Science > Physics > Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Steinberg2" |
| Date: |
16 Mar 2005 07:34:48 AM |
| Object: |
Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
Hi, on my chemistry class, we were told about the definition below
which, i believe is correct but has an exception to it.
"Energy is the movement of mass (-the ability of movement of a mass-)
on a microscopic scale or macroscopic scale, or the capacity to
produce such movement"
Is there any exception to this definition ???
I was thinking of Light, which does not have a mass but i am not sure
about it.
Let me know !
Thx, Charles
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 09:34:24 AM |
|
|
"Steinberg2" <charleskingb@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:423835f8$1_1@127.0.0.1...
Hi, on my chemistry class, we were told about the definition below
which, i believe is correct but has an exception to it.
"Energy is the movement of mass (-the ability of movement of a
mass-)
on a microscopic scale or macroscopic scale, or the capacity to
produce such movement"
Is there any exception to this definition ???
It is a quite exceptionally verbose definition and it is blatantly
nonsense.
Considers any trigger or switch to prove my point
The definition of energy is quite simple. It is the capacity to do
work.
I was thinking of Light, which does not have a mass but i am not
sure
about it.
Light has no mass.
Get yourself a better teacher.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 08:56:13 AM |
|
|
Steinberg2 wrote:
Hi, on my chemistry class, we were told about the definition below
which, i believe is correct but has an exception to it.
"Energy is the movement of mass (-the ability of movement of a
mass-)
on a microscopic scale or macroscopic scale, or the capacity to
produce such movement"
Is there any exception to this definition ???
The reason why you question the above is because it is confusing.
Energy comes in various forms and it also has various definitions of
it. If we define it as the "movement of mass", we cannot also define
that as an "ability of..." in the same context because one definition
is that of a physical act while the other refers to the capacity to
perform a physical act. Do you see the difference?
The two definitions are valid separately but they cannot be valid used
in the same context. Your chemistry teacher has correctly
distinguished the two uses of the term with the use of "or" in the
sentence, but s/he unfortunately used "ability" (which means
"capacity") wrongly in the same context as the "movement of mass", a
physical act.
I was thinking of Light, which does not have a mass but i am not sure
about it.
Let me know !
Thx, Charles
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 09:38:00 AM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110984973.757050.319730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steinberg2 wrote:
Hi, on my chemistry class, we were told about the definition below
which, i believe is correct but has an exception to it.
"Energy is the movement of mass (-the ability of movement of a
mass-)
on a microscopic scale or macroscopic scale, or the capacity to
produce such movement"
Is there any exception to this definition ???
The reason why you question the above is because it is confusing.
Energy comes in various forms and it also has various definitions of
it.
No. There is only one definition of "energy".
It is the capacity to do work.
Six textbooks on mechanics, three encyclopedias and two scientific
dictionaries say I am right.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Elmegaard" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
17 Mar 2005 10:00:26 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
No. There is only one definition of "energy".
It is the capacity to do work.
No, it may be true for mechanics, but in thermodynamics there is a
significant distinction between "exergy" which is a capacity to work,
"anergy" which is energy than cannot and "energy" which is their sum.
--
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.dtu.dk/staff/be/be.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 04:48:47 AM |
|
|
Brian Elmegaard wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
No. There is only one definition of "energy".
It is the capacity to do work.
No, it may be true for mechanics, but in thermodynamics there is a
significant distinction between "exergy" which is a capacity to work,
"anergy" which is energy than cannot and "energy" which is their sum.
So, you define "energy" as the sum of exergy and anergy, where anergy
is the energy which can't do work? Looks a bit circular, don't you think?
I am aware of "exergy" and "anergy", but I don't know how energy is
defined then in general in thermodynamics!
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Elmegaard" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
19 Mar 2005 04:49:24 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
So, you define "energy" as the sum of exergy and anergy, where anergy
is the energy which can't do work? Looks a bit circular, don't you think?
Sure.
I am aware of "exergy" and "anergy", but I don't know how energy is
defined then in general in thermodynamics!
Neither, do I. I am sure it is not "capacity of doing work" and that
it is conserved.
In some dk.* groups we have had the discussion. We seem to agree that
energy basic notion of physics and a generalisation of mechanical
work.
--
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.dtu.dk/staff/be/be.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 06:02:04 AM |
|
|
Not if by "sum" he meant "difference", Bjoern.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 08:54:17 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Not if by "sum" he meant "difference", Bjoern.
1) He said sum, not difference. And it is indeed right in
thermodynamics that energy = exergy + anergy. Plus, not minus.
2) Even if he had said "difference", what he said would still have
been circular.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 11:43:08 AM |
|
|
Bjoern, show us how that is circular. You seem to have misunderstood
the equation (again!). If there exists in matter energy which can be
applied from an object to something distinct from that object, and also
energy which cannot be applied to something other than that object, and
the sum of those two amounts = the total amount of energy in that
object, how is that circular?
In SR, the energy of a mass equals a certain amount without counting
its energy of inertia, but a different amount if you include the factor
of motion in the equation. You don't call that circular, so why not?
Jumped the gun again, did we?
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 09:48:16 AM |
|
|
No, Franz, you're wrong, and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is. My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions. How could your books be so
wrong? They're not, it's you who sees only one definition for energy
in each of them.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 03:36:05 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110988096.002958.326200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No, Franz, you're wrong,
Stay wallowing in your ignorance if you feel you must.
It is not I wo would be wrong, but
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is. My dictionary has 5 definitions
of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
I used physics dictionaries, encyclopedias and standard text books.
Go and take a running jump at yourself.
How could your books be so
wrong? They're not, it's you who sees only one definition for
energy
in each of them.
It is quite impossible to have more than one valid definition of a
term used in physics, so bugger off.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 12:34:05 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
Please tell them both, and give also the name of the dictionary.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 01:18:52 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
Please tell them both, and give also the name of the dictionary.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine, eh, Bjoern?
Energy - 4. physics power supply or source: a supply or source of
electrical, mechanical, or other form of power
5=2E physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or system to do
work. Symbol E
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Also:
Energy - 1. Vigorous exertion of power, 2. The capacity of acting or
being active, 3. The capacity for doing work, 4. Usable power
Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary
Okay, your turn, show us yours now.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 04:26:55 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111000732.640794.160440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
Bjoern, being at a University, has access to a vastly larger range of
physics textbooks than you or I.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 01:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
Please tell them both, and give also the name of the dictionary.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine, eh, Bjoern?
Energy - 4. physics power supply or source: a supply or source of
electrical, mechanical, or other form of power
5. physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or system to do
work. Symbol E
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Also:
Energy - 1. Vigorous exertion of power, 2. The capacity of acting or
being active, 3. The capacity for doing work, 4. Usable power
Only one of those is the technical definition used in science.
"Usable power" is a colloquialism. Power is power and is the time
derivative of energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
17 Mar 2005 08:20:03 AM |
|
|
Creighton Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
Please tell them both, and give also the name of the dictionary.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine, eh, Bjoern?
Energy - 4. physics power supply or source: a supply or source of
electrical, mechanical, or other form of power
5. physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or system
to do
work. Symbol E
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004
Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Also:
Energy - 1. Vigorous exertion of power, 2. The capacity of acting
or
being active, 3. The capacity for doing work, 4. Usable power
Only one of those is the technical definition used in science.
You can take up that issue with Encarta.
"Usable power" is a colloquialism.
You can take up that issue with Merrian-Webster. Or do you profess to
be more accurate than those two reference works?
Power is power
Is that supposed to mean something? The dictionary alone has 19
definitions for power.
and is the time
derivative of energy.
What does that mean? When using power as a measure of the rate of
doing work or transferring energy, we usually express it in terms of
wattage or horsepower.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 02:02:33 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
Please tell them both, and give also the name of the
dictionary.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine, eh, Bjoern?
Energy - 4. physics power supply or source: a supply or source
of
electrical, mechanical, or other form of power
5. physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or system
to do
work. Symbol E
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004
Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Also:
Energy - 1. Vigorous exertion of power, 2. The capacity of acting
or
being active, 3. The capacity for doing work, 4. Usable power
Only one of those is the technical definition used in science.
You can take up that issue with Encarta.
You take it up with them. You bought it and rely on it. I don't,
because it's definitions are not well suited to this purpose. I'm not
going to blast them for the weak definition. I'm going to blast you for
using a kitchen knife where a crowbar is required. And I'm going to
blast you for refusing to read a real book. To be honest, I take it as
a sign of profound laziness.
"Usable power" is a colloquialism.
You can take up that issue with Merrian-Webster. Or do you profess
to
be more accurate than those two reference works?
Yup, and with a more complete understanding of physical power than what
is expressed in the MW dictionary, absolutely.
Power is power
Is that supposed to mean something? The dictionary alone has 19
definitions for power.
And that's because most of them have nothing to do with physics.
Nineteen definitions has nothing to do with the quality of the
definition of the physical quantity. Good Lord, at one time I had at
least fifty comic books that clearly stated that kryptonite was an
element, and yet those infernal chemists never listed it in the
periodic table!
and is the time
derivative of energy.
What does that mean? When using power as a measure of the rate of
doing work or transferring energy, we usually express it in terms of
wattage or horsepower.
Right, and you have no idea how "rate of" and "time derivative of" are
related, do you? And you have no idea what the definition of a watt is,
do you?
=20
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 03:07:19 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
TomGee wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
TomGee wrote:
No, Franz, you're wrong,
No, he is right.
and what you say is not supported in all those
books, even though you think it is.
You don't know what his books are, so how do you know?
My dictionary has 5 definitions of
energy, 2 of which are physics definitions.
Please tell them both, and give also the name of the
dictionary.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine, eh, Bjoern?
Energy - 4. physics power supply or source: a supply or
source
of
electrical, mechanical, or other form of power
5. physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or
system
to do
work. Symbol E
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004
Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Also:
Energy - 1. Vigorous exertion of power, 2. The capacity of
acting
or
being active, 3. The capacity for doing work, 4. Usable power
Only one of those is the technical definition used in science.
You can take up that issue with Encarta.
You take it up with them. You bought it and rely on it. I don't,
because it's definitions are not well suited to this purpose. I'm not
going to blast them for the weak definition. I'm going to blast you
for
using a kitchen knife where a crowbar is required. And I'm going to
blast you for refusing to read a real book. To be honest, I take it
as
a sign of profound laziness.
I'm not precisely sure why you sound so childish. Are you a kid trying
to fake your way through as "a professional physicist"? You have not
once posted anything resembling coherent thought, and you have made
error after error about definitions, and here you profess to know more
than the writers Encarta pays mucho bucks to.
You even trapped yourself around our issue of interdependency to where
you first denied it, then you accepted it, and finally you denied it.
You seem to be chasing your own tail. It is you who has yet to read a
real book.
"Usable power" is a colloquialism.
You can take up that issue with Merrian-Webster. Or do you profess
to
be more accurate than those two reference works?
Yup, and with a more complete understanding of physical power than
what
is expressed in the MW dictionary, absolutely.
Yes, well, that proves my point about your childishness, doesn't it?
Power is power
Is that supposed to mean something? The dictionary alone has 19
definitions for power.
And that's because most of them have nothing to do with physics.
Nineteen definitions has nothing to do with the quality of the
definition of the physical quantity. Good Lord, at one time I had at
least fifty comic books that clearly stated that kryptonite was an
element, and yet those infernal chemists never listed it in the
periodic table!
Whoa! That was quite a Freudian slip on your part, PD. It shows an
immaturity far below that necessary to earn science degree, let alone
to become a professional physicist.
and is the time
derivative of energy.
What does that mean? When using power as a measure of the rate of
doing work or transferring energy, we usually express it in terms
of
wattage or horsepower.
Right, and you have no idea how "rate of" and "time derivative of"
are
related, do you? And you have no idea what the definition of a watt
is,
do you?
So you have no idea what you meant, eh? Thought so. You have exposed
yourself for all the world to see that you are incapable of
comprehending anything more than comic book fiction. Now I regret
asking you to stay for the watermelon, but I thought for sure that
would ensure your leaving.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 12:58:46 PM |
|
|
Bjoern, I do know what books he used cause he told us. You evidently
did not understand what you read, or you mispoke due to not reading his
post. Getting a little too quick on the trigger, are we?
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
18 Mar 2005 04:45:47 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Bjoern, I do know what books he used cause he told us.
Err, where? What he said was:
"Six textbooks on mechanics, three encyclopedias and two scientific
dictionaries say I am right."
So the names of the books were not given.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 09:13:35 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
The reason why you question the above is because it is confusing.
Energy comes in various forms and it also has various definitions of
it. If we define it as the "movement of mass", we cannot also define
that as an "ability of..." in the same context because one definition
is that of a physical act while the other refers to the capacity to
perform a physical act. Do you see the difference?
Here is an unambiguous definition used in physics. Just because
you, TomGee, are confused.... Well, here you go...
Energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 09:33:24 AM |
|
|
No, it is you who is confused, Sam. Your referring of innocents to
websites shows your total incapacity to work to find specific examples
which support your dumb disagreements, Plus, it shows your inability to
explain in prose what you think, since all you can do is refer to
websites, which is no different than referring to libraries.
You obviously cannot understand that which is explained in your
websites, since they support my claims about what energy is and how it
is used. Your own websites overhrow your own stupid and ambiguous
contentions against my ideas. You could not answer Steinberg2's
question cause your itty bitty brain has no clue about what he asked.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 12:35:03 PM |
|
|
Steinberg2 wrote:
Hi, on my chemistry class, we were told about the definition below
which, i believe is correct but has an exception to it.
"Energy is the movement of mass (-the ability of movement of a mass-)
on a microscopic scale or macroscopic scale, or the capacity to
produce such movement"
Is there any exception to this definition ???
I was thinking of Light, which does not have a mass but i am not sure
about it.
The definition is not very good, but nevertheless you can apply it to
light: consider that light has "the capacity to produce movement".
Ever heard of radiation pressure?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
17 Mar 2005 08:06:59 AM |
|
|
Why is the definition not very good, Bjoern?
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition question: Energy--> Is there ANY exception To. |
16 Mar 2005 07:57:41 AM |
|
|
Steinberg2 wrote:
Hi, on my chemistry class, we were told about the definition below
which, i believe is correct but has an exception to it.
"Energy is the movement of mass (-the ability of movement of a mass-)
on a microscopic scale or macroscopic scale, or the capacity to
produce such movement"
Energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
