In Shortly about Energy and Energy Sources

Energy is an effective force, a life activity, a determination. Energy in physics is the ability of a body or system to do some work; a quantity that characterizes the motion, rest, or position of a body, liquid, particle, or system of particles, and a quantity to describe field particles transmitted by natural forces and particle interactions. Energy appears in nature, technology and industry in various forms that are transformed into each other according to the principle of energy conservation: it cannot be spend or created, but only change its form. An energy source is any substance which serves as a raw material in the process of obtaining energy.

Effort investment in uncontrollable situations: The moderating role of motivation toward closure

According to the principle of energy-conservation principle, effort investment is usually reduced in situations that are perceived as uncontrollable. This is because when success is recognized as impossible, any effortful actions are no longer justified. However, we predicted that individual differences in uncertainty tolerance, i.e., the need for closure (NFC), may moderate effort investment in uncontrollable situations. We tested this prediction in two experimental studies in which we exposed participants with differing levels of NFC to uncontrollable events, and indexed effort through the assessment of systolic blood pressure (SBP) responses. As predicted, in the uncontrollability (vs. controllability) condition, effort investment decreased significantly among low- but not high-NFC participants. Since gaining certainty and achieving closure is not a critical epistemic goal for low-NFC individuals, exerting extra effort to gain certainty is therefore no longer justified. On the other hand, high-NFC participants do not withhold their efforts, as they are highly motivated to obtain certainty. These results may help to account for contradictory findings in effort-investment behaviour and add substantively to the literature concerning motivation toward closure.

Geometric similarity of the twin collapsed glaciers in the west Tibet

Two adjacent glaciers collapsed consecutively in the Western Xizang Autonomous Region, China, on July 17 and September 21, 2016, presumably triggered by relatively intensive climate change in this region, leading to massive downstream ice and mud avalanches. After these twin glacier collapses, there have been many researches, which mainly focus on the physical characteristics of these two glaciers while lack the differences between them and the other glaciers. In this study, the geometric features and energy distribution along the glacier centerlines are investigated to identify the differences between these two collapsed glaciers and other glaciers in the western Tibetan Plateau. The anomaly of climate change is presumed to be the trigger of the twin glacier collapses in accordance with existing research results, whereas in this study, the striking geometric similarity between the centerlines of the twin glaciers, which is quantitatively interpreted by the Fréchet distance among the glacier centerlines, unearth some novel mechanisms. The essential point in these new mechanisms is the energy distribution along the glacier centerlines. A hypothesis based on the principle of energy conservation is derived to demonstrate the mechanisms and dynamic processes of the glacier collapses. Furthermore, on the basis of the geometric similarity and energy distribution of the glacier centerlines, a risk assessment of glacier collapse in the western Tibetan Plateau is implemented to facilitate glacier disaster prevention.

Refutation of Einstein's relativity on the basis of the incorrect derivation of the inertial mass increase violating the principle of energy conservation. A paradigm shift in physics

An airplane flying in the sky cannot have a higher inertial mass just because a person on the ground is watching the airplane, as well as it cannot have different inertial masses, if observed from car drivers moving on the ground with different velocities. Einstein’s relativistic physics that postulates that one can influence the inertial mass of matter or the speed of physical processes (“time”) by observing another inertial frame is actually not understandable. Because the relativistic mathematical approach enables us to get usefully and numerally precise results of nature observable phenomena, relativistic physics is nevertheless generally accepted today. This can only be explained in such a way that most physicists subordinate their logical reasoning to their mathematical formalism. The author explains the constancy of the speed of light, as well as the slowing down of physical processes (time) and the increase in the inertial mass, which are caused by motion, cogently by the principle of energy conservation. Nonrelativistic explanations of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass and for the mass-energy equivalence are presented. It is demonstrated that the explanation of the inertial mass increase by Einstein’s relativity violates the principle of energy conservation. As relativity has therefore been refuted by nature, a paradigm shift is imperative.

Principle of conservation of energy and modern theories

The famous quote of Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier (18th century) “Nothing is lost, nothing is created: everything is transformed” illustrates a principle that has marked minds throughout modern history. It deals with the principle of energy conservation. In our minds, energy is conserved in our world (in our dimensions). If part of the energy drifts out of our dimensions, this will contradict the statement “Nothing is lost.” If some energy penetrates our dimensions, this will contradict the statement “Nothing is created.” Everything is transformed within our dimensions. This article discusses the latest attempts through cosmic theories, still unverified, that have tried to explain the start and development of the universe even at the cost of concepts and principles unanimously agreed to date by the scientific community through the history, such as the principle of conservation of energy. This article raises some questions that we scientists must answer before we move forward. We must from time to time take a step back and have a critical look at our scientific progress before we branch off into a web of various theories.

The singularity of the universe

We address a discussion on the finite nature of the initial singularity and proposes a justification for a more general principle of energy conservation.

Employment Before Formulation

The historiography of the principle of energy conservation has concentrated on the formulation of the law by a few individual scientists. This paper turns to the employment of energetic considerations, examining the uses of related arguments in scientific reasoning before the formulation of a well-defined principle. It shows that conceptual ambiguity and a limited formal realm of validity did not prevent the successful employment of such notions to generate novel scientific results. From the late 1810s to the 1840s, researchers including Fresnel, Ampère, Carnot, Roget, Faraday, and Liebig invoked proto-energetic arguments to address particular problems concerning wave optics, electromagnetism, theory of electric batteries, heat motors, and animal heat. Thereby they extended the realm of applicability of arguments based on the conservation of “power” beyond non-frictional mechanical systems, where the conservation of the living forces (vis viva) was accepted in the early nineteenth century; they also furnished scientists a theoretical toolkit with a new powerful method. Their development of proto-energetic arguments as tools for reasoning was an important historical process in itself, which together with other developments led to the emergence of “energy physics.” This history, thus, exemplifies the important role played by practices of reasoning in the formation of scientific laws and principles.

On strategic trade-offs: does the principle of energy conservation explain the trade-offs law?

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reaffirm the suggestion that there are at least two distinct types of laws of trade-off that affect all firms and, in doing so, to contribute toward resolving the persistent trade-off debate in the literature. Design/methodology/approach Conceptual study using implicit deductive reasoning. Findings Two types of trade-offs are identified: “internal” can be understood following the dictates of the law of diminishing returns, while “external” can be modeled using the principle of energy conservation. Research limitations/implications New insights are provided by discussing the impact of both laws of trade-off on the resource-based view of the firm, on new capabilities such as sustainability and innovativeness and on key strategic choices. Practical implications The study explains why trade-offs occur and outlines contextual factors that determine the “strength” of the trade-offs. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous study has attempted to investigate the topic of strategic trade-offs on the basis of the principle of energy conservation.