It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what is energy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
this is gonna sound really stupid, but what actually is energy? like i know there are two types like potential and kinetic i think but what really is wenergy in it's purest AND what is fire

please help an uniformed boy lol




posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
My personal belief...the purest form of energy is existence as a whole, as on single entity. It is like taking everything in existence and boiling it down till it is all the same form. Cross reference String Theory with spacial non-locality.

To simplify it the best I can, when you get everything down to its basic component (pure energy), it all becomes the same thing like millions of ice cubes becoming an ocean.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Jonna]



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
yeah i watched a 4 part show on string theory on the bbc with michael green or something. and string throy for those who don't know is that all matter is made up of string or hoops of energy constanly moving. but what is the form of that energy? it's not electricity or bio energy or fire what is it?

enrgy to me is such a generalized term lol



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
there are many different kinds of energy (or work): mechanical, chemical, electrical, heat, gravitational, nuclear, etc, etc... work is any action that involves force and displacement, such as moving a box or dropping a book. if there is no displacement, such as leaning on a wall and the wall not toppling, then no work is done. in all forms of work a main result of work being done is heat.

in my opinion the purest form of energy would be something such as a perpetual motion machine, which are physically impossible. richard feynman (see PurdueNuc's avatar) came up with a really neat idea for a perpetual motion machine. using that nifty google site i managed to find it online here: manor.york.ac.uk...

fire is a form of chemical work. it's a rapid and constant chemical change within a substance that releases heat and light.

EDIT: here's that PBS show on string theory online boken up into parts, if in case someone wants to see it or watch it again for clarity. it was a very interesting show, but seemed overly simplified at times. www.pbs.org...

[edit on 6/16/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Energy is the ability to do work.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I thought energy was something you found in a sport drink.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
in my opinion the purest form of energy would be something such as a perpetual motion machine, which are physically impossible.


*Slightly off topic*
"Perpetual Motion" machines or Over Unity engines are forbidden only by circular logic. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy is lost in a closed system (entropy). Now, the people that say that perpetual motion is impossible cite the second law as proof. Unfortunately, the second law was created simply because at the time, an over unity engine had not been invented that worked. Hence, circular logic.

Here is an example of an over unity toy. It's called the SMOT, SiMple Overunity Toy. On that page there is a link showing a closed loop, dual ramp SMOT, that appears to be a "Perpetual Motion" machine of yore. Frictional and heat losses notwithstanding, this device shows efficiencies of up to 113%, thereby actually gaining energy with every pass. Now, it may require a little research to decrease the efficiency enough to balance it a 100%, so that the ball doesn't overspeed it's track, but other than that, it should, in theory, run without energy input forever.

*back on topic*
As has been said here before, "energy" is a generic term, which can be used to describe many different things. So the question "What is energy" really requires narrowing before an intelligent response can be garnered.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Ouizel]



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Energy is the ability to do work.




The above definition is just about the most concise definition (the word "capacity" is usually used instead of "ability", but that's splitting hairs unless you're a physicist). Energy, from the observers point of view, is the measurement of work. Energy has diverse forms but the ability to do measureable work is the key. For example, one way that the number of calories in food is measured is by burning the food and measuring the amount of heat given off.
Heat as energy is indirectly a measurement of the speed at which molecules are vibrating. Light energy comes from electrons that are jumping to different orbital levels of an atom, giving off light in the process. Potential energy is a measurement of stored energy of all sorts of forms (gravitational, like when holding a ball up before dropping it, or chemical potential energy stored in gas before it is burned in a combustion engine). Kinetic is a measurement of energy-in-motion.
All in all, the answer to the question "what is energy?" doesn't give energy much 'mystique'. It really comes down to some straitforward concepts in physics, rather than some metaphysical explanation. Not very exciting, really.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
What about Orgone Energy? Something I have experienced and used? In fact I have a small orgone generator... And according to some, the orgone energy can be measured.

www.orgonelab.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ouizel
Here is an example of an over unity toy. It's called the SMOT, SiMple Overunity Toy. On that page there is a link showing a closed loop, dual ramp SMOT, that appears to be a "Perpetual Motion" machine of yore. Frictional and heat losses notwithstanding, this device shows efficiencies of up to 113%, thereby actually gaining energy with every pass. Now, it may require a little research to decrease the efficiency enough to balance it a 100%, so that the ball doesn't overspeed it's track, but other than that, it should, in theory, run without energy input forever.


SMOT is not over unity.

1. If Gravity is regauging the magnets as they claim, this could never be a closed system. An outside force (gravity) is acting on the device. Thus it cannot be over-unity.

2. If gravity is not regauging the magnets it will eventually wear out. Thus cannot be over unity.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Good replies to the original questions...here's something I was taught in physics about fire.

Fire is rapid oxygenasion (sorry for lack of F7)
and in most cases extremely inefficiant (not complete conversion due to many remains, unburt carbons, water, etc.)

See I did listen a little



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

1. If Gravity is regauging the magnets as they claim, this could never be a closed system. An outside force (gravity) is acting on the device. Thus it cannot be over-unity.



Very well, an outside force is acting on the device. Perhaps it isn't over-unity, but it's still working with more energy than is directly input by the observer. Gravity-driven perpetual motion devices have been tried in the past, and they generally fail. In this case, however, the re-guaging occurs, and the device gains energy. Yes, technically, gravity is affecting this reguaging, however, that's generally discounted as an energy source, since gravity affects all "closed" systems. Generally, however, it affects these systems by causing "drag" thereby increasing entropy. So, then, I can agree that SMOT isn't overunity, however, it still fits the traditional defination of "perpetual motion", which is only disallowed by the circular logic that I described in my previous post.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
can Energy be described as the conversion of matter from one form to another?



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I would say energy would be needed for tranformation.

My impression is that light is the purest form of energy. Light comes in quanta which are described as small packets of energy. So maybe there is light energy and matter energy making up the big energy as in E=mc2. My pyschics is fairly limited, so maybe someone can help me expound on this.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I think energy is natyhing that gives power to power something up, and makes up almost everything. It's what keeps people alive.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
My personal belief...the purest form of energy is existence as a whole, as on single entity. It is like taking everything in existence and boiling it down till it is all the same form. Cross reference String Theory with spacial non-locality.

To simplify it the best I can, when you get everything down to its basic component (pure energy), it all becomes the same thing like millions of ice cubes becoming an ocean.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Jonna]


my thoughts exactly.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Energy is mass multipled by the square of the speed of light.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join