Philosophy Discussion Forums

DarwinX wrote:

There is no such thing as static energy.

You must be a scientist in a Universe unknown to the rest of man kind.

You do know that static energy is static electricity, so your saying static electricity doesn't exist. What other name would you have for the energy created from the imbalance of positive and negative charges?

How do you explain the static energy process used in printers to attract the ink to the paper? Magic?

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

From the bickering of the previous few posts, I would pick this as the comment most worth investigating. Not necessarily because it is true or false, but because, I think, it goes back to the heart of what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

Recall that the standard classroom definition of energy divides it into the two broad categories of kinetic and potential. DarwinX proposes to dispense with the concept of potential energy and model all observations in terms of kinetic energy. He does this by introducing novel concepts like the idea that potential energy is actually stored angular kinetic energy. When Thinking Critical points to the example of static electricity he is, of course, talking about something which would traditionally be thought of as electrostatic potential energy - charged particles held stationary within each others' electric fields. DarwinX will presumably counter this by asserting that the best model for this type of system involves some kind of angular kinetic energy of the charged particles or perhaps some kind of linear kinetic energy in some kind of ether.

This is all fine, and you can carry on bickering about it if you wish. But it won't get you anywhere other than to keep re-asserting that your own models of reality are the "real" ones and, at least in DarwinX's case, asserting that the competing models are deliberate cynical frauds with some sinister motive. Thinking Critical will then accuse DarwinX of being scientifically illiterate and paranoid, and the whole circus will continue in much the same vein as it does on most of the other science threads. The specific subject matter will become peripheral.

Personally, I'd prefer to examine why and whether particular models of the observed world ought to be adopted, rather than simply asserting that one of them should. My own view is that we should adopt the one that best describes the available evidence. My own view is that it is meaningless simply to assert that a particular model is self-evidently "true". It has to be demonstrated to be useful.

I see no reason, on the face of it, why it is necessary to abandon the concept of potential energy and express everything in terms of kinetic energy. It simplifies our view of the energy concept, perhaps, but at the cost of introducing quite a lot of proposed behaviours, like these spin ideas, that are not observed to be present.

It is self-evident that energy exists and is a 'thing'. Energy perpetuates all of known existence. Can life / existence, exist without energy? Evidently, no. All energy, is equivalent to all mass, squared, because of the fact that it encompasses all mass, and at the same time, perpetually exists and circulates within in the mass it encompasses. It is multiplied (as in an explosion) and perpetuated (as in sun-light) by itself. Energy is also infinite in value, because it cannot be not created or destroyed, it only changes. Thus, how can SOMETHING with all of these inherent properties (as DarwinX postulates) not be a thing in itself?

Fanman wrote:It is self-evident that energy exists and is a 'thing'. Energy perpetuates all of known existence. Can life / existence, exist without energy? Evidently, no. All energy, is equivalent to all mass, squared, because of the fact that it encompasses all mass, and at the same time, perpetually exists and circulates within in the mass it encompasses. It is multiplied (as in an explosion) and perpetuated (as in sun-light) by itself. Energy is also infinite in value, because it cannot be not created or destroyed, it only changes. Thus, how can SOMETHING with all of these inherent properties (as DarwinX postulates) not be a thing in itself?

You can't get a cup of time, you can't get a cup of gravity, you can't get a cup of light and you can't get a cup of energy. These are all just concepts, they are not real objects or things. They only exist as a consequence of the interaction of matter and aether. Energy is a measurement of the amount, speed and intensity of movement and interaction between matter and the aether. The dimensional aspects of infinity also plays a role in the dynamics of this interaction, but this is an unknown area which science is unable to investigate as yet.

Thinking critical wrote:DarwinX wrote:


You must be a scientist in a Universe unknown to the rest of man kind.

You do know that static energy is static electricity, so your saying static electricity doesn't exist. What other name would you have for the energy created from the imbalance of positive and negative charges?

How do you explain the static energy process used in printers to attract the ink to the paper? Magic?

To create a static charge you have to rub to opposite materials together which creates spin energy. Static electricity is just atomic spin. When you neutralize a static charge you get a sudden jolt, which is the spin energy suddenly stopping and causing a jolting reaction. Try spinning a ball on water, then suddenly stop the ball spinning. You will get a slight jolting reaction which is similar to static electricity.

Energy is not an object.It is a concept. It exists only because we see the results of it. We can not describe it as an object because it has no value as an object. It's a bit like life.We know when something is alive but we really can not describe life. It is our inability to comprehend energy and life that is an expression of energy.

-- Updated Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:04 am to add the following --

Energy is not an object.It is a concept. It exists only because we see the results of it. We can not describe it as an object because it has no value as an object. It's a bit like life.We know when something is alive but we really can not describe life. It is our inability to comprehend energy and life that is an expression of energy.

DarwinX,

You can't get a cup of time, you can't get a cup of gravity, you can't get a cup of light and you can't get a cup of energy. These are all just concepts, they are not real objects or things. They only exist as a consequence of the interaction of matter and aether. Energy is a measurement of the amount, speed and intensity of movement and interaction between matter and the aether. The dimensional aspects of infinity also plays a role in the dynamics of this interaction, but this is an unknown area which science is unable to investigate as yet.

Okay, but one can experience time, gravity, light and energy. And, light itself, is obviously a perceptible form of energy. These things are all more than concepts, because they EXIST, each of them constitute a part of reality, and each of them forms part of the system that we call: “The Life Cycle”. Energy is not simply a "measurement", it is a (if not the) fundamental constituent of existence. Tell me, how can existence, "be" without energy? The dimensional aspects of infinity are multi-directional and infinitely ongoing, hence energy's inability to be destroyed, and its self-sustaining system of reproduction and reassignment of itself. Energy exists within this seemingly infinite paradigm, and is perpetually in a progressive state, from potential to actual, and actual to potential.

To ask, what IS energy, is to ask what is quanta and what gives quanta movement? This is the line of demarcation between science (quantum mechanics) and metaphysics. Science just provides the equations. Equations are concepts to the extent that mathematics are concepts. The underlying meaning to these equations is metaphysics, i.e. one can only imagine.

DarwinX: This is a side issue, but I am interested in your theory that all energy is kinetic energy and that the energy which is normally considered to be electrostatic potential energy is actually the rotational kinetic energy of entire atoms. (I think that is what you are saying, yes?)

A technical point about static electricity: It is any build-up of stationary electric charge. It is not necessarily anything to do with "rubbing" or movement. For example, when a capacitor is charged an electric current causes negative charge to build up on one of the capacitor plates. When the capacitor is disconnected from the circuit it is now statically charged. It stores energy. When it is reconnected to a circuit, electric charge flows again (i.e. there is an electric current) until the charge build-up is neutralized. At least, that's the standard view in basic electronics.

How would capacitance be modeled by the atomic spin theory? In the traditional model, the charge carriers are the free electrons that are present in the metal from which the wires and capacitor plates are made. What is the equivalent to this?

Xris:

Energy is not an object.It is a concept. It exists only because we see the results of it.

But isn't this really also true of the things we usually refer to as objects? We see the results of them. i.e. light bouncing off them or the electrostatic repulsion between the object and our hand. I think that the way we infer the existence of objects from indirect evidence is not really so very different from the way we infer the existence of energy or, for that matter, any other indirectly measured concepts.

Steve3007 wrote: A technical point about static electricity: It is any build-up of stationary electric charge. It is not necessarily anything to do with "rubbing" or movement. For example, when a capacitor is charged an electric current causes negative charge to build up on one of the capacitor plates. When the capacitor is disconnected from the circuit it is now statically charged. It stores energy. When it is reconnected to a circuit, electric charge flows again (i.e. there is an electric current) until the charge build-up is neutralized. At least, that's the standard view in basic electronics.

How would capacitance be modeled by the atomic spin theory? In the traditional model, the charge carriers are the free electrons that are present in the metal from which the wires and capacitor plates are made. What is the equivalent to this?

The capacitor material releases the spin charge much more slowly, thus, it can power a light globe by itself for a small period of time - it is similar to a battery.

More slowly than what? I don't really understand that sentence as it stands. And I don't really see how the spin happens. In your previous explanation of static electricity you attributed it to sideways "rubbing" movement. Where does the torque come from in the case of a capacitor being charged by an electric current in a circuit?

Fanman wrote:
Okay, but one can experience time, gravity, light and energy. And, light itself, is obviously a perceptible form of energy. These things are all more than concepts, because they EXIST, each of them constitute a part of reality, and each of them forms part of the system that we call: “The Life Cycle”. Energy is not simply a "measurement", it is a (if not the) fundamental constituent of existence. Tell me, how can existence, "be" without energy? The dimensional aspects of infinity are multi-directional and infinitely ongoing, hence energy's inability to be destroyed, and its self-sustaining system of reproduction and reassignment of itself. Energy exists within this seemingly infinite paradigm, and is perpetually in a progressive state, from potential to actual, and actual to potential.

What do you mean by "energy is more than a concept"? Something is either a concept or is not a concept. You can't have a semi-concept. For example - Heat is just fast moving electrons and or waves of matter and aether flow. Thus, energy can be described merely as movement and not as a thing in itself. Thus, energy could be described as aether in movement and transition. Light can transfer itself interdimensionally, thus it can disappear and reappear at the point of impact. The dimensional transference of energy is poorly understood, so I can't provide any further details of this process. All I can say is that logic demands that this process must exist and that space can not be empty. Suggest that you refer to the work of Dayton Miller for further confirmation of the existence of an aether.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Hi Steve3007,

For whatever this is worth, your statement below summarizes exactly my own position, as far as it dares to state it:

"Personally, I'd prefer to examine why and whether particular models of the observed world ought to be adopted, rather than simply asserting that one of them should. My own view is that we should adopt the one that best describes the available evidence. My own view is that it is meaningless simply to assert that a particular model is self-evidently "true". It has to be demonstrated to be useful.

I see no reason, on the face of it, why it is necessary to abandon the concept of potential energy and express everything in terms of kinetic energy. It simplifies our view of the energy concept, perhaps, but at the cost of introducing quite a lot of proposed behaviours, like these spin ideas, that are not observed to be present."

As for any discussion you want about it, I can only discuss it in terms of my own more fundamental beliefs in relativism and antirealism, subjects not appreciated much on this forum, which is why I no longer participate regularly. In short, anything we can say authoritatively about the nature of energy is nothing but statements about how phenomena interact; said energy being ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY the formalism we choose to express the dynamics of such interaction according to some pre-conceived notions about what actually constitute the phenomena in the first place. Rather than seeing this as any kind of limitation on what we know about energy; I consider it a liberation from any adherence to predisposed conceptions of what energy "must" be. So I say bring on any and all varying ideas of energy that prove useful in illuminating experience in terms of its interrelations.

It is not that I'm unwilling to go "deeper" and actually say something about the ontology of energy. It is very simply a case of such statements being (1) entirely speculative (the only alternative being acceptance of a priori premises, which qualifies as dogma to me, not philosophy and certainly not science), and (2) entirely irrelevant to the practice of both science and any conception of philosophy that can qualify as productive.

Aposteriori! Long time no talk! Nice to have some much-needed sanity and genuinely thoughtful analysis back on this forum.

I haven't read your post yet. Just wanted to say that first.

---

OK, I've read your post now and can't think of anything much to say because I can't see anything I disagree with. One reason I started this thread, though, was to "harvest" the ideas and thoughts of people who are uncomfortable with this definition of the purpose and meaning of words like "energy". That seems to be most people.

You are too kind, Steve3007. It is because I saw you posting that I decided to dive in to the mess everyone is making of your OP, so the credit belongs to you for drawing me in.

Steve. But isn't this really also true of the things we usually refer to as objects? We see the results of them. i.e. light bouncing off them or the electrostatic repulsion between the object and our hand. I think that the way we infer the existence of objects from indirect evidence is not really so very different from the way we infer the existence of energy or, for that matter, any other indirectly measured concepts.


But how do we differentiate between object and concept. Is a horse an object and a unicorn a concept? A ball an object and football a concept? Energy has to be a concept because we can not define it as an object. My problem has always been can we differentiate between one energy another?