimensions, while Newton considered only the three space dimensions, and (incorrectly) treated time as absolute and universal.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I wonder what would happed if we could stop, relative to "space". Like absolutely.

Your “relative” and “absolutely” are in conflict. Which frame of space would you consider to be “absolute”?