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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

:focus:

[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/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-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]

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. :highfive:

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn) at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab)) 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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102459-Linda-Moulton-Howe-Are-we-living-in-a-holographic-simulation&highlight=simulation).) 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. :silent:



http://www.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.

[Bo Atkinson]

Agreed about semantics/ meanings/ ontology/ …

I take credibility-risks, tirelessly uprooting my collected learnings. I love extensively comprehensive books or ideas, where whole systems are promised. I have finally read through my first 20 hours of Hylozoics and offer an excerpt using some words relevant to the thread.

From http://www.laurency.com/
1.26 Material Energy
1Energy in the scientific sense is matter in motion. All higher kinds of matter (atomic kinds, molecular kinds) are energy in relation to all lower kinds.
2Matter does not dissolve into energy, but into higher matter.
3When matter ceases to move, its quality of being energy ceases.
4All forces of nature are matter. There are more than 2400 different kinds of forces of nature
within the solar system. Every molecular kind contains 49 different layers of matter, which can all act as energy.
1.27 The Cosmic Motion
1The cosmic motion (in the 49 atomic kinds) is the result of a constant current of primordial atoms (primary matter) flowing down from the highest atomic world through the atoms of all the worlds unto the lowest world, then returning to the highest world to begin their circulation anew, and this continuing as long as the existence of the lower worlds is necessary. There are two kinds of atoms: negative and positive. In the negative (receptive) atoms, material energy flows from a higher atomic kind to a lower one; in the positive (propulsive) atoms, from a lower to a higher one. This current is the force that maintains the atoms, molecules, material aggregates in their given forms. As a result, all atoms in all worlds, and consequently all molecules and aggregates, radiate material energy, in doing which the aggregate always in some respect communicates something of its individual character. Therefore, every aggregate emits specialized energy.
2Vibrations are the result of higher kinds of matter penetrating lower kinds. This fact has given rise to the saying that everything consists of vibrations.
(http://www.laurency.com)

I like to map ‘things’ out for my mind’s eye and this one needs a Hylozoic follow up…( from my web blogs)…http://harmoniouspalette.com/projectiveperspective.jpg

[petra]

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

I'm pretty sure energy has mass too. A quick google search says light doesn't have mass, but I'm not talking about light! Consider with a battery. Used up batteries weigh a LOT less than ones which are full of energy. If you were to look that one up, you'd find much debate - but personally I can tell the difference between a full battery and an empty one just by lifting it.




Energy is not a thing.

Thoughts though... are things :)

Everything is a "thing", silly

That's why it's called EveryThing =)

[Bill Ryan]

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.

Yes. What Colin's doing is copying sections from his free online book, and posting them to both ATS and here.


http://vitency.com

[Chris]

I think you might find some answers in David Wilcock's work. I've read some of his books and I am now watching his Wisdom Teachings TV series. He actually goes into quite a lot of detail regarding this issue. From what I understand and also my own experiences, it would appear that we will have to resurrect the notion of aether. There appears to be some sort of aetheric substance that makes up the visible universe and every observable phenomenon is basically a form of motion in this transfer medium, which appears to be fluidic in nature. Energy in this framework would be movement in fluid. So you have various waves and vortices. A particle is a standing wave in fluid, the vibration creates a simple geometric pattern which then forms more complex geometric patterns called atoms, molecules, DNA molecules, living cells, living organisms and so forth. Galaxies, planets, even living things are spinning vortices in fluid, like a tornado or a sea current. This actually explains the chakras and kundalini as well. What we perceive as energy is simply movement. The faster it spins or vibrates, the higher the energy state and temperature. That is why when Yogis meditate heat is generated, sometimes immense heat, a function of how fast they can make their chakras and Kundalini spin and vibrate. The more energy or in other words motion they can generate, the higher the temperature.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Science is the study of the observable. Sometimes the observation is inferred based upon past conclusions and theory. So, for instance, neutrinos cannot be seen or observed but have been detected based on the theory of energy exchange.

Much of theoretical science is merely the plumbing of current scientific models - getting in there and really testing in minute detail, using mostly mathematics, to determine the validity or extend the range of scientific models.

Hands on observations require fundamental understanding of the observed. Observational science often precedes the theory, however, so that is why so many discoveries have been made accidentally by scientists. They were running experiments that had unexpected results, and got lucky.

Often the best machines are thought up by scientists and theorists but it takes the genius of an engineer to actually bring it to market. You simply cannot escape the hands on part - the dirty part.

Getting stuck on "things" is not very helpful. A thing is a concept. All concepts are valid. It is the model, the theory, the context, that determines which things are intrinsic and which are composite and reducible to other concepts.

Energy is not understood, apart from the names for it. All energy has mass, all mass has energy, they are interchangeable and therefore not separate entities.

What is real? What do you define as real? If I am "real" then energy is also very much real. Neither is it imagined - not here in this contextual place.

Separate me from my body and if I remain sentient I might start rethinking what is real and what is truly a thing.

Nice to have you on board, Colin, Chris. :sun:

[Valerie Villars]

I think you might find some answers in David Wilcock's work. I've read some of his books and I am now watching his Wisdom Teachings TV series. He actually goes into quite a lot of detail regarding this issue. From what I understand and also my own experiences, it would appear that we will have to resurrect the notion of aether. There appears to be some sort of aetheric substance that makes up the visible universe and every observable phenomenon is basically a form of motion in this transfer medium, which appears to be fluidic in nature. Energy in this framework would be movement in fluid. So you have various waves and vortices. A particle is a standing wave in fluid, the vibration creates a simple geometric pattern which then forms more complex geometric patterns called atoms, molecules, DNA molecules, living cells, living organisms and so forth. Galaxies, planets, even living things are spinning vortices in fluid, like a tornado or a sea current. This actually explains the chakras and kundalini as well. What we perceive as energy is simply movement. The faster it spins or vibrates, the higher the energy state and temperature. That is why when Yogis meditate heat is generated, sometimes immense heat, a function of how fast they can make their chakras and Kundalini spin and vibrate. The more energy or in other words motion they can generate, the higher the temperature.

Chris, I actually understood that explanation so thanks. I have a hard time bending my mind around most scientifically explained physics. The more complex, the more my eyes roll back in my head.

[Chris]

I agree, Valerie. The more I study this, the more I find that traditional explanations of how the universe works and what it's made up of are needlessly complicated and are generally just stabs in the dark. The beauty of this new physics, which has mostly been developed by Russian scientists, unbeknownst to most Westerners, is its simplicity. It turns out we don't need higher dimensions, exotic particles, dark matter or energy, vibrating strings, parallel universes, etc... All observable phenomena can be explained by vibrating patterns in a fluidic medium, which then create more complex patterns through geometry. This is where sacred geometry, numerology and astrology comes in and suddenly becomes fully explainable by science. It also explains things like telepathy, quantum non-locality, time travel, antigravity and faster than light travel. Once this becomes mainstream I think we can expect a melding of science and spirituality as they become one and the same.