The first thing we have to clarify is whether energy is a physical object. The idiots of Mathematics are
    still struggling with what appears to be a straight forward issue. You wonder what kind of eyes the
    mathematicians have that allows them to see and transfer energy.

    Davies tells us that:

    " the energy of the photon refers to a particle" (p. 91) [1]
    If energy is a genuine physical object, the scientific experiment to test this assertion is simple. The
    mathematicians should be able to illustrate or make a movie of this admittedly finite entity. Then and
    only then can we conceptualize two or more locations of energy. If energy is discrete – has a
    perimeter – what does it look like when it is not moving? Clearly, the word energy does not represent
    ‘something’ that has shape and can be illustrated in a still image.

    The mathematician will probably agree that he cannot draw a picture of energy and he will probably
    also concede that energy does not have shape and is therefore not a physical object. However, he
    brushes aside these objections as ‘philosophy’ and continues rambling like a fool. He talks about the
    energy he has within him that give him vigor and about transferring energy packets from the fire to the
    pot. He has been brought up on energy since he was a kid. He will not relinquish the concept without
    a fight.

    Indeed, every person out there casually treats the word energy as a physical object. Why are you
    tired? Because I have no energy. Why are you working out? To increase my energy. Why do you eat
    and sleep? To recover my energy. What do we call that department that ensures you can put fuel in
    your car? The Department of Energy. The word energy is so much a part of our ordinary speech that
    it is hardly conceivable that we could do without it.

    Unfortunately, I need to destroy this ubiquitous, all-explaining word because it interferes with
    communication and understanding in science. We cannot understand why something happens if we
    continue to use the word energy to explain the phenomenon. Specifically, I need to utterly destroy the
    idiotic notion of Mathematical Physics that energy is a physical object. No self-respecting scientist
    should confuse energy with an object. Indeed, no self-respecting scientist should use the word energy
    in Science.So I repeat: energy does not have form, cannot be illustrated, and is beyond imagination.

    Some diehards still have doubts...

    " An individual bundle or packet of energy, called a quantum... behaves in some
      situations much like particles of matter" [2]

    So I borrow Einstein’s famous relativistic equation (E = mc² ) to convince them of the error of their
    ways.Let’s identify each factor in this equation with its ordinary grammatical equivalent, which
    requires that we classify all of them as nouns:

    noun        =       noun     *              noun

           energy       =       mass     *       (velocity of light)²

    Something doesn’t seem right. Can a noun be equal to a noun times another noun? Can a horse be
    equal to head times legs? Would it make any sense to multiply heads times tails in Physics? What
    this ‘qualitative' equation tells us is that energy is like the term ‘running horse’, a noun and a verb
    synthesized into a single word. Assuming mass is a noun and velocity (motion) is a verb, what
    meaning would the concept noun-verb have in Physics? A horse times running does not a physical
    object make. A simple example illustrates my point further. Assume that you receive an order for 50
    units and the following equation at your robot factory:

             noun      =      noun   +      noun      +             noun       +         noun

                                  robot     =      head   +       torso     +      (2  *  arms)    +    (2  *  legs)

    The production line can determine the number of parts it needs to fulfill the order because every factor
    in this equation is a physical object. But, what would the factory build if we sent the following equation?

               verb   =    verb    *      verb

              jump   =     run     *      walk²

    Are we talking about a rabbit, a kangaroo, or a cricket? What should the factory build? What parts
    should it order?

    We can see with these examples that Mathematics is a far cry from Physics. Mathematics deals with
    jumps and walks while Physics deals with robots and legs. The ultimate subject under study in
    Physics cannot be a concept. It must necessarily be an object. To make matters worse, the other two
    components of Einstein’s equation – mass and velocity of light – are not objects either. Not one of the
    three place holders in the relativistic equation (energy, mass, and little c) represents a noun for the
    purposes of Physics. First and foremost, Physics is the study of physical objects. Without a shape in
    front of us, we can do no Physics or carry out any experiments. In contrast, Mathematics has no use
    for physical objects or geometric figures. Math is absolutely not the language of Physics! If energy is
    not a physical object, it has nothing at all to do with Physics.

    So what are relativists talking about? What is this ghost called energy that they transfer, quantify, and   
    can’t destroy? What is this energy stuff that increases during Special Relativity's mass increase
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Energy is NOT a physical
Yeah boss! I stacked all
them energy packets,
one on top of the other,
just like you told me.
Energetic Bill
working overtime to gain the trust of
special relativists

    Pages in this module:


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008