Yah. I remember taking high school physics, and being told that an electron has a negative charge, and a proton a positive charge. I was thinking "but you haven't explained ANYTHING". You've just given names to a phenomenon. Yes, positive charge is attracted to negative charge, but what IS charge? All you have done is given a name to an unknown. Same with energy. It can convert into different forms. There's potential energy, and kinetic energy, and the total amount of energy is conserved when it converts from one form to another. OK, that can allow you to create technological devices. But it doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It just labels everything in a way that allows you to manipulate it easily. "No, we DO know what energy is. It's the capacity to do work". "So what is work?" "It's the conversion of energy from one form to another". Then I realised that science is not about understanding reality. It's about finding ways to USE reality.
The Red Pill
- Thread starter Helena Handbasket
- Start date
Yah. I remember taking high school physics, and being told that an electron has a negative charge, and a proton a positive charge. I was thinking "but you haven't explained ANYTHING". You've just given names to a phenomenon. Yes, positive charge is attracted to negative charge, but what IS charge? All you have done is given a name to an unknown. Same with energy. It can convert into different forms. There's potential energy, and kinetic energy, and the total amount of energy is conserved when it converts from one form to another. OK, that can allow you to create technological devices. But it doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It just labels everything in a way that allows you to manipulate it easily. "No, we DO know what energy is. It's the capacity to do work". "So what is work?" "It's the conversion of energy from one form to another". Then I realised that science is not about understanding reality. It's about finding ways to USE reality.
JustSheila
Crusader
OH! Thanks! I was just thinking of the book, since it was a book exposing scn. No worries.
JustSheila
Crusader
What is it that you don't understand about energy, Wilbur?
All things around us are named. This makes it possible for us to communicate with each other about complexities when Neanderthal grunts and groans just won't do the job. Science defines energy very well: how it works, how it travels, how fast it travels, the different types of energy, how they compare to each other, how they can be channeled, used, blocked and altered. That's some very specific description.
The definitions of energy are not the same as the definitions for reality. Maybe that is what is confusing to you? You can't use the definitions of energy as the same definitions for reality. It just doesn't work. Energy doesn't equal reality or vice-versa. It's not an A=B=C.
JustSheila
Crusader
Absolutely. Those questions are part of Philosophy, so I agree, no sensible person would go to Physics or mathematics to find answers to those questions. They are also personal (subjective) questions since they are molded by one's beliefs, personality, upbringing and moral code.
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Ok - I found this definition - does it work for you? Energy is matter in motion relative to the matter in the rest of the universe.
Mimsey
Thanks Mimsey. But that can't be a complete definition of energy. A stone dropped from a height has energy at the point at which it is dropped (relative to the earth's gravitational field), and yet it is not moving relative to the earth (yet). The earth will be spinning, of course, but the potential energy that the stone has (which is ACTUAL energy, despite the name) would still be there even if the earth wasn't spinning.
But I think you miss my point. My point is not that I don't understand the concept of energy (at least, I THINK I understand it!). My point is that it doesn't explain anything about what the physical universe is - it just looks at the universe and puts a label on a phenomenon. The label can be useful WITHIN the physical universe. But it tells us nothing about the nature of reality. The label is not the universe, and in principle can never be. But scientists of the Dawkins type would have us believe that science does tell us what the physical universe is. That if you shuffle the labels a sufficient number of times, you will approach closer and closer to an understanding of what the universe is. I personally do not think that you will. You will yield more and more useful technology, but you will be no closer to understanding what the universe is.
W.
Yes. But I think that that is my point. Science (in the hands of some) masquerades as a (nay, THE) description of reality. It is not. So when a scientist nay-says against seekers of spiritual truth, they are stepping outside of the domain of their expertise, whilst pretending they are not.
This has been fun (but I wish I'd never started it, all the same)!
W.
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
But isn't potential energy only that? Potential? Until the stone is actually dropped it has no energy out side of that which it contains in it's motion within the universe. It is at rest relative to the motion of the earth, sun and galaxy until it is dropped at which time it's energy level can be calculated. (velocity, mass etc) So, why does the definition fail?
Mimsey
Potential energy is ACTUAL energy. It's only called potential energy because it sits there waiting to be converted into a more noticeable energy form (such as, in the stone's case, kinetic energy). If potential energy wasn't ACTUAL energy, then the Law of Conservation of Energy would be broken when the stone started moving. It would have acquired energy from nowhere. So potential energy could be thought of as stored energy. But it's still actual energy. Like the energy stored in an elastic band, or a capacitor. These are the physicist's labels, not mine
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
what the heck? It duplicated itself. well, by by to the clone. Mimsey
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Oh, I know their definitions but I disagree. Until the rock falls, it's potential energy is untapped, unexpressed, unused and thus, for all practical purposes - non-extant. Zee-ro my man. Sure the future energy can be calculated but IMO it ain't energy till it gets moving. Hence the label - potential energy is correct - it has potential but until it is released, it can't be called energy per se until the rock gets off it's fat ass and jumps off the couch. Once it is on it's way to the floor - it possesses energy, which will be ended when it hits the purple shag carpet and returns to equilibrium with the rest of the known universe.Potential energy is ACTUAL energy. It's only called potential energy because it sits there waiting to be converted into a more noticeable energy form (such as, in the stone's case, kinetic energy). If potential energy wasn't ACTUAL energy, then the Law of Conservation of Energy would be broken when the stone started moving. It would have acquired energy from nowhere. So potential energy could be thought of as stored energy. But it's still actual energy. Like the energy stored in an elastic band, or a capacitor. These are the physicist's labels, not mine
Thus I am sticking with my daffy-nition, unless you have a better one.
So ;-P to you too.
Mimsey
Last edited:
Gib
Crusader
Oh, I know their definitions but I disagree. Until the rock falls, it's potential energy is untapped, unexpressed, unused and thus, for all practical purposes - non-extant. Zee-ro my man. Sure the future energy can be calculated but IMO it ain't energy till it gets moving. Hence the label - potential energy is correct - it has potential but until it is released, it can't be called energy per se until the rock gets off it's fat ass and jumps off the couch. Once it is on it's way to the floor - it possesses energy, which will be ended when it hits the purple shag carpet and returns to equilibrium with the rest of the known universe.
Thus I am sticking with my daffy-nition, unless you have a better one.
So ;-P to you too.
Mimsey
L Ron said money was energy.
DM as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65nU9YIizPM
"If you have enough money, you can buy yourself out of any game you do not wish to play"
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
Energy can be stored in various ways.
For example, I buy batteries for electronic devices.
Do you buy (or recharge) batteries for electronic devices?
I am asking about what you actually do... not what you say.
Last edited:
JustSheila
Crusader
Wilbur, I see what you are saying, but I don't think that's what's happening.
Hubbard made a big deal about scns becoming aware of themselves as spiritual beings, etc. and referred to everyone else as wogs. He made the assumption and accusation that others had no awareness of self and gave scientologists a false lift to their self-esteem as "superior beings". What Hubbard stated is not true, though.
Not only does the majority of the world believe in some sort of God or afterlife, but the majority of atheists have a very high awareness of self, compassion and love of others.
There is no concrete proof of afterlife. We find out if we were right about our beliefs or not when we die. Until then, we can argue, discuss, believe and imagine, but it's still all in the mind. "What is Reality?" is a question philosophers have discussed for centuries.
It's not LIFE you are trying to understand, after all. You are trying to understand DEATH.
The objective world that we share is a beautiful place. Too much focus and worry about death makes it a lot less beautiful.
I heard a TED talk the other day about the difference between how those who believe in past lives and those who don't live their lives. A Hindu man gave the talk and discussed how those who believe in reincarnation tend to be far less ambitious about accomplishing things because they believe they have many lives to do so. Those who believe this is all we have try to make the most of it.
Those who believe in an afterlife aren't at any sort of advantage over others, they do not have special powers. Religions treat adults like stupid children that need to be told what to do and led by the nose. It's insulting to any intelligent adult.
For the record, I am not an atheist. I just don't think that makes me special or anything since it's not something that affects actual life.
AngeloV
Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh, I know their definitions but I disagree. Until the rock falls, it's potential energy is untapped, unexpressed, unused and thus, for all practical purposes - non-extant. Zee-ro my man. Sure the future energy can be calculated but IMO it ain't energy till it gets moving. Hence the label - potential energy is correct - it has potential but until it is released, it can't be called energy per se until the rock gets off it's fat ass and jumps off the couch. Once it is on it's way to the floor - it possesses energy, which will be ended when it hits the purple shag carpet and returns to equilibrium with the rest of the known universe.
Thus I am sticking with my daffy-nition, unless you have a better one.
So ;-P to you too.
Mimsey
Energy comes in different forms. You are confining the definition of energy as kinetic - something moving. That is a narrow and incorrect definition. When you lift a stone from the floor to a shelf you are putting energy into the stone. It now has more potential energy than it had while on the floor. You pushed the stone against the force of gravity which required energy. Where did that energy go? The law of conservation of energy is absolute- energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can be converted from one form to another. If this were not true we would be living in some other universe.
A battery stores electricity. A voltage is defined as an electric *potential* between an anode and a cathode. A bunch of electrons in the anode are attracted to and really want to get to the cathode which has very few electrons. Nothing is moving but the electrons have the potential to move if the right conditions exist like a conductor being placed between the terminals. Then they will move and their potential energy is converted into electricity.
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
My point is that until the potential energy affects something and expresses itself thereby, it isn't actually energy. This planet is hurtling around the sun in it's orbit. If it were to slam into a rouge planet that enters it's orbit vast amounts of energy would "be released" in the destruction that followed. Prior to that the energy is only potential and is based on the planet's velocity in orbit and it's mass. That potential, when I was taught in high school, is a measure of potential work.
The old time train converts coal into heat, by burning it, which in turn converts steam into expansive force, which drives the pistons, which in turn rotates the drive wheels and moves the train forward overcoming it's inertia.
But what is the actual energy? That was Wilbur's point. What actually is it? So far we have only described what it does.
All of the above is an expression of the release of the potential, but we are no closer to understanding what it is. The definition I found that energy is the relation ship between the relative motion of the body and the remainder of the universe isn't that far off is it? You can't hold a piece of energy in your hand. Is that because it doesn't actually exist?
Could it be that it actually is a mental construct to describe the change in relationship between the particles that make up this universe?
Gib mentioned that money is energy per Hubbard is rather spot on - it is the potential to get something done.
Do you grok what I am saying?
PS - it is on a par with defining a thetan - you can describe what he/she /it is but you can't lay a tape measure on it. Perhaps a thetan and energy are much the same thing? One is the cause and one is the effect?
Mimsey
Last edited:
JustSheila
Crusader
No.
Light, sound, radio and various other types of energy are actual waves on different vibration frequencies, not mental constructs at all. You can kind of see that with wind when you see leaves blowing. You can channel, block, intensify or limit light or sound. You can hear a plane or rocket breaking the sound barrier. These types of energy physically exist even if you can't see them with the naked eye. Gravity physically exists as a sort of pressure. We are accustomed to it so don't notice it. We'd certainly notice if it were missing, though.Here's why sound is a form of energy:
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-sound-energy.html
Money as energy is just a metaphor, though. So maybe a spirit (Not a thetan. Awful word
, won't use it) as energy is just a mental construct or metaphor.
F.Bullbait
Oh, a wise guy,eh?
I suppose you are right. If something isn't adequately defined, one can suppose anything. I could propose that the basis of the universe is dairy products. I could have endless arguments with the lactose intolerant regarding my cheesy hypothesis. As long as we know that we are making lots of hot air and entertaining ourselves, no harm done.
JustSheila
Crusader
I like that definition, AngeloV. And I like this discussion, because I never took a formal Physics class and Elwrong filled my head with a lot of meaningless gobbledygoop on it.
I found this, too (Hey y'all New Agers, this is from COSMOS magazine
):
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/what-is-energy
I found this, too (Hey y'all New Agers, this is from COSMOS magazine
):https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/what-is-energy
Similar threads
