Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fanman wrote:DarwinX,


(Nested quote removed.)


I question how you can possibly know this? The premises of my question are as follows:

1. How big is the universe, and how was the size of the universe measured?

The universe is infinitely large and infinitely small.

2. Considering that the universe could well be infinite in size, how do you know that these 5 basic elements you speak of, subsist throughout the entire universe? (which possibly has no end)

Its just a logical conclusion that I have come to given the available evidence.

3. Are you here saying the universe has no energy?

Energy is movement. Whatever moves or spins has energy. Matter and ether are the only true elements which have a tangible substance. Explosion, implosion and spin are what both ether and matter do.

4. If there is no energy in the universe what is transferred when “one element transforms into a another element”?

Energy is movement of ether and matter and this movement can be in the form of explosion, implosion or spin.

I mean, I am quite energetic at the moment, possessing energy which I could transfer to something such as exercise. So tell me, where is this state of being energetic, the same energy that I would then expend and transfer during exercise, coming from if not the universe, which I am in?

Furthermore, if I'm not in a state of being energetic, I cannot exercise, because I do not have the necessary energy required to exercise. Thus, if there is no energy in the universe, why can I exercise when energetic, but not exercise when I am not energetic?

Your body has stored spin energy. When light hits a plant it creates atomic spin which is used by the plant to grow. Then, an animal eats the plant and gains the spin energy from the plant. Spin draws in ether to create an electric field or an electric current. The electric current initiates muscle movement.

You are saying what it does not what it is.

DarwinX,

Okay, if what you stated in post #12 about energy is what you believe, in post #4, why did you exclude energy from being an element of the universe? How can something as fundamental as energy is to the universe; not be an element of it?

Obviously being the originator of this thread does not give me any power to control the direction of the discussion. But, as I said in the OP, my purpose was to examine the concept of energy, as defined in existing physics - from such things as the equations for potential and kinetic energy.

I personally prefer to analyze and discuss concepts which which we are all reasonably familiar but which have interesting subtleties, rather than simply stating, with no analysis or argument, various proposed new concepts.

I don't think any useful discussion ever results from a load of people simply asserting "energy is this" or "energy is that".

Steve3007 wrote:Obviously being the originator of this thread does not give me any power to control the direction of the discussion. But, as I said in the OP, my purpose was to examine the concept of energy, as defined in existing physics - from such things as the equations for potential and kinetic energy.

I personally prefer to analyze and discuss concepts which which we are all reasonably familiar but which have interesting subtleties, rather than simply stating, with no analysis or argument, various proposed new concepts.

I don't think any useful discussion ever results from a load of people simply asserting "energy is this" or "energy is that".

It has wandered of track Steve but it is hard to describe something that is not seen as an object. I think every basic concept is hard to visualize or define.Mass is equally difficult when its weight is not constant.Energy is a concept and no matter how try to define it, it can never be a thing.

Xris: Yes! Exactly. That was the kind of thing I wanted to discuss. I agree that mass is also difficult to grasp intuitively.

Steve3007 wrote: But, as I said in the OP, my purpose was to examine the concept of energy, as defined in existing physics - from such things as the equations for potential and kinetic energy.

If all you are interested in is what science has to say, then it says very little. Energy = mc**. In other words, mass and energy can be thought of as being two sides of the same coin. That is the limit of science. If you want a written definition then energy is simply the capacity to perform work. What is work? Well, then now you have to get into a metaphysical discussion.

Other than this, science simply lays out a series of mathematical equations (based upon measurements) that humans use to achieve some material goal (build a house, build a bomb, etc.). The loan exception is probably QM which provides the useful and practical Schrodinger's equations that can be used to build technological mechanization but also raises interesting metaphysical questions since it entangles observer (life) with observed (matter). In a way is the defining line between science and metaphysics. How are all of those little quanta creating energy? What's making them move from here to there. Scientifically speaking, who knows? If you care to guess, then it is metaphysics.

DarwinX wrote:The universe has only 5 basic elements. Explosion, implosion, spin, aether and matter. Energy is the state of transference that occurs when one element transforms into another element.

DarwinX

I am glad that you said this. I once said the same thing, I think, in other words like immovable object, unstoppable force, inward force, outward force and circular motion, but ridiculed for being of non-scientific background and out-throwing theories. I agree with you but I want to say that I think my idea is more basic, especially you explosion and implosion seems out of the picture of my idea because it happens when something goes wrong or imbalanced, and I consider the basic things to be balanced.

Secondly I think I would like to introduce “energy” in place your “aether” and to me Energy is basic thing. I think only “matter” and “energy” is basic, the other three elements (probably phenomenon) is a product of the interaction between these two to form a balance. So the other is secondary but really form a basic reality of universe in all micro or macro level. I think this reality (along with all five) manifests itself in every level observable. I can explain these things operating in relation to human also, inwardly as well as outwardly, and it forms a basic of premise of my hypothesis of inner consciousness and outer consciousness and recognition of this pattern from both sides. And I have too many human related hypotheses having only these as basics.

Thank you for this, I am really impressed. But let me say, I think “Energy” and “Matter” is basic even among these five element, you have stated.

For the on-topic response, I would say, though not from scientific background, that energy is too difficult to understand, but it is real, and can only be understood through insight, and not outsight. You probably cannot understand “energy” looking through universe or what surrounds you, but you can understand it looking inside you. Energy constitutes the mysterious part of the universe. Sorry for underestimating.

Creative:

I am interested in the philosophical consequences of apparently ordinary everyday science.

As I said in the OP, I wanted to steer clear of advanced subjects like the equivalence between energy and mass and QM. I wanted to point out that you don't need to get to University level physics to find philosophically interesting concepts. It's there in the physics of the high school classroom.

As I said, energy can be defined as, for example, the left-hand side of equations such as:

? = ¹/₂mv²

and

? = mgh

These equations are familiar from high schools physics lessons and the idea that potential and kinetic energy are interchanged in, for example, a simple pendulum is all standard everyday stuff. Yet the idea of energy as some kind of transferable "substance" (almost) reveals, I think, something interesting about the ways that we try to make sense of the world.

In fact, in Victorian times they considered that heat energy actually was a substance which they called "caloric". And still today the concept of "action at a distance" - of something being transferred without any material messenger being involved, is something we naturally resist.

Fanman wrote:DarwinX,

Okay, if what you stated in post #12 about energy is what you believe, in post #4, why did you exclude energy from being an element of the universe? How can something as fundamental as energy is to the universe; not be an element of it?

Energy is a description of what something does, not what it is. Energy is not a thing in itself.

DarwinX, wrote:

1. Energy is the state of transference that occurs when one element transforms into another element.

2. Energy is movement. Whatever moves or spins has energy.

3. Your body has stored spin energy.

4. Energy is movement of ether and matter and this movement can be in the form of explosion, implosion or spin.

5. Energy is a description of what something does, not what it is. Energy is not a thing in itself.

You do not know what you are talking about, this is clearly demonstrated, by the contradictory nature of your statements.

Fanman wrote:DarwinX, wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


You do not know what you are talking about, this is clearly demonstrated, by the contradictory nature of your statements.

Please advise me of where the contradiction is, I can't find it myself?

DarwinX,

Fundamentally, your different conceptions of energy, are based upon a misconception and / or misunderstanding of energy (in my opinion), your statements more than demonstrate this. By stating that energy is an active entity, whilst at the same time claiming that it is not a thing in itself. Your use of semantics is therefore creating a misconception within your reasoning.

Fanman wrote:DarwinX,

Fundamentally, your different conceptions of energy, are based upon a misconception and / or misunderstanding of energy (in my opinion), your statements more than demonstrate this. By stating that energy is an active entity, whilst at the same time claiming that it is not a thing in itself. Your use of semantics is therefore creating a misconception within your reasoning.

You stated that I have made a contradiction. Therefore, you have to -

(a) Identify what the contradiction is.

(b) Withdraw your statement as being false or misleading.

Note - I didn't at any point refer to energy as an entity. Therefore, your analysis is faulty. Energy is movement of either mass or ether. There is no such thing as static energy.

Are we in court? I don't have to do anything. Your contradictions are self-evident. Thus, if you cannot see them, you are either blind to them or being disingenuous. Why should I bother myself with demonstrating something which is self-evident? Furthermore, you dictate what energy is or isn't, but you do not actually know what energy is or isn't, that much is clear. I could just as easily dictate that "energy is light, because is makes plants grow", but would I be correct? Regardless, it sounds a lot more intuitive and logical than “Energy is movement of either mass or ether.” I mean do you genuinely believe that?