Re: flow of energy

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

OK.   A spring loaded ball has elastic PE.  Released the ball has KE.   Same energy.



"My opinion is supported by my dictionary (Random House) which gives 21 definitions
for the word ``thing''. Of these, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20,
and 21 clearly refer to abstract and/or intangible things.

Saying that energy cannot be a "thing" is beyond pedantry ? it's just plain wrong."

I have a new one:  PbaD (proof by a dictionary.  Since dictionaries are now almost
exclusively descriptive (instead of prescriptive), this is the same as proof by
democracy (majority vote).



"Why is energy not to be reified any more than any other physical
property?  What is physical reality other than a collection of
physical properties that happen to exist?  (DB)

Are objects (bodies) things?   They are things because they have certain properties
(mass)  They have, so I think, other properties that are irrelevant to their being
things (charge, temperature, etc.)  I think energy is one of them.

A very common reification is charge.  I don't thing charge flows, the ion does.  It
often flows because of its charge, just as a body moves because of it's mass.   This
reification (charge), I think causes little conceptual problem, because one soon and
easily understands that charge does not exist sui generis.



"Saying that energy isn't ``real'' is like saying that waves don't really exist, or
like saying that rope doesn't really exist."


bc who thinks energy is quite real, especially when shocked by an electric current,
or receives a fist blow, but then again, he may be wrong.

p.s. since one can not label energy as one can a substance, whether some form of
energy is the same as another formerly adjacent one is indeterminable.  JD's test is
not falsifiable, therefore, I thought we didn't consider it.   This has a very
important effect on statistics in QM.


"John S. Denker" wrote:

> Regarding the flow of energy from point A to point B,
> Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
> > I think the point is -- is it the same energy?   Obviously not,
>
> That's what we call PbBA -- Proof by Bold Assertion.
>
> Is there any chance we could upgrade this to a
> _scientific_ discussion?
>
> In particular, suppose Salvatio asserted that it
> _was_ the same energy.  Could you prove him
> wrong?  Is there, for instance, a reproducible
> experiment that proves it's not the same energy?
>
> The meaning of "flow", as in the flow of energy:
>    http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/conservative-flow.htm
>
> A discussion of whether waves are "real" and
> whether energy is "real":
>    http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/reality-reductionism.htm
>
> This posting is the position of the writer, not that of
> Salvatio or Simplicio.
>
> This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.