There is no such 'thing' as energy.

[ColinT]

"There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." Statements such as this are found in most modern physics textbooks; but is energy a 'thing'?

The material objects around us are manifest realities that have mass; but what do we mean by 'mass'? In general, it means that all objects near the Earth's surface possess weight, and also that they possess inertia. Mass is commonly defined as 'the amount of matter in a body', more accurately as 'the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration'. We can say that 'mass' is the quantification of matter that finds manifestation in weight and inertia. Both of these are observables: they can be detected, sensed, and measured; that is, quantified. They are qualities or properties of material objects that can be given a value on a scale of measurement.

Similar statements are true of motion. Generally speaking, all objects around us are either stationary or in motion relative to us, as determined by observation. Motion is also a manifest reality that can be quantified. If we know the mass and motion of an object, we can make statements and deductions about it. A tennis ball rolling along level ground will slow down and stop, whereas on a slope it will continue to move. In either case, appropriate measurements allow us to calculate the ball's motion to any desired degree of accuracy using well-established mathematical statements, and to calculate much else besides: velocity, acceleration, force of impact and so on. These properties can be called parameters of the object from the Greek para meaning beside and metron meaning measure.

Thus matter demonstrates mass, whilst radiation demonstrates motion; yet matter can also move, and radiation has an effective mass: both are fundamental components of Physical Reality.

A most useful parameter of a material object is its momentum: the product of mass and velocity: p = mv. Although derived from mass and motion, momentum is not an observable, but a concept: a calculated parameter. Neither is it a manifest reality as are mass and motion. If an object's momentum changes, it is NOT the case that momentum has been added to or subtracted from it: rather has its mass or its motion changed, and the calculated value of its momentum changes accordingly.

A similar parameter is kinetic energy. This, too, is a concept: a mathematical term naming the product of mass and the square of velocity: E = 1/2mv^2. What applies to momentum applies equally to kinetic energy, and to energy in general. It is a calculated quantity, neither an observable, nor a manifest reality. Energy cannot be added to or taken from an object; rather does it change in accord with mass, motion, position and composition. All calculation of energy requires the inclusion of a value for mass. If mass is unknown, energy cannot be calculated.

Recall now the first statement of this post, "There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." To claim that matter and radiation are both energy is to replace manifest realities with a mathematical parameter, and this surely is absurd.

It is true that all substance - sc. matter - is ultimately vibration, a contained, stationary resonance rather than the propagating vibrations of radiation; but vibration is not energy, even though it can be assigned an energetic value. In the case of electromagnetism, Planck's constant substitutes for the mechanical aspects of mass and motion: E = hf.

In spite of the foregoing, energy has proved to be one of the most valuable concepts in modern science, which is undoubtedly why it has been reified: that is, turned into a 'thing'. For more than a century, scientists have treated it as an actual physical reality instead of as a useful concept. What is needed is a new conceptual understanding of mass and motion, rather than the claim that both are composed of concepts.

For more see: http://vitency.com/npt/Ch03.html

[Valerie Villars]

Post deleted for expanding the boundaries of stupidity.

[Bill Ryan]

My suspicion is that this is about semantics. It doesn't really matter whether it's a 'thing' or not.... it depends how one defines a 'thing'.

What may be more important is that it's a reality, and it functions in certain (mainly!) predictable ways that we can utilize.

[Valerie Villars]

Thanks Bill. For calling me on something I didn't really think about. I saw the title and knew that wasn't true; I skimmed and then second thought my post.

Let me think about it some more.

Apologies to ColinT. Sincerely.

[moriarty]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
My suspicion is that this is about semantics. It doesn't really matter whether it's a 'thing' or not.... it depends how one defines a 'thing'.

What may be more important is that it's a reality, and it functions in certain (mainly!) predictable ways that we can utilize.

It's all about the definition of 'thing' - I looked it up and it confused me more

[shaberon]

I would not dismiss energy as a "concept" and exalt mass as "reality". Potential energy is infinite and undefinable, but it is the basis from which all the rest arise.

A new concept towards mass is that Relativity may be incomplete or inaccurate, with "Electric Universe" being closer to the mark. I don't foresee that science has much ability to explain the "why's", until it recognizes that consciousness is also an energy, in a causal relationship to the physical manifestations.

[OopsWrongPlanet?]

How about the possibility that it both is and isn't anything at the same time. Surely that's the whole thing about potentiality, as laid out in quantum physics. A dance between something and nothing. Nothing appearing as something etc.

Nothing to get het up over though hehe

x

[Anchor]

".....You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought."

- Trance channelling of Ra by Carla Rueckert, Jan 15, 1981.

--

Energy is not a thing.

Thoughts though... are things

[greybeard]

It seems to me that its different levels of perception.
For most this world is very real and all that exists.
Ramana Maharshi said basically ,nothing ever happened--no creation no dissolution.

Thats similar to what Anchor is saying as far as I can see.

We are the thought of God---we are the dreamer and the dream.
We are That according to Nasargadatta and other mystics.

"Events happen deeds are done but there is no individual doer there of."

However if I hit my thumb with a hammer it hurts.

That would be the same in this reality or if I am dreaming.
The pulse, heart beat, would change in dream sleep-on awakening there is no residual pain.

The same applies to enlightenment.
There is an awareness of pain but it is not owned.

So there is no energy but dont go touching live eclectic wires.

Chris

[Hervé]

If energy can be "harnessed," and follows ever unchanging physical rules... then it's a "thing," not a concept fantasy.

When "energy" is in a "potential" state, "it" is still there, untapped and unharnessed to produce "work."

"It" is define as a natural flow of particles or waves from a region of high concentration of particles/waves to a region deficient in said particles/waves.

Hence: no motion = no energy produced = a static state = prime mover, unmoved.

Also, since it is defined from 3D effects, "it" becomes a "thing" when manifested; else it's a potential "prime mover, unmoved" static.

Voilà!

[TargeT]

Energy is not a thing, it is an expression of differential comparison.

easy, right?

[O Donna]

Nothing can be discussed without making it a 'thing' in the first place. IF energy is not a thing then what is being discussed is not 'it'.

[TargeT]

Posted by O Donna (here)
Nothing can be discussed without making it a 'thing' in the first place. IF energy is not a thing then what is being discussed is not 'it'.

well, do you consider "potential" a thing? or a concept/understanding ?

[O Donna]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by O Donna (here)
Nothing can be discussed without making it a 'thing' in the first place. IF energy is not a thing then what is being discussed is not 'it'.

well, do you consider "potential" a thing? or a concept/understanding ?

"Same same but different but still same" as my last reply.

[Michelle Marie]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
My suspicion is that this is about semantics. It doesn't really matter whether it's a 'thing' or not.... it depends how one defines a 'thing'.

What may be more important is that it's a reality, and it functions in certain (mainly!) predictable ways that we can utilize.

When I saw this, I thought: "It sounds like mincing words to me."

You said the same thing in your words.

MM

[O Donna]

Posted by Michelle Marie (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
My suspicion is that this is about semantics. It doesn't really matter whether it's a 'thing' or not.... it depends how one defines a 'thing'.

What may be more important is that it's a reality, and it functions in certain (mainly!) predictable ways that we can utilize.

When I saw this, I thought: "It sounds like mincing words to me."

You said the same thing in your words.

MM

Astute observation.

Words have the unique ability of painting themselves into a corner when they remain in place, similarly to an undeleted post. The only way out is unobserved.

[ColinT]

Summary response after one week.

All physical objects are comprised of atoms. Atoms, individually or in aggregate, are called matter. All matter is visible and revealed to us by light. Some objects are so small as to be invisible to the naked eye, but microscopes can reveal them. Even individual atoms can be seen via light:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...tunning-photo/

Some objects are so distant as to be equally invisible without instrumental assistance, but in theory could be seen using a sufficiently powerful telescope. There may be a finite limit to this, perhaps the Hubble limit.

All motion is visible and revealed to us by light. It requires two or more observations separated by intervals of time. Some motion is so rapid as to be indiscernible, but is also amenable to instrumental detection, as in the case of strobe lighting. Some is so slow as to require extended periods of observation.

Thus matter and motion are the two fundamental observables of Physical Reality. Light is invisible: we cannot see light, only those objects which emit or reflect it. Matter, motion and light - more generally radiation - existing within space and time comprise Physical Reality.

Energy, momentum, power and so forth are invisible. They always have been and will be because they are not observables: not physically real. They are concepts within the minds of Men, useful in describing and explaining the manifest phenomena of the Physical Realm, but not a part of it.

Those who insist that such concepts are 'things' - manifest realities - are incapable of differentiating between physical reality and imagination, and so live in delusions of their own creating. This insistence is modern mysticism, part of the religion of Scientism that Modern Western Science has become.

The greater the delusion, the greater the anger, arrogance, conceit and conviction of the deluded, as plainly evidenced by many replies on other forums.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ColinT (here)
Energy, momentum, power and so forth are invisible. They always have been and will be because they are not observables: not physically real. They are concepts within the minds of Men, useful in describing and explaining the manifest phenomena of the Physical Realm, but not a part of it.

Those who insist that such concepts are 'things' - manifest realities - are incapable of differentiating between physical reality and imagination, and so live in delusions of their own creating. This insistence is modern mysticism, part of the religion of Scientism that Modern Western Science has become.

The greater the delusion, the greater the anger, arrogance, conceit and conviction of the deluded, as plainly evidenced by many replies on other forums.

Hey, thanks for the interesting discussion. Genuinely appreciated and respected.

But I still think this is about semantics. Sure, "Energy, momentum, power and so forth are invisible." One can't SEE them. But they're not UNDETECTABLE. Their reality can be inferred. Just like Gravity.

And in almost all cases, the very reliable mathematical models are well-understood. That's how come engineers can build bridges that (usually!) stay up, and we can land spacecraft on the Moon and Mars.

Telepathy isn't visible. And it's certainly not a 'thing', either. That is, it's absolutely not a material 'object'. But its reality can be demonstrated: both subjectively, and also statistically in numerous well-controlled experiments over the decades.

Psychokinesis, too. No physical mechanism has ever been proposed, but the experiments devised by Robert Jahn at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab show it's a reality to all but the most skeptical.

All these functionalities are a little like software. (And here, one could make a bold leap sideways to the "computer simulation universe" hypothesis.) On the device you're using to read this, you can see the predictable results of the actions you take, but you can't see the mechanisms that make it all work. But software is very REAL.

And invisible? Yes, of course, unless one has the high-tech means to actually observe it in action, as one might do with an electron microscope focused on a silicon chip. So, is software a 'thing'? Well... it just depends what you mean.

[DNA]

I'm watching this video on Billy Meier and his contacts.

At 1:03:00 in the video it is touched on that humans should concentrate on the electrons of matter as a much more viable source for energy than is presently being employed.

It's a good video, a little earlier in the video he touches on the idea of ascension and says this is not going to happen (ala David Wilcock) that basically we reach a state of incarnating into light bodies but we are billions of years away from this in our reincarnational evolution.

And I always wondered why I was told by Wilcock's moderators I wasn't allowed to mention Billy Meier when I posted (very briefly) on David Wilcock's forum.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZbiA_SiN6fU

[PurpleLama]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1208085/pg1

Same posts, word for word, from the OP, here. I don't know if this is of any interest.