Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021[edit]

The link of Newton's Principia Mathematica in 'History' section is directing to Whitehead/B. Rusell's work of similar name. Please change it to Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Cesarhernandez1967 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done SpinningSpark 21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021[edit]

Change the dimension from " M L2 T−2 " to "{{dimension|kg=1|m=2|s=-2|A=|K=|mol=|cd=}}" Denoyelle Fabien (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, there is no such template. Are you suggesting creation of such a template to format dimensional analysis expressions? I'm not sure such a thing is needed since plain markup will probably be more compact than populating the fields of a template. SpinningSpark 14:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why exactly is this article locked? (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the protection log. SpinningSpark 16:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weird that an article about energy would get vandalism, but the log does state that it has been a constant problem. Thank you very much for answering my question.  :) (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every topic that is widely taught in school classrooms gets the same problem. Not all schools have good control over their pupil's internet use. SpinningSpark 17:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Economic as a social science subject it does not have a specific definition (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of capitals at the start of sentences on the table[edit]

The lack of capital letters at the start of each section of text in the table is bothering me, however I can't see how to edit said table as when I click on the pencil icon the text from the table is not displayed. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's transcluded from Template:Forms of energy. By the way, I don't think it was such a good idea to capitalise "joule" in the infobox. That's a sentence fragment, not a sentence, and it would be better to show the correct capitalisation for this unit name rather than correct sentence capitalisation. Compare Power (physics). It's actually abnormal to construct a sentence that starts with a unit name. SpinningSpark 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

any additional energy (of any form) acquired by an object will increase its mass[edit]

"Due to mass–energy equivalence, any object that has mass when stationary (called rest mass) also has an equivalent amount of energy whose form is called rest energy, and any additional energy (of any form) acquired by the object above that rest energy will increase the object's total mass just as it increases its total energy."

Will a space ship increase in mass if it gains potential energy when raised from one circular orbit to a higher, slower circular orbit? Darsie42 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most likely not! Its increased potential energy will be achieved by converting energy of some other form, so the total energy of the space ship might remain the same. Dolphin (t) 01:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that the energy would be considered to be stored in the gravitational field itself. In general relativity, spacetime has self-interaction. For example, it is possible to create a black hole from gravitational waves alone; the black hole would have mass and thus energy. However, I'm not sure if people really talk about it, since energy in GR is not well defined. I'm speaking as a layman on the topic so take what I say with a grain of salt. BirdValiant (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article's lede; expansion re light[edit]

Spinningspark's recent edit summary asserts that "light is a form of energy," but it's more precise to say light, as we ordinarily encounter it, is a form of electromagnetic energy. A reminder: this article's header indicates the topic relates to scalar physical quantities, and the article itself details various subtopics including thermodynamic energy kinetic energy, potential energy, gravitational energy, elastic energy, chemical energy, but details little regarding "radiant energy carried by light". I'm ill-equipped to expand this article in a manner that cites descriptions of light beyond that vernacular given in this article (and in the Light article), but I'm personally undecided whether light is energy per se or whether light is an agent affected by gravitational energy and capable only of (a) refraction, (b) absorption, (c) both, or (d) neither in a hypothetical vacuum of space.

In a nutshell, the current lede is intended to provide three items – i.e., work, heat, and light – that exemplify readily comprehended types of energy, assuming light indeed is a form of energy, as is currently debated by mainstream physicists. Point of trivia: Cutting-edge quantum physicists have postulated that light is not energy per se but instead is capable of producing energy via quantum entanglement. Yet, once again, this article is about ordinary scalar physics, not the Theory of everything; so, describing light as energy seems fine within this article's ambit. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table, listing kinds of energy, falsely indicates that Sound Energy *doesn't* exist in solids![edit]

The speed of sound in steel, copper, etc, as Wikipedia articles explicitly-state, is *drastically* faster than it is in air, and both of those are crystalline-solids.

Please remove the "in fluid" term from the Sound energy row, correctly replacing that with "in matter", which IS correct

( pressure-waves propagate within our local star, so plasma can carry 'em, and if they can also travel through solid-crusts on neutron-stars, then they can travel through whatever the hell that stuff should be called, too!  : )

( : (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made the change. Wikipedia articles on sound don't clearly differentiate between "sound" as the term is used in physics and "sound" referring what and how ears hear. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022[edit]

Hi, I would like to propose an edit so it would make the concept of energy easier for people to understand. I believe this is an accurate description of energy, and it would help people understand physics better.

'In physics, energy is a quantitative property intrinsic to anything that is able to interact in the universe. The energy of an object is its capability of producing a force that can do work and also its capability of transferring heat. When an object does work on another object, the former’s energy (its capability of doing work) decreases and the latter’s energy increases, by transferring it.'

The start of this text would be at the very top, and the end of it would stop right before [Energy is conserved quantity]

Let me know what you think and feel free use a modified version of this. Thank you for reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElskverdigHug (talkcontribs)

 Not done: Hello! This would definitely be something to get some kind of consensus about before opening an edit request. I've gone ahead and marked the template as answered so as to lower our queue of requested edits. This is not a denial of the suggestion, nor a formal closure of discussion, or anything like that. Feel free to come to my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another form of energy: Biochemical[edit]

I think Biochemical should be added as another form of energy. It’s different from chemical energy in that it’s unique to living creatures and that’s the main way living things even use energy. There is even a whole field in this called Bioenergetics. HotBallah (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Bduke --ChetvornoTALK 20:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By that logic elastic potential energy is just chemical energy then since it stored in the intermolecular bonds. Or the chemical bonds are just electric potentials etc.

The whole point of the “forms” of energy section is to list different forms that don’t go down to the most basic forces and energy. ATP is a lot more complex than your regular old energy stored in chemical bonds, even IF that’s what it’s entirely made up out of.

When people think of releasing chemical energy they think of something crude like a combustion reaction or something. Not metabolization. HotBallah (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever. The point is that biologists who work by publish or perish don't deny that ATP is a store of chemical energy, even if the mechanism for extracting such energy is complex.
And bioenergetic therapy is a misleading name for a brand of quackery. Hint: it is all about mystical energies, which were never noticed by mainstream science.
Personally, I'm healthier on a diet of "lacking prana" than on a diet of "rich in prana". Which makes me think that prana is a big load of tosh. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lol ok then HotBallah (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]