1.0   The definition of energy

When we look it up in a dictionary, it quickly becomes apparent that energy is a concept:

“ The concept energy is intimately linked to the study of motion.” (p. 3) [1]

“ The concept of energy and its transformations is extremely useful in explaining
and predicting most natural phenomena.[2]

The concept of energy emerged out of the idea of vis viva [3]

“ Energy is an abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics because it is defined
in such a way that the total energy of any closed physical system is always constant
(conservation of energy). It is impossible to overstate the importance of this concept
in all branches of physics from elementary mechanics to general relativity. Energy is
measured in units of mass times velocity squared” [4]

Indeed, most experts tell us that energy is an ‘ability’:

“ Energy is the ability to do work.” [5]

And certainly few people will argue that an 'ability' has shape. This would be like saying that swimming
has shape.

In other words, the 'energy=object' experts answer a ‘what is’ question with a ‘how to’ answer. An ability
is not what something is. It is what something does. And if the experts confuse kangaroo with jumping,
what can we expect from those who are less inquisitive. Nevertheless, if energy is equal to ‘ability’, it
clearly does not qualify as a physical object. This explains why no one has ever taken a snapshot of
energy.

Another popular notion of the word energy is ‘capacity.’ [6] We look up capacity and discover that it is
not a physical object either. It is just another concept and, coincidentally, a synonym of ability:

“ capacity: This word is properly used in names of quantities which express the
relative amount of some quantity with respect to a another quantity upon which
it depends. For example, heat capacity is dU/dT, where U is the internal energy
and T is the temperature…Heat capacity isn't the maximum amount of heat
something can have. That would…incorrectly suggest that heat is a ‘substance’,
which it isn't.”  [7]

We can neither visualize nor illustrate capacity. Capacity has no shape. Capacity is at best an attribute
of an object rather than an object in its own right. The word capacity does not represent a structural
entity, but functions rather as a qualifier. For the purposes of Physics, the word capacity is an adverb. It
stands for ‘latent or potential ability.’  [8] We can imagine the shape of a barrel of water filled to capacity,
but we cannot imagine the shape of capacity itself.  As an adverb, capacity may either represent the
volume a bottle may hold because of its shape or it can be taken to mean the amount of water we can
pour inside a beaker. Either way we go, capacity is an attribute of motion or at best a property of an
object resulting from its structural configuration.

Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous for a mathematician to use the phrase ‘energy transfer’, as if he
were transferring a bottle of rum from one shelf to another. We can transfer water. We cannot transfer
the capacity of the bucket. This is the ridiculous language that the mathematicians have developed. It
is Ptolemaic to say that a photon carries or transfers energy. The mathematician can at best argue that
whatever light is, it induces an entity to vibrate. These are two radically different explanations, and the
mathematicians have yet to realize the distinction. In Science, it is irrational to use the word energy as
the subject of the sentence. Whenever someone says ‘energy transfer’, he is using ordinary speech.

But let’s concede for the sake of argument that energy is ‘an ability’ or ‘the capacity’. How do relativists
intend to reconcile either of these concepts with velocity (e = mc²), where the little c  represents the
velocity of light) or with ‘energy transfer’? Does an ability have speed? Can capacity be moved? Are
relativists moving concepts again?

Either energy is a physical object (i.e., ‘mass’) that can be moved, an ability, a capacity, or motion itself;
it cannot be all of these at once. If it were, then it would truly be an extremely useful concept. The
prosecutor could explain anything with it. And that’s the status quo in Mathematical Physics. Energy is
a God-word, a joker in a card game. The mathematicians use it to explain everything and that’s why they
understand nothing.

2.0   Energy is a dynamic concept

According to the mathematicians, energy is equal to mass times velocity of light squared (e = m c²). The
little c involves a dynamic magnitude called velocity, roughly how fast something is moving. The idiots
of Mathematics say they can transfer energy. For example, in Mathematical Physics, it is routine to say
that energy is transferred.

"Lightning is a highly visible form of energy transfer...climatic homeostasis
is only maintained by a transfer of energy from the tropics to the poles. This
transfer of energy is what drives the winds and the ocean currents..." [9]

Unfortunately, such statements imply that the mathematician just moved velocity on you! Does it make
sense to move running or to push pushing? This is what the mathematicians do routinely when they
claim to move concepts. The  Ptolemaic explanations that the mathematical physicists give their
equations is another example of what converts their discipline into an irrational religion.

Mathematically, energy = mass * (velocity of light)² or, if you prefer, energy = p * velocity of light.  Hence,
energy cannot be conceived in a static universe because velocity is an intrinsic component of energy:

“ In the modern view mass is not equivalent to energy.  It is just that part of the energy
of a body which is not kinetic energy.  Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy
is not.” [10]

The reason the mathematicians cannot take a snapshot of energy is that it doesn’t stand still. We cannot
even conceptualize energy without the noise of velocity somewhere in there.

So what do the mathematicians really mean when they say that they transferred energy?

Please take it literally: they are saying that velocity moved on you! The mathematicians are moving
motion itself. That’s how idiotic the physical interpretations of our mathematicians are. Mathematics
becomes a religion when the mathematicians go beyond the call of duty and move from description
to explanation.

________________________________________________________________________________________