And now: check the fridge.

I am thinking about writing a book on the subject of energy-"what the hell is it" . Is there a copy right infringement if I use some of these comments?

Is there a copy right infringement if I use some of these comments?

Not if you cite the authors

Everything here is public domain as CR4 is a form of publishing.

However, I think nobody would protest if you would send a cheque to each of us...

If as you say, CR4 is a form of publishing, then all one need do to protect an original text by copyright is to say so, for example:

"Ode to a toad"

There once was hoppity toad

Who tried to hop 'cross a road.

He didn't get far,

Cause he got squashed by a car.

Now the middle of the road's his abode!

Copyright STL Engineer, 2007 OR

© STL Engineer, 2007

Then it would NOT be public domain, since I had asserted my "copy right" and anyone else wishing to publish would need to get my permission and possibly pay a royalty! Although according to recent patent law (US signed the Berne convention in 1989, which makes copyright automatic), explicit claims need not be made by the original author to retain ownership, they do afford a measure of protection in seeking damages and royalties.

However, there is one little clause in the "CR4 Site Use Policy":

"All content posted on CR4 is granted to CR4 with electronic publishing rights in perpetuity, as all content posted on this site becomes a part of the community."

I think a good lawyer could pick this apart though. Copyright cases usually are won by the original author. The weak point in this agreement might be the phrase "electronic publishing rights", which would imply that there are other publishing rights which might be reserved by the author, especially book and magazine publishing. Also, copyright laws provide that transfer of ownership must be in writing. To my knowledge CR4 has obtained no such written agreement from any of its users/members.

In no case, however, would this be considered public domain, at least, not until the original term of copyright (the author's lifetime plus 50-70 years, depending on jurisdiction) had expired, without extensions being granted.

Now then, whether the use of an alias in publishing preserves protection is another question! I think it does because use of nom de plumes, or "pen-names", is a common practice in authorship, e.g. Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens), Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson), George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), and more recently, Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler) come to mind. FYI, here is a list of pen-names used by notable people.

Thank you STL. You're right. For clarification, I cite from Wikipedia:

"Public domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about public ownership of creative works. For use in relationship to public lands, see public domain (land). For the music album of the same name, see Tryad. Unofficial public domain icon used in Wikipedia

Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of a common cultural and intellectual heritage, which, in general, anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes. About 15 percent of all books are in the public domain, including 10 percent of all books that are still in print.^[1]

If an item ("work") is not in the public domain, it may be the result of a proprietary interest such as a copyright, patent, or other sui generis right. The extent to which members of the public may use or exploit the work is limited to the extent of the proprietary interests in the relevant legal jurisdiction. However, when the copyright, patent or other proprietary restrictions expire, the work enters the public domain and may be used by anyone for any purpose."

I begin to ask the nature of everything 'I know' ...

Hard to believe that only a little you can explain about!!

Does energy is only the other form of mass, or mass is energy in 'frozen' state?

Ever heard that every materal can somehow be dematerialized to energy (wave or something), transported, then rematerialized somewhere. Recall when David Copperfield walk through Chinese Great Wall from one side to another side.

I really confused by the nature of our nature ......

These are the best answers I have ever seen on this subject,incl God- reminds of a question I posted on open2 - what came 1st- chicken or egg- these answers are a order of magnitude higher!. Generally speaking, all matter degrades due to entropy-UNLESS ENERGY IS ADDED to slow the degrade-ie in case of hb- no eat/drink= die quick! eat/drink still die, but delayed!. As a fixer of things I really have to admire the ingenuity in devices, using passive devices or active- the reality is confirmed when I go out to the bush & look around- the plants/trees are just recipients of suitable conditions/supplies/energy- aren't we all?. So hbs have made machines from basic components present in the body we call Earth- & have refined such to something we take for granted, & throw away, as the new model will be better & cheaper!. The bottom line is that you, me,everyone,everything,came from a parent/s- BUT WHERE DID THE ORIGINAL come from!. Nobody(human) knows- but it is comforting to think there is a creator in heaven, to give this otherwise futile existence meaning.

You can also shift the whole picture towards another domain:

What came first: God or Human?

God before Human of course! Look in the dictionary, G before H!

ROFL

Hi, Neil Kwyrer!

In this case, you are not "adding energy". You are adding fuel, which can be measured by a term that notes the changes that addition will cause, (e.g. adding heat, nutrition, etc.) calling it energy, and calibrating it in calories.

Despite the delightful curent erudition around the topic, I maintain that Energy is not a "thing" per se. We made up the word to measure and thus explain one aspect of [in this case, changes] in things.

Some might argue that "heat" is a form of (or even the only form of) energy (and thus the effects of entropy, etc.)

Interesting, but not accurate. Heat is a measurement of change in temperature, which may be caused by a whole host of influences, and which we measure as "energy" in a whole host of measurement expressions through determining matching changes in molecular speed, expansion of metals or fluids in a calibrated tube or thermocouples sensitive to IR radiation, IR concentrations, impact of photon concentrations, etc. etc., and how those things are reflected in a calibrated measuring device or as changes in the exposed material, such as the relative health, amount of activity capable, etc. in living organisms after assuming caloric/microadditive intake vs not assuming it. Then we find a way to express that change in units, and generalize it in terms of a change in "energy".

The ENERGY then can be spoken of as a thing. "Man! We fed that rat Wheaties for three days in a row, and you should see the energy he's gained since we started!" But if you want to really find the "energy", you wont' be looking for a thing...you'll be looking for changes in speed, intelligence, sex drive, appetite, ability to apply force, and so on. And then measuring those things in the myriad ways we describe the aspect of things we can then use the appelation 'energy' to describe.

Mark

"Heat is a measurement of change in temperature"

Mark, I think you have it bass ackwards. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of molecules (heat) in a system. A change in temperature is a measure of the change in the average kinetic energy (This may be the best definition and explanation I found).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is Temperature?

DEFINITION: (For this website usage):

Temperature: A measure proportional to the average translational kinetic energy associated with the disordered microscopic motion of atoms and molecules. The flow of heat is from a high temperature region toward a lower temperature region.
-Courtesy of the references cited below but mostly based on the operational definition on the HyperPhysics pages at Georgia State University by R. Nave. and the discussion in "Traceable Temperatures" Second Ed. by Nicholas and White

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more info on energy, heat, and temperature go to:

http://www.temperatures.com/wit.html

Hi, STL Engineer!

When I wrote "matching changes in molecular speed", I was referring to the kinetic changes to which you also referred in your response.

But in that paragraph, I was writing about methods of measuring changes in temperature, and so did not limit myself only to that one way, but threw in a few others as well.

Mark

Hi Mark- WOW!- sorry to be a self educated person not educated in the nuances you propose!. But to the average person, energy is something positive, whereas non energy is zero- thus I would say that the energy from the Sun is positive(most life on Earth depends on it), & is temperature related- (we freeze things to stop activity!)- Mr A Einstein showed that matter is slowed down energy- if you can show that freezing energy converts it to matter, you have won the prize!. But if Gravity is negative energy, & the centre of the mass is the focal point, & is at a high temperature ie molten, & the temperature of the surface is liveable, but positive potential, then that is the answer!.

Hi, Neil!

You hit the nail on the head when you wrote, "to the average person, energy is something...".

And, unfortunately, we have now built myths upon that belief, which as engineers, we generally ignore in light of the empirical method and justifiable conclusions. While the transfer of various dimensions of a topic of conversation in engineering almost always has positive and negative qualities we quantify and then define as --among the many other qualities of things to be studied in the universe--"energy" transfers, the term is used to denote the units of transfer particular to the area of engineering doing the quantifying.

Einstein did not in effect show what "energy" is at all. He merely stated the light speed/mass interrelationship, leaving the term of caluclation for the energy transfer component open to interpretation according to its calculatable needs, and calling it "e". Thus, for example, 23e is 23 times the product of the relationship of the speed of light to the mass property of 'something': like a photon, or group of proton-free electrons, or other dimensional breakdown that may be studied in terms of light speed and mass, and thus related to a whole host of other energy transfers to which various expressions apply, such as time, cosmology, and train timetables . For example, "e" is also half the speed of light multiplied by twice the square of the mass. Now, is it the same thing or not? NOT. Because it isn't and never was a "thing". Get it?

This is beating the same old drum, but Gravity too isn't energy pure and simple; it is a phenomenon that can be studied using, amongst other things, exchanges of forces such as velocity, distance, mass, attraction, universal warping, and various phenomena to which units can be applied and calculated as exchanges in those units. Like heat, light, flow, and vibrational experiences, we bunch those units up and call their exchange and interaction "heat energy", "light energy", "electrical energy", "gravitational forces", etc.

Mark

Hi Mark- WOW-DOUBLE WOW!!!. You have explained this better than anyone I have ever read, incl ALL the GREATS- you should write a book- would be a best seller!. Cheers.

"For example, "e" is also half the speed of light multiplied by twice the square of the mass."

Gee, and I thought that "e" was an irrational constant approximately equal to 2.718281828459 ! Silly me!

No fair taking me out of context, STL!

In the same blog, I also said, "Einstein did not in effect show what "energy" is at all. He merely stated the light speed/mass interrelationship, leaving the term of caluclation for the energy transfer component open to interpretation according to its calculatable needs, and calling it "e"."

I aint no Einstein either!

Mark

I aint no Einstein either!

Or is that "einstein"?

ROFL

"For example, "e" is also half the speed of light multiplied by twice the square of the mass."

and

"Gee, and I thought that "e" was an irrational constant approximately equal to 2.718281828459 ! Silly me!"

-----

I object to this whole discussion.

-e

I object to this whole discussion.

-e

On what grounds? "e" would not be "Europium", that would be "Eu". The only single letter elements are: H,B,C,N,O,F,P,S,K,V,Y, I,W, and U.

What's next, should I start signing my postings as "-s", Fyz as "-f", Jorrie as "-j", Kris as "-k", Del as "-d", etc.? What then would ER, eka, etc. do for their one-letter signature?

I object to your objection!

Hi e,

It is the beginning of eternity, the end of time, the beginning of the end, and the end of every space.

What is it?

Hi, J² !

Ummmm.......imagination?

Mark

Energy = something we produce (actually convert) and transport inefficiently, spend like crazy and waste most of it. In the process, we destroy a livable planet and dream to move somewhere else (Mars?).

I hope I answered your question...

Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Work is defined as the transfer of energy. QED and Nuff said!

There are kooks around that would have you believe some relly weird things such as the excerpt below from this page:

THE GRAND UNIFIED FIELD (scalar physics) IS ABSOLUTELY PERVASIVE

A dimensional leap is a shifting from one stage (iteration) of the fractal geometry of the Cosmos to another via a dimension, each and every one of which has a categorical geometry. One can only leap a dimension by traveling through a mediating dimension. Except to analyze the ordering and the nature of the forces of what is idiotically called a "black hole" one should forget about such and understand that: a complete set of curvatures is required for each fractal iteration; that these iterations are more succinct toward the Prime Mover or godhead; that they are nested within ORGANISMS when beyond the balance point of the relative and the quantum, which is "man-space" or a lifeform nested within a biosphere. The biosphere is the third curvature out of Mind (Michael). The life-form is the third curvature "out of" matter (Gabriel.) The perfect matricing of Mind and Body is an Adam or a Christ or an Eli [singular for Elohim] Serious parties may use the contact information to arrange mouth to ear assistance is "REALIZING" THE GRAND UNIFIED FIELD, which cannot be grasped by an "observer."

svengali take note!

Hi J-j- makes sense to me- read each sentence & think about it- could be true- will we ever know- or will we just go on destroying our only habitat- in the name of PROGRESS!!.

It is just an term related to do work , force , power , change states of matter , that can be physically calculable to known values and unknown as assumptions and so on.....with types already mentioned by our members......you can register yourself with CR4

Hi all

It was a bit amusing as well as highly absorbing to read the varieties of answers on the basic question on ENERGY! A few of us trying to bring in the idea of GOD etc in these.

We need to appreciate that the definition of ENERGY is NOT an engineering work, for whereas engineers could work and produce "terrestrial" and even "space-level" results through creatively and experienced "judgments", SCIENCE and scientists CANNOT and will not do that. Science is a confinement of human thoughts and actions wherein more of the hidden potentialities and phenomena of nature are unraveled and understood through their effects on all our senses, and the resultant creative and imaginative values of the sense of perception. Nothing in science would be accepted as TRUTH or FACTS unless "all of our senses and creative and imaginative values of the sense of perception" prove the veracity of any material aspect that needs to be codified and defined within the realms of science. In this we may also note: science is NOT dogmatic in that, as and when our senses et.all experience something different, the "old theory/ paradigm" is discarded and replaced by the new theory/ concept. This does NOT mean that science is a set of "changing" ideas and themes. It only means that science, being a confinement of human thought and actions would have to "experience, experiment, analyze, co-relate, theorize, verify and emerge civilized". When Sir Isaac Newton proposed his corpuscular theory of light, it was based on the observational inferences available till that point of time, when Quantum Mechanics had not yet been understood. But when the science of Quantum mechanics became established, Dr. Einstein brought out the phenomenon of "light acting as a wave or particle in relation to space and time situations" And it was he who also proved (first mathematically, and later verified by experimentation of the atom "annihilation", resulting in ATOM BOMB/ HYDROGEN BOMB) that MATTER AND ENERGY ARE EQUIVALENT, through his now famous equation:

E = mc^2

Today, we accept this as the best possible answer to the idea of ENERGY/ MATTER.

In this it is not our SUBJECTIVE and philosophical ideas and themes that are to be brought in for discussions (for example, many of us trying to bring in religious ideas), but OBJECTIVE, data and observations that could be PROVEN through their effects on all of our senses and through their resultant creative and imaginative values of the sense of perception.

Energy is: A difference of potential.

Potential of What?....

There is only one thing that we know of that can cause all phenomena related to matter/energy/force.. and that is: Time.

A difference of potential in Time.

What I don't know is exactly how this is the prime cause.. but it is. In some fundamental way, there is a mechanism that generates a picoscopic difference of potential of time.

Ourobouros is a concept that was developed in ancient times and I think best points the way to the answers.. even though I'm sure that this original concept has been morphed from its original understanding... we should go back to the most ancient sources.. read it with with new understanding. I think that the DP has this tail chasing action...

I think that a quantum jump or spin (probability jump), from present to future and back again to the present, of a massless mathematical entity, is the basis of all larger entities, and that these jumps form everythign from space to light to matter. They cause electromagnetism, force. Inherent in it is all the order, intelligence, and structure we see in nature.

In the end, it creates a universe similar to a first person computer game. You who are outside of th universe, can now have a character and role to play in the big show.. probably many times. I've been Out Of Body.. met beings who had no body.. didn't meet god.. but there is life after death; no question. full stop.

the rest, as they say.. is history.

Hi Chris,

I tend to agree with you on the issue of time. It is the most baffling thing in all of science (IMHO). I really believe that at some future date, the grand theory of everthing will ultimately come down to time. If time is understandable, and I repeat, "IF" time is understandable by mankind", which I doubt, since it is a part of the fabric of "us".

You said, "There is only one thing that we know of that can cause all phenomena related to matter/energy/force.. and that is: Time.

A difference of potential in Time."

Please refer back to an earlier posting made by me regarding time here.

-John

But time is relative, does that mean energy is relative too?

Absolutely! otherwise, it would be the same 'energy' everywhere, just the same as newtonian/cartesian time is the same everywhere. The fact that time is relative is what makes it possible for there to be a difference of potential of energy.

Isn't it a bit like asking where has all the money in the economy gone to ? The money is like an exchange token, and it's still there but in it's various forms worth different amounts. Money saves us swapping chickens for a pint of beer etc. We just take it on trust that it has a value in it's own right, but when we look real close it evaporates before our eyes. Money is only the transfer mechanism to make life easier, a way to try and differentiate rich and poor (one doesn't exist without the other...or does it ?). OMG, my analogy is going to tangle me in bits. I've also gone a bit profane. Maybe it's just about how excited one place is compared to another, like weather patterns swirling around the world. Oh crap, now it's GW. I'm going back to bed, this is all too much, not even talking about the weather is safe now. I'm much distressed because I don't even know if energy is concept or fact. Should've know not to go near a post that mentioned reality