Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Quantum Quack, Jul 20, 2012.
Energy is the source of power.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
no force is the source of powers, forcing is killing true energy which is freedom so its possessions is the base of powers, abusive superiority stands and logically it is of what came first so got a superior stand to its freedom that is already powerful or objective
while energy is the source of reality by having to mean else existence in order to self existing objectively as free entity energy
Can we somehow define energy in terms of concentration (i.e. per unit volume)? It seems that one of the consequences of entropy is that "something" tends to be less concentrated after every action. This would allow both definitions of energy:
1) the accounting system version in which overall energy never changes; only its average availability per unit volume, and
2) the traditional version in which we refer to concentrated energy as being available for use (such as a can of gasoline) while dispersed energy as not really being available energy at all (such as the infrared radiation emanating from the internal combustible engine as it burns that gasoline).
Are there cases where "spent energy" takes up less volume than "potential energy"?
no i think energy is an absolute same thing, freedom is translated by objective intelligence as absolute true energy
freedom is the supreme value as the exclusive true one value, that is always the same object invariable while never the same really or out of reality
Absolutely, do you speak English or just Californian Mystic? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
so u reject my post bc i have different perspective on the topic, and wat is mystic or californian in what i said?? on the contrary u r the mystic figure out of the chim pic, claiming that energy potentials could b more then energy spent
while i clearly cut that delirium sense by justifying how any is an absolute fact only
Hey I was just making a joke, bro. I appreciate your perspective, but now I was hoping to get the feedback from others as well and every time we exchange words my post gets pushed further back in the thread...
It started badly and at this point has reached an even lower ebb. Off to pseudoscience with you.
Prom...did you read my post? It was a sincere attempt.
Unfortunately trying to cover up rot with paint doesn't stop the house falling down.....
Unfortunately the move to psuedo is unavoidable IMO
Maybe the reason this post didn't get any traction is that you are trying to cover a lot of ground. *Break it down into pieces and there is some room for discussion. Energy has already been defined and linked and discussed so to see you hang in there on the questions you posed deserves a chance to let you elaborate. Maybe my comments will let you do so.
"Can we somehow define energy in terms of concentration (i.e. per unit volume)?" Certainly there are substances that have more energy density or useful energy per unit of volume than others. And the increase in entropy of a system containing a substance of high energy density *can be directly related to the change in energy density per unit volume if energy is used during the change in density, like burning gasoline.
"1) the accounting system version in which overall energy never changes; only its average availability per unit volume". Take the can of gasoline. It has high energy density until you burn it. Burn some of it in an enclosed system and the concentration of the energy changes, even though the total energy within the system remains the same. What has happened is that the differential between the useful energy and the total energy has changed and entropy has increased. I think that is what you mean by the accounting.
2) the traditional version in which we refer to concentrated energy as being available for use (such as a can of gasoline) while dispersed energy as not really being available energy at all (such as the infrared radiation emanating from the internal combustible engine as it burns that gasoline)." Here you seem to be acknowledging that the burned gas will in effect disburse the concentrated energy to a less concentrated state. And you are pointing out that the formerly useful energy is no longer useful and at the same time it is more disbursed. My comment is that the disbursal of the substance does not cause much entropy, but the change in chemical composition does significantly increase entropy.
So correct me if I'm wrong but you may have been going for some consideration of the concept of the gasoline containing a certain energy potential, and if the gas was vaporized and therefore becomes less concentrated, *has entropy has occurred? Does that have anything to do with your question or should I read more into the fact that you put "something" in quotes?
Or maybe you are thinking about the heat energy radiating from the hot engine block?
of course there are if some potential energy remains... example: the sun has a potential energy but only spends a fraction of it every day.
But if you are refering to the laws of consevation and if there are exceptions to those laws. I would say no although there may appear to be exceptions one will find at some point the universe is an utterly "closed" system.
For example you may wish to look into scenarios that demonstrate the "frustration" of energy spent and consider it in terms of conservation.
ie. a rocket is spending fuel in a rigid cradle that prevents it from taking advantage of that spending. How is the energy spent, conserved when no momentum is gained, etc.?
All output except maybe some thermal is being absorbed by a rigid cradle. The cradle material gains no increase in potential yet the energy has been spent on it.
A bit like leaning against a brick wall and trying to push the wall over but failing... where has the energy you have exerted gone? How is it conserved? [ I can assure you that it is indeed conserved fully but I believe current scientific modeling has trouble with the above situation of "frustration of energy"]
Why has this thread been moved to pseudoscience?
Because it's full of pseudoscience.
My solution for what it is worth:
"move all the pseudo posts somewhere but keep the thread on the board it was posted in."
I worded my question poorly. What I meant was, are there cases where a system of what we would normally consider to be "available energy" (such as a can of gasoline) is less concentrated than the same system after having been completely spent? The sun is clearly less concentrated after having burned through all of its fuel, correct?
Not likely a good example. The sun ejects a great deal of mass and energy, in the process.
This is likely one of those cases where you would need a closed system.
Sometimes I wonder if energy has fallen victim to being nit picked too much by the internet. Look at this page on Electromagnetic radiation, that I pulled up by googling Electromagnetic Energy (both terms I have heard being used before).
It starts out saying that it is a form of ENERGY!
So then does light have mass, I would have to say no. Can the path of a photon be curved by the presence of gravity, I would have to say yes. Can an object be affected by a gravitational pull of a photon, I would have to say no.
Then you may be asking yourself how could a photon be pulled by gravity but then have no gravitational pull of its own. The answer is simple, it is a form of energy. It is only being affected by the spacetime curvature of gravity. Energy would also react in the same manner. The amount of work produced would fall under a new vector affected by gravity, but the work itself would not create its own gravitational affect. So then it would follow that a photon at rest would have no mass. How could it? It is not moving so then it would not follow a path along gravitational curvature.
Energy is something, not nothing much like space is not nothing, it is something, it is full of energy fields and force fields, it is a charge of the system and beyond that system.
Separate names with a comma.