# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What is energy?The new version.  (Read 3241 times)

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### What is energy?The new version.
« on: 06/12/2011 14:31:48 »
Gravitational stream through object similar to the jet engine, is energy.Huge gravitational stream freezes time of object.Gravitational stream is real and is not relative.Braking of object is not simple because then you should stop or redirect current of the gravitational river.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #1 on: 08/12/2011 22:04:23 »
I'm guessing that you see 'gravity' as being the same for all observers Simplified? Like if I pick a point in space (and time) and then measure my 'weight', it will be the same for anyone observing, no matter their speed relative me, or what gravity they do it from.

You might have a problem there, different observers will give that 'point' different locations inside SpaceTime, so my definition of a location in space and time, might not tally with yours. That is, if you accept that time dilations and Lorentz contractions exist?

And with that we need first to agree on 'where' and 'when' you measure. To do that you can use Lorentz transformations, but they are all conceptual, not the direct measurements the observers can do themselves.

So if you're looking for a 'invariant' definition, same for all observers, I don't think gravity cuts it.

#### CliffordK

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 6321
• Thanked: 3 times
• Site Moderator
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #2 on: 08/12/2011 22:51:39 »
I thought Gravity was a Force. usually denoted with m/s2

Energy requires additional units, generally with a force moving mass through a distance, or: Joules = kg*m*(m/s2)

Note, the gravity may be higher at the bottom of Death Valley than the top of Mt. Everest.  However, the potential energy of a mass on Earth at the top of Mt. Everest would be higher than a similar mass at the bottom of Death Valley.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #3 on: 10/12/2011 08:17:02 »
I'm guessing that you see 'gravity' as being the same for all observers Simplified? Like if I pick a point in space (and time) and then measure my 'weight', it will be the same for anyone observing, no matter their speed relative me, or what gravity they do it from.

You might have a problem there, different observers will give that 'point' different locations inside SpaceTime, so my definition of a location in space and time, might not tally with yours. That is, if you accept that time dilations and Lorentz contractions exist?

And with that we need first to agree on 'where' and 'when' you measure. To do that you can use Lorentz transformations, but they are all conceptual, not the direct measurements the observers can do themselves.

So if you're looking for a 'invariant' definition, same for all observers, I don't think gravity cuts it.
Time dilations and Lorentz contractions are not relative.My observers have no contradiction.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #4 on: 10/12/2011 10:08:19 »
I thought Gravity was a Force. usually denoted with m/s2

Energy requires additional units, generally with a force moving mass through a distance, or: Joules = kg*m*(m/s2)

Note, the gravity may be higher at the bottom of Death Valley than the top of Mt. Everest.  However, the potential energy of a mass on Earth at the top of Mt. Everest would be higher than a similar mass at the bottom of Death Valley.
Moving of mass grasps a stream of gravitation. Then the stream of gravitation saves this moving.
Pipe between various levels of pressure of air creates movement of air in the pipe.Mass can create gravitational stream between various levels of gravitational field.It creates pressure or energy.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #5 on: 11/12/2011 02:06:01 »
Well, then you're using a different definition of Relativity than Einstein, or maybe creating your very own. If you do you better tell what your definitions of a time dilation and Lorentz contraction is. Not being relative the observer you will have to disqualify the definitions we have of 'c' being a constant as that is where the whole idea comes from. 'c' makes for time dilations, relative different observer comparing 'events'. Lorentz contractions follows from that in explaining what we expect the observer 'relatively moving' to observe from his 'frame of reference'.

They are mirrors of each other, in Relativity.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2011 02:07:48 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #6 on: 11/12/2011 04:41:35 »
And no Clifford. In Newtonian physics you can call it a force, but in Einsteins universe it is explained as a geometry, as in the curvature of SpaceTime, coupled to mass/acceleration (and 'energy').

Gravity as in a constantly uniformly accelerating rocket must then become a description of how the 'SpaceTime' locally adapts to the acceleration. And a acceleration is a very local effect, easy to prove in its local expression of 'gravity'. Whereas all 'uniform motion', as when the rocket engine turns off, is a 'relative' expression created in the comparison relative something else, defining a 'velocity/speed' relative that.

To see the difference, think about a black box scenario in where you have a light source in the front of the room, in the motion of the rocket, and a detector in the aft.

In a acceleration that light inside the room will blue shift as it 'gravitates' to the detector, just as falling from the sky towards a detector on Earths surface.

In a uniform motion, no matter how fast you define it to be relative something else (as the stars outside that ship) the light inside that black box/ closed room won't blue or red shift. That the stars light blue-shift relative your motion is not an absolute measure of 'speed', different stars will blue-shift differently relative your motion, and at the aft of your rockets motion they will red-shift. And the same goes for the cosmic background radiation, it can't either be described as a ultimate definition of something being 'still' relative any other 'motion'.

But we have being 'at rest' relative something else, as you are relative Earth. And the fact that intrinsically, well sort of, inside that black box, all uniform motions becomes the exact same, and so 'at rest' with each other if we stop defining a 'motion' relative something else. That's what Einstein introduced that revolutionized the way to look at it, 'Black Box scenarios', amongst other things.

It's also noteworthy to remind that when light is measured locally inside that spaceship it will only give one speed, no matter if the ship is accelerating or not, 'c'.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2011 06:27:07 by yor_on »

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #7 on: 11/12/2011 14:51:48 »
I see this thread is called "the new version".
Could someone plaese tell me what was wrong with the old version?

#### YG

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #8 on: 11/12/2011 20:32:02 »
Well, the definition of terms is what the professional community is in agreement about. For example physicists agreed to use the term energy to define an object's ability to carry out, or to be converted in, work. It is just an agreement: "Let us use the term ENERGY as....". As the Bored Chemist indicated indirectly, there is nothing wrong with this old and agreed definition. As to the one proposed here, it is not equivalent to the traditional one and, thereby, just cannot not be used as a synonym to the term "Energy". It is like proposing to use, say, the word potato to talk about, say, neutrino... Potato is potato and neutrino is neutrino

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #9 on: 12/12/2011 16:48:16 »
I see this thread is called "the new version".
Could someone plaese tell me what was wrong with the old version?
Can the old version show a formula of energy of neutrinos with speed >c ?

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 25
##### Re: What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #10 on: 21/12/2011 23:11:18 »
I thought Gravity was a Force. usually denoted with m/s2

Energy requires additional units, generally with a force moving mass through a distance, or: Joules = kg*m*(m/s2)

Note, the gravity may be higher at the bottom of Death Valley than the top of Mt. Everest.  However, the potential energy of a mass on Earth at the top of Mt. Everest would be higher than a similar mass at the bottom of Death Valley.

Yes gravity is a force.  Potential energy increases as the height increases.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: What is energy?The new version.
« Reply #10 on: 21/12/2011 23:11:18 »