Re: Physics without energy

mobydikc_at_gmail.com
Date: 09/08/04 

Date: 7 Sep 2004 20:14:21 -0700

Eric Gisse wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2004 14:43:23 -0700, mobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland)
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >> > The
> >> > description of the system on the fewest principles, here just
matter,
> >> > space, and time, should be the perfered description.
> >>
> >> Why do you single out "matter, space and time" as basic
principles?
> >>
> >> And how does the above help us e.g. to say how much energy a lamp
> >> will use?
> >
> >You can do this the same way you do it now. My point is that work,
> >force, energy, power, all these things can be deduced from simpler
> >principles.
>
> [snip]
>
> W = Fd
> F = ma
> E = .5mv^2
> P = E/t
>
> Classically, at least. You can rearrange these into modern notation
> using integrals, derivatives, and reformulate using special
> relativity.
>
> Show how these concepts can be derived from simpler principles than
> Newton's laws.

But that's exactly what you've done by listing these formulas.

If we assume that there is space and matter can exist in it, and the
state of the system changes with time, then you take a mass, and change
its position (so that you have velocity) and then change its position
to an even greater magnitude (so that you have acceleration) and now
the combination between mass and acceleration gives you force.

We can do the same to get energy. The point is, I can build a model
that doesn't include energy at the ground level. In our current
understanding we say that energy is the capacity to do work. You often
hear that a certain amount of energy is required to do something.

Show me the part of the formula that says that energy is required.

This formula is open to interpretation.

Consider the possibility that energy may be present when work is
performed, but that it is not required as a prerequisite of of the
work. Instead it is a by-product.

If correct, then to actually model nature, we don't need to include
"energy" as any kind of consitutent of the model. If built correctly,
energy should be a by-product of the functioning model.

> Again and again you insist on having people think in a new way, and
> again and again when you are asked to show us your new physics in a
> predictive way - you sigh away! WHY?

Predictive?

You know that nearly everything that can be predicted is already
predicted by a theory.

The reason I suggest these ways of thinking is because there is no
theory of everything that works and I don't think challenging our
assumptions hurts our chances of getting a full working model of
nature.
And I find it interesting; and I get interesting responses here.