What is energy?
>the ability to do work
What is work?
>the ability to transfer energy
Why are physics definitions so circular?
What is energy? >the ability to do work What is work? >the ability to transfer energy Why are physics definitions so circular?
What is OP?
>A homosexual
Why is he a homosexual?
>He is OP
It was a fricking question for years and solved by Einstein. E=mc^2
Sorry you forgot, my fren
>What is energy?
a made-up property that is defined to always be conserved, and the conservation of itself makes a lot of math easier. its impossible to actually measure the energy of something, you have to measure other properties or interactions and use some formulas (that we invented).
>a made-up property that is defined to always be conserved, and the conservation of itself makes a lot of math easier. its impossible to actually measure the energy of something, you have to measure other properties or interactions and use some formulas (that we invented).
This is what I learned in highschool Physics 11 (basic kinematics, potential energy etc. w/o any calculus) and I didnt do any physics at university, but I have mentioned it to STEM people and at least two faculty and they have acted like it is just insane to believe that "matter and energy" don't both exist in the "same way."
stem people in physics or outside? most people in stem have massive dunning kruger outside their fields
>stem people in physics or outside? most people in stem have massive dunning kruger outside their fields
One was a biology PhD, he also failed to understand the joke "biologists are stamp collectors" (told to me by a Chemist) until I explained it, so prob. not the sharpest tool in the shed.
i dont get it
>"matter and energy" don't both exist in the "same way."
its because they are defined equal in the Einstein equation E = mc2
>basic kinematics, potential energy etc. w/o any calculus
so "physics" that was outdated over 300 years ago. got it.
You could just think of it instead as "change". How much energy a system has will necessarily determine how much change can occur within that system. Hence ability to do work, and work is the transfer of energy, which is what change over time is.
Energy as we often use it is just some change in a given space over some span of time. The more something can be changed, hence worked on or transfer energy in that time, the more energy it had by definition. It really is as simple as "changes in space over time". It is a relationship. The less space is changed in a given time the less energy, and interaction wise "the less mass is changed", but mass is just energy in a given space.
So not "made up" nor is it merely to "make math easier". That it is only measured by interaction is not somehow an issue, because a system without change could not be said to have energy at all and vice verse.
Work isn't an ability, it's the product of using an ability.
>Why are physics definitions so circular?
because definitions are just axioms, and axioms are circular.
you can't study set theory without first order logic, but you can't study first order logic without set theory. the only "solution" is to choose one to tackle first and employ intuitive understandings of the other to define it.
but what the hell, I'm talking to a clueless frogposter on a board of clueless Black folk
>you can't study set theory without first order logic, but you can't study first order logic without set theory.
this just isn't true. I studies first order logic without set theory. Why wouldn't you be able to do that?
Because the why questions are left to philosopy because scientists like to cope about not knowing the true nature of the world by saying stuff like "science only describes what happens, not why it happens". Which is so boring. And that is why we must allow philosopy on IQfy
HIROOOOOOO CHANGE IQfy TO MATHS, PHILOSOPY AND SCIENCE
Hiro, mod this man.
HIROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hiro give this man a fields medal.
>philosophy explains the "why"
>ok so why is basically every philosopher in history in contradiction with anyone else?
>uhhhhhhhhhh.....
midwits who have never thought about anything past surface level, I swear...
Hiro ban this man
postmodernists ruined it by telling everyone philosophy is about making your own truth
if philosphy had the answer already, then it would be a solved field, dummy. the whole point of the field is for "why" questions, doesn't mean the people practicing it are anywhere near the truth at all.
objective: calculate trajectory of a ball
17th century scientist: ok, here's the number up to 2 decimals
18th century scientist: ok, here's the number up to 5 decimals
19th century scientist: ok, here's the number up to 10 decimals
20th century scientist: ok, here's an even better approximation and up to arbitrarily large decimals
objective: meaning of life
2nd century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
5th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
8th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
11th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
13th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
17th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
18th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
19th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
20th century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
21st century philosopher: uhhhhhhhhhhh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh
American
not american, I simply didn't fall for your endless word tricks that lead nowhere
Well, western philosophy is pretty straight forward. From Socrates to Plato to Aristotle, and (arguably) eventually to St. Thomas Aquinas, all building upon eachother. It's just that some topics tend to be debated in the philosophical communities, just as in any real-life scientific communities, some topics tend to be debated a lot.
Hiro
Cmon hiro you gotta do it
Hiro make this happen
How many "why" questions has philosophy solved so far? Name at least one.
Why is another why not a solution?
What is truth? What is a number? It’s impossible to define number without using the idea of a number in your definition, yet you still know that 1 + 1 is 2. It’s impossible to define truth without using truth, it’s impossible to define what a “thing” is without using an idea of a thing in your definition.
energy is movement... or "change"... the thing is, those dictionary definitions dont really matter, you are supposed to follow the curricula and do the tasks anon like everyone else and then you can act like a c**t here where everyone else who didnt think deeply about it also congregate; in any case your understanding will increase or your ability to solve problems which is what you want right?
>What is energy?
>>the ability to do work
no physicist defines energy this way
Last I heard it was something about the symmetry of quantum fields. Charge being some sort of continuous symmetry, and Spin being discrete. Whatever that means.
>to do work
just means motion, think of energy as cosmic motion, the spiral
Energy: Perpetual motion of elementary particles, constrained by a container or force.
Work: Channeling elementary particles in a particular direction.