Ron wrote (at the end of his digest of Feb. 21):
"Then you do not understand my meaning. I leave you
with:
Define Energy, we should start from there."
Jorge: as said, it might well be that I don't
understand the meaning you ascribe to Energy. Allow me
to elaborate on its meaning in Physics so that we
could examine whether 'that' Energy could be
considered equivalent as DQ or quality in general.
Energy is defined in Physics through the equation:
dE = q W
where q is the heat absorbed or released by a system
(when going from one state to another), W is the work
effected by the system on its surroundings (or vice
versa). Thus dE is given as the difference in Energy
between those two states.
Other 'types of energy' like that of kinetic,
chemical or nuclear processes, can be expressed in
terms of either q or W, so that the above equation
remains the basic definition of Energy for all of
them.
The above equation is deceivingly simple; there is
quite a lot more implied in it and many are deceived
by it's apparent innocence.
First of all, it refers to 'a system'(any portion of
the Universe we select for our T. discourse and
separated from its surroundings by specified
boundaries). If the system is not clearly defined the
equation becomes useless.
Second, it doesn't define Energy but differences in
energy. We have no way of assessing the Energy of a
system, only the Energy absorbed or released when said
system undergoes a change or process. We don't know
how to calculate the energy of a barrel full of
bricks; if we were to select said barrel as our
system, we can only calculate 'changes of energy'
through measuring either q or W.
I'm using a barrel full of bricks as an example
because I assume many of those who are reading this
are acquainted with the famous Bricklayer Story as
told by the inimitable Gerald Hoffnung at the Oxford
Union and which has become a classical humour piece.
Besides bein hilarious it's a suitable case study for
the application of various concepts of Thermodynamics.
(by the way, I happen to have a recording of that
speech as an mp3 file which I could send via e-mail to
anyone interested).
If our system (the barrel of bricks) were to be
lifted by pulleys to the top floor and then allowed to
fall again to its initial position, its (potential)
energy would be the same as before, even if, in the
course of going up and down, the barrel may have
caused 'severe blows' to the bricklayer's ribs.
Whatever happens during the course of the process is
irrelevant to the system's energy; what counts is the
difference between the initial and final state; if
they are the same, the system's energy is unchanged.
If we try to consider in view of the above
propositions such as "quality is energy" or "thoughts
are energy" or others of the sort we are confronted
with a number of questions. Among them: how can we
devise systems encompassing those terms, how can we
express the changes in terms of heat or work, how
could quality or thoughts 'qua' energy be absorbed? To
equate DQ with energy poses even harder questions.
Physics, in its present state, has no answers to offer
to those questions, which is a way of saying that they
are outside its scope or, more bluntly, that the word
'energy' as used in the above propositions must look
for a meaning outside Science.
If someone wants to use qualifiers like 'mystical
energy' or 'divine energy" or 'paranormal energy' and
ascribe them whatever meanings she wishes , there is
no conflict with Science; as there is no conflict with
Religion or Ethics or Aesthetics.
___________________________________________________________
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
