Talk:Energy (physics)/Archive 1

message: The phrase "This page discusses the scientific quantity called energy" is bad wiki format and also conveys that the other page is not. The other page is also about the scientific quantity called energy but more spcifically it is about the source of energy for humanity.Bensaccount 17:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguiation

message: "From the perspective of physics and thermodynamics" is unnecessary, since this is the generally accepted meaning of energy. Also since thermodynamics is the study of energy it is kind of a circular explanation. Bensaccount 17:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: (Not even attempted) See Wikipedia talk: define and describe to understand what is going on here. Bensaccount 17:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The definition

message: I removed the following because it is useless, and slightly incorrect. Some of it is also biased.
The amount of energy is determined by taking the sum of a number of special-purpose equations, each designed to quantify energy stored in a particular way. -- That is one way to do it, but not the only way, and it doesn't determine it it merely predicts it. Bensaccount 17:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless text

message: This time I will provide a reason for every edit. I am not done; this article is still really bad. Bensaccount 18:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, providing reasons for deletions is enough for me. Useful additions don't have to be explained. Andries 19:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bensaccount's edits

message: Bensaccount thinks that electromagnetic radiation is a form of kinetic energy but I don't believe it. The energy of a foton is E=hf=hc/w = planck constant*speed of light/wavelength The velocity is always the same=300,000km/s. So this can't be kinetic energy?? Andries 21:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bensaccount, your classification of electromagnetic radiation under kinetic energy is unusual. Could you please provide references for your opinion? Thanks in advance. Andries 19:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree - see also  for a very approachable discussion.  You could also think of kinetic energy as being a kind of potential energy possessed by moving bodies.  Ultimately, they are all just forms of energy, and the distinctions between different 'sorts' of energy are just ways of thinking about energy in different situations rather than hard boundaries. -- ALoan 10:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Commonly, energy is energy development, the field concerned with providing abundant and accessible energy to all humans. 
I have no idea what group of people would find this statement "common" particularly in the general population. Seems like an attempt to create an association which does not yet exist in the general population.  This statement may indeed becomme true in the near (or far) future but I do not see it as yet a part of everyday conversation or speech.  Ten or more examples may convince me however. COMPATT 20:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, this was added by Bensaccount on 18:24, 22 May 2004 (see ).  Previously, it said "This page discusses the scientific quantity called energy. For discussion of energy development for humans, see Energy development." which makes a bit more sense (this was added by Hawstom on 00:16, 18 Mar 2004 - see ).  On the whole, I think it could safely be deleted and Energy development added as a "see also". -- ALoan (Talk) 21:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Electromagnetic radiation

message: Do we really need both links or is it a link spam? abakharev 23:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unitconversion.com 

message: It seems to me that the entries on energy conversion, energy quality, energy form, and exergy all have a common theme and may benefit from greater clarification and a possible merge. Exergy aims at a quantification of an energy quality, and energy quality is merely a recognition of the different energy forms and their capacity to convert from one form or quality to another.
Sholto Maud 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge

message: How does E = mc^2 relate to the energy created by the annhilation of matter and antimatter? 62.249.242.232 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if matter and antimatter annihilate, then their energy must go somewhere because it's conserved.  So the annihilation must create some photons or other sort of product that can carry that energy off.  The products of the annihilation will carry off exactly as much energy as the matter and antimatter carried in.  That will include the mass energies mc^2.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antimatter and Energy