I have not read through every post in this thread, but as I was reading along some of the discussion, I ran past this line and I just wanted to comment on it on the side:
Quote:
Energy is transmitted by waves and waves interact.
|
Energy isn't transmitted by waves.
Waves are a categorical family of energies which refer to a transfer of motion unique to the classification.
It may seem as though I'm stating the same thing, but the difference is in the implied concept.
In stating that energy is transmitted by waves, I would be implying that the energy is separate from the wave - as if it were a metaphorical bottle on an ocean wave.
But this isn't the case; energy is only a description of actionable exchange.
It is not a thing unto itself.
It would be as if I were to write the following:
Voices are transmitted by people and people interact. Those interactions are known as singing in cadence.
In this comparison, it is more easy to clearly understand that a voice is not a thing unto itself, but an extension of the latter: people.
Further, it is clear that the interactions of the providers of the voices are not inherently in cadence, nor called such a thing.
It is called vocalizing - to include all of the forms.
Cadence - specifically, identical cadence, is when two or more people produce voices which have the same oration, tone, pitch, inflection, and rhythm.
With a mind on the example, when we flip back over to the actual statement:
Energy is transmitted by waves and waves interact. Those interaction are known as interference patterns.
Begins to create basic conflicts.
First being that there are other forms of wave interactions than interference, just as there are other types of human interactions than, "in cadence".
Interference is one specific form of interaction which describes the constituent behavior of two or more waves which are equals or equal opposites in their description.
Second, then, is the first of this post: that a wave is not energy, nor energy an object. Energy is a description of action of objects.
Third, is that a wave is not an object, but a categorical description of events.
Exhaust from a car is similar; for convention, we call it such, but this does not account for what is taking place specifically at all.
It is only a vague classification based on the most basic similarity in action between all forms being compared.
The chemical exchanges in jet fuel exhaust and lawn mower exhaust are not alike.
The conceptual model of exchange is similar; in the same way we compare the concept, "running".
If a bear is running and I am running, then we are both running.
But we are not doing so in like fashion.
The phrase is relative to the system which is producing the action, and not universal in application.
Likewise, one wave from one source producing a wave is not akin to another wave from another source producing this second wave.
It is a bit amiss to think of the universe as either energy or waves, as that is akin to thinking of people as but words or body movements.
As such, when we get to:
With a mind to the above, then we arrive at a thought that everything cannot be energy since energy is not an object of any kind, but a category of vaguely similar actions of exchange, to each system uniquely.
Instead, everything provides energy because everything has its means of exchange.
It is that each exchange is of its constituents' capacity of integrity and therefore there is the capability of equaling in measure a concept of that actionable value into a given network.
By way of example.
If I play an human audible tone, the tone will cause a propagation of motion physically within the air concussively.
It will reach the hair cells of the human ear and cause minute motion which will in turn cause a specific chemical release.
The threshold of hearing is consequently based on the degree of that which pushes the filament (hair) over far enough to cause a bend which will produce the chemical release - somewhat like a dam.
If, then, I produce two perfectly acceptable human audible tones, but the second is the equal opposite frequency (repetition of action) of the first, then the motion that will move through the air concussively and reach the ear will be that which moves the filament in equally opposing directions.
Thereby, the filament will not move; the chemicals will not be released, the neurotransmission and subsequent processing will not be conducted; no sound will be heard.
Meanwhile, if I play the same exact tone over itself, then the motion that will move through the air concussively and reach the ear will be of two counts of the same motion.
Therefore, the filament will react to two counts of the same motion, but will do so simultaneously.
This then will cause the filament to react more to the sound than if only either tone arrived singularly; the filament will bend more; the chemicals released will be in higher count as a consequence (like a dam); the sound heard will be, "louder".
However, these are not examples of energy as an object.
These are examples of objects interacting upon each other by consequential motion that is systemically permitted, restricted, and defined.
We refer to the amount of motion B that can be accomplished from condition A providing motion A as, "energy".
Or, as it is so inadequately, yet classically, stated:
The quantity of ability to do "work".
(Now, if I could rate all of our employees by this definition...there'd be some that would be anti-matter humans.
)