Thread: The Concept of Resistance against the effect of Energy (Abstract)

Abstract:
The concept of resistance against the effect of energy, or simply resistance against energy, is a generic concept about any resistance that acts against the effect of energy. It is mainly related to the notion of energy and refers to the specific resistance and prime barrier that is found for containing, confining or holding any type of energy. The suggested definition of this concept is given as “any resistance that always provides the same counter effect against a limited quantity of driving energy, for a single type of energy” (Author). Here, the driving aspect of energy is about the earlier disposition of energy as capacity for producing phenomena and effects in nature. Both notions of driving energy and resistance against energy are actually quantifiable and classifiable as a physical parameter.

The study of the particular interaction between driving energy and resistance against energy provides a simple approach to understanding engineering systems, hazards, and maybe other concepts. For example, we can understand from this interaction how energy phenomena and effects are generically driven in nature, in addition, the normal state and/or operation of an engineering system, as well as the related safety features could be illustrated by means of these two basic parameters. It is expected that this study will trigger a more efficient and safer design of energy arrangements in industrial systems, and hopefully it will release an even wider area of research in the future.

That's the Article's Abstract which was rejected by 08 international journals dealing with physics and energy, for the same reason of being OUT OF (their) SCOPE. Please, help me to find the right journal, or help me to beleive that it is a wrong concept.

Does anything bothers you in the given abstract PHDemon, please let me know!
Please be concise

Three points:

1. The writing is terrible: repetitive, wordy and unclear. The first paragraph could more succinctly be written as: "This paper is about the concept of resistance against the effect of energy".

2. The concept: incomprehensible. I assume you have some personal meaning of the word "energy" that has little in common with the normal meaning. Phrases such as "resistance against the effect of energy", "driving energy" and others are meaningless.

3. I assume your paper contains no maths and is just a load of similar verbiage.

So, yeah, I can't argue with PhDemon's summary.

Thanks a lot Strange!
My english could play a trick; and I understand if it requires more details, at least you have got it. you are right, there is a personal meaning of the word "energy" if you wish. however, what you say "normal meaning" is actually the most confusing word among scientists as far as "energy" is concerned.

If you cannot explain what you are using the word "energy" for (and it doesn't seem to be energy) then no one is going to understand you.

It would probably help if your learned some basic physics first.

Originally Posted by Adelino

however, what you say "normal meaning" is actually the most confusing word among scientists as far as "energy" is concerned.

No it is not. It is precisely defined. Using mathematics (that is how science works). Can you define your use of the word mathematically? If so, it might be possible to communicate. Otherwise you are just using a made-up language that no one else speaks.

Originally Posted by Adelino

Thanks a lot Strange!
My english could play a trick; and I understand if it requires more details, at least you have got it. you are right, there is a personal meaning of the word "energy" if you wish. however, what you say "normal meaning" is actually the most confusing word among scientists as far as "energy" is concerned.

I am sorry to say that your problem is not likely to be related to being or not being a native English speaker. Your abstract reads very much like something written by a literature major who never studied science. You use terms from science in a vague and purely qualitative way. There are, therefore, no science journals of value that would accept your paper. Indeed, it would be an indictment of a journal if it were to publish your paper.

As Strange suggests, if you cannot express your ideas in precise mathematical form, it is a strong sign that you have little of scientific value. I've read and re-read your abstract several times now, and I can't figure out if your idea is as trivial as "there are no non-dissipative processes in nature" (which would be a wrong statement, but at least falsifiable), or something else altogether.

If you are going to use a word from the scientific vocabulary -- especially one that you use in virtually every sentence, then you should know that the reader will assume that you are using it in its scientific sense. It is therefore your absolute obligation to provide your idiosyncratic (re)definition of the word "energy" because it is obvious that you aren't using the word as it is understood by all scientists.

You do have a communication problem, but it's not an English problem. It would appear that you simply don't know the conceptual meaning of the words you are using.

Thanks TK421 (you are better than most formal reviewers)



I am sorry, it was a wrong start of the thread with unclear Abstract, but I still wish to discuss the core idea of this concept,
Here is again an explanation of what I am trying to suggest through my paper, considering that the basic and generic understanding word Energy in physics, as any “available power” “Ability” “Capacity” “Potential” and “what makes things happen” is still a confusing understanding among scientists and practitioners (there are many citations on this statement), especially with a biasing and a non conventional taxonomy of energy types and forms in physics worldwide. I believe that most physics theories on energy deal more with HOW ENERGY BEHAVES (Skills) rather than WHAT IS ENERGY (Thing or entity)



Willing to use the Thing-Skills-Conditions approach to explore the Real word of energy, I came out with unfamiliar terms that are –unfortunately- necessary to separate, for example, the core of energy from the effect it produces, ( Isn’t force different from motion).


With regard to the concept of resistance, it is enough to explore the conditions or states in which energy is in action and energy is not in action, to realize that there should be something that makes things do not happen. “There should be anything in nature that makes things do not happen in contrast with the driving aspect of energy as something that makes things happen. Moreover, the mentioned conditions should be specific to the particular type of driving energy” (Author). In addition, from the semantic point of view; isn’t Resistance reality essential to the meaning of Power, Ability, and Potential to do work?


Actually, this concept is not a brand new concept in physics; it is known by different names in specific disciplines and fields such as electrical resistance, thermal resistance…, Therefore, with no contradiction with the current physics theories, I would like to say that the same resistance thing is also essential in the field of energy.


Energy is a great organizing concept for understanding how the world works
Andrew, D. F..

Originally Posted by Adelino

Thanks TK421 (you are better than most formal reviewers)

I am sorry, it was a wrong start of the thread with unclear Abstract, but I still wish to discuss the core idea of this concept,
Here is again an explanation of what I am trying to suggest through my paper, considering that the basic and generic understanding word Energy in physics, as any “available power” “Ability” “Capacity” “Potential” and “what makes things happen” is still a confusing understanding among scientists and practitioners (there are many citations on this statement)

Then please provide some citations, please. I hope that when you do, you do not reference publications from popsci articles of "philosophy of science" types of journals. They should be from the community of "scientists and practitioners" you claim are confused.

, especially with a biasing and a non conventional taxonomy of energy types and forms in physics worldwide. I believe that most physics theories on energy deal more with HOW ENERGY BEHAVES (Skills) rather than WHAT IS ENERGY (Thing or entity)

Your assertion is a relatively common one, but not among scientists themselves. If we can compute quantitatively what the outcome of an interaction will be, that's what most scientists mean by "understanding." The question of "what is <insert name of thing here>" is generally futile because you can go infinitely far down the rabbit hole. Any explanation for humans will end inevitably with "well, that's just the way it is." Try it. Give me an explanation for something in science that you think is complete. I will then proceed to drive you crazy with a series of additional questions.

...illing to use the Thing-Skills-Conditions approach to explore the Real word of energy, I came out with unfamiliar terms that are –unfortunately- necessary to separate, for example, the core of energy from the effect it produces, ( Isn’t force different from motion).

But that just means you are making the problem worse, not better. I don't understand why you would think that obscuring the argument by assigning new meanings to familiar words helps at all. Naming things almost never elucidates fundamentals. Again, at the end of the day, if your "solution" does not improve our ability to make quantitative predictions (or makes no quantitative predictions), it isn't science. Therefore, it has no scientific value.

With regard to the concept of resistance, it is enough to explore the conditions or states in which energy is in action and energy is not in action, to realize that there should be something that makes things do not happen.

{bold added}

The clause in italics does not in any way follow necessarily from the premises. You have overlooked the other option -- that the absence of a causative agent is what makes something not happen.

“There should be anything in nature that makes things do not happen in contrast with the driving aspect of energy as something that makes things happen. Moreover, the mentioned conditions should be specific to the particular type of driving energy” (Author). In addition, from the semantic point of view; isn’t Resistance reality essential to the meaning of Power, Ability, and Potential to do work?

Citing yourself is, well, odd. It's certainly not helpful in clarifying "energy." It does, however, clarify what your problem might be. It seems to confirm that you have very little actual knowledge of science. It really does seem to be the case that your background is in the humanities. That's not a bad thing; it just means that you need to learn something about science before making assertions about science. And certainly, you need that learning before proposing to fix a problem that you think you've identified.

Actually, this concept is not a brand new concept in physics; it is known by different names in specific disciplines and fields such as electrical resistance, thermal resistance…, Therefore, with no contradiction with the current physics theories, I would like to say that the same resistance thing is also essential in the field of energy.

And we now get back to what I earlier called a trivial statement. You are effectively returning to an Aristotelian view of physics: "The natural state of motion is one of rest." We've known for a long time now that Aristotle was wrong. Very wrong.

There are indeed many dissipative processes, but it is demonstrably wrong to generalize from those common examples and declare a universal truth. Superconductivity is truly dissipationless. That one example by itself falsifies your proposition. By the rules of science, your notion is therefore wrong. Game over. Get another quarter, play the same game, it will resolve the same way.

You really do need to study some science. The many blunders of Aristotle have taught us that merely contemplating in vacuo one's navel and the universe will lead to vacuous ideas. We've come a long way since Aristotle's time. You should catch up.

Originally Posted by Adelino

especially with a biasing and a non conventional taxonomy of energy types and forms in physics worldwide.

What makes you think it's "biasing"?
Since physics, and physicists, are the ones who "set the taxonomy" how can you claim it's "non-conventional"?

I believe that most physics theories on energy deal more with HOW ENERGY BEHAVES (Skills) rather than WHAT IS ENERGY (Thing or entity)

Why do you believe this?

“There should be anything in nature that makes things do not happen in contrast with the driving aspect of energy as something that makes things happen.

Why should there be?

Moreover, the mentioned conditions should be specific to the particular type of driving energy”

Er, hasn't it already been pointed out that this is actually the case?I.e. resistance to KE is "specific" to KE and doesn't work for electrical energy.

Originally Posted by Adelino

I am sorry, it was a wrong start of the thread with unclear Abstract, but I still wish to discuss the core idea of this concept,

Your idea doesn't have a core. It is quite hollow. If you think you have a scientific hypothesis, you need to tell us how to put it to the test. What experiments will be possible to disprove it? How will you measure the true energy, that you think scientists do not know how to measure?

is still a confusing understanding among scientists and practitioners

I think you should look up stress-energy-momentum tensor, Noether's theorem, and Killing vector fields. You will find that physicists are really quite clear about the meaning of energy.