What is Energy?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />The esoteric concept of <i>"energy"</i> touted by scholars of physics seems to give it a tangibility separate and apart from the hosts in which it resides. The contemporary definition seems to give energy a fabric of being of its very own. Is energy a separate 'existence', or just a condition?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why mystify this or any physical concept? Energy is simply very small constituents of matter moving at very high speeds. When considering fundamentals, every material, tangible entity that exists can be regarded as a form of "matter", and its chief attribute is its velocity relative to other matter. "Energy" is just more of the same on a scale below what our instruments can presently see. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Why mystify this or any physical concept? Energy is simply very small constituents of matter moving at very high speeds. When considering fundamentals, every material, tangible entity that exists can be regarded as a form of "matter", and its chief attribute is its velocity relative to other matter. "Energy" is just more of the same on a scale below what our instruments can presently see. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Why would velocity enter into it - especially with 'potential' energy?
I would argue that energy is that/those property(ies) within tangible entities which causes change. I would also put forth the proposition that change need not involve motion at all - i.e. change in condition - and most particularly change within an entity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />Why would velocity enter into it - especially with 'potential' energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We must first understand gravity before we can understand gravitational potential. We now seem to have that complete understanding of gravity, as presented in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. Very tiny, very-high-speed gravitons produce the force of gravity. An apple falls from a tree because more gravitons strike it from above than from below, because Earth blocks part of the graviton flux from below.

If the apple is held in place, it has a "potential energy", meaning that the graviton excess from above is still trying to push the apple downward. So even when there is no motion, there are tiny, fast-moving particles acting on the body trying to cause change.

All forms of energy have similar descriptions in terms of tiny particles with momentum. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />Why would velocity enter into it - especially with 'potential' energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We must first understand gravity before we can understand gravitational potential. We now seem to have that complete understanding of gravity, as presented in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. Very tiny, very-high-speed gravitons produce the force of gravity. An apple falls from a tree because more gravitons strike it from above than from below, because Earth blocks part of the graviton flux from below.

If the apple is held in place, it has a "potential energy", meaning that the graviton excess from above is still trying to push the apple downward. So even when there is no motion, there are tiny, fast-moving particles acting on the body trying to cause change.

All forms of energy have similar descriptions in terms of tiny particles with momentum. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yeah - I had a page similar to that on my website once - WAY back. I equated space to high energy pingpong balls and posited that if - in space - two bowling balls were placed within a field of such randomly vectored ping pong balls the bowling balls would co-defend each other and tend to be pushed together. The closer together, the better the defense (inverse square anyone?)

I dropped the concept when the idea of the solidification of space when in contact with matter began to intrigue me. When a cold body meets a warm body, the cold body warms and the warm body cools until they reach equilibrium - they each tend to take on the attributes of the other. When space contacts matter, it tends to become more solid and have less volume. Between a vacuum caused by a change in the condition of space vs mystereous pingpong balls, I'll go with the more likely scenario. Unless I miss my guess, this would have an effect similar to that of 'curving space' which is so popular among space-time enthusiasts.

PS: I thought I'd get a rise out of you with the "change without motion" phrase. I have a great argument for it under development (no magic involved).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />GIVEN: The most fundamental phenomenon of nature is exisence - second is the phenomonon of change. In order to change or be changed, something must first exist; hence, change is a function of existence.

The esoteric concept of <i>"energy"</i> touted by scholars of physics seems to give it a tangibility separate and apart from the hosts in which it resides. The contemporary definition seems to give energy a fabric of being of its very own.

Is energy a separate 'existence', or just a condition?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Energy, Power, force, momentum, potential, gravitation, mass, inertia, time, etc. are all metaphysical terms used in hypotheses that in turn are used to come up with certain models for the purpose of making predictions. None of these terms arise from the phenomena. The only well-defined quantities are relative position, area and volume, and time as measured by a clock and are called spatiotemporal relations.

When we say momentum p = mv, and then F = dp/dt, people with a lack of the foundational origins of physics do not understand that what we essentially do is an attempt to ground observable physics in metaphysics of what causes the phenomena. Thus, force F is a metaphysical concept used to ground Newtonian physics to the metaphysics of absolute space and time. Of course, such metaphysical concept like F entails more possibilities than just absolute space and time.

The same holds with concepts like energy. For instance, to get kinetic energy relative velocity is not enough. You need mass, a metaphysical concept. Energy is also used in the same context to ground the physics of change in spatiotemporal quantities, an observable phenomenon, in the metaphysics of the time symmetry property. Momentum does the same for the metaphysics of translation symmetry and also of obtaining a value for force F when it's time derivative is taken.

So the answer is: Energy is neither an existence nor a condition. It is a hypothetical, metaphysical measure we use in the process of trying to predict well-defined spatiotemporal changes in the world, something like an intermediate step. The same holds for the other terms I mentioned.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />
Energy, Power, force, momentum, potential, gravitation, mass, inertia, time, etc. are all metaphysical terms used in hypotheses that in turn are used to come up with certain models for the purpose of making predictions. <font color="red"><b>None of these terms arise from the phenomena</b></font id="red">...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They don't arise from the phenomena of existence? Please clarify. Existence is basic to all phenomenon - else it just ain't there.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So the answer is: Energy is neither an existence nor a condition. It is a hypothetical, metaphysical measure we use in the process of trying to predict well-defined spatiotemporal changes in the world, something like an intermediate step. The same holds for the other terms I mentioned.

Makis
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You seem to deny the idea that physical reality exists. Existence is basic. Change is derived from it.

My question is : Is 'energy' an existence per se or is it a derivative? There IS no in between.

Vague terms like metaphysical and hypothetical sound impressive, but they are a non-reply.