Energy Cannot Be Created, Nor Destroyed... does this include EMOTIONAL ENERGY?

[Frackal]

If you think about it, it makes sense... outside influences pass on negative energy to you... if you dont have an outlet to release that extra energy, it stresses you out and deteroriates your body as the energy is dispersed.... If you have a large amount of angry emotional energy, you can translate that into feats of strength....yelling, screaming, crying - are all ways to release the excess energy built up inside... how many of you have cried before and felt as though you've helped release something...just the act of crying can destress you. The same thing applies to weight training...people who do not exercise generally have no outlet for 'stress energy' and it wears their body down ... but people who are able to translate that energy into PHYSICAL work let it go and are able to get closer to an equilibrium...

 

[Puddles]

I agree with ya. I get physical symptoms from emotions...some good, some bad, depending on the emotion. Gotta let the bad ones out somehow...crying, screaming, punching something, lifting, etc. Otherwise it WILL build and fuck you up.

 

[Bullit]

Gotta let the bad ones out somehow...crying, screaming, punching something, lifting, etc.

I usually opt for crying and have found it to be a very usefull way to get what I want at work.

 

[KAYNE]

THE 1ST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SAYS IT CANT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. EMOTIONAL ENERGY ISNT REALLY EMOTIONAL ENERGY. ITS JUST KINETIC ENERGY SPAWNED BY EMOTIONS.


EMOTIONS ALSO INFLUENCE ADRENALINE. WHICH WILL MAKE US DO CRAZY SHIT SOMETIMES.



KAYNE

 

[Nathan]

You're trying to connect two entirely different sciences, namely physics and psychology. It ain't gonna happen bro. Maybe you can draw a parallel but the two are not the same. Fucking hell, life sucks does it not? I"m going to finish all my posts with some negative from now on.

 

[KnoXville]

IMO ..

Emotion is just a concept of the energy.
Stress is as result of the emotion.
Chemical signals are a result of the stress.
A further comprehension in your brain is a result of the chemical signals.
Physical expression is a responce to the chemical assited comprehension.
And the visual responce you percieve as energy is a result the physcial expression.

Most people use acts like crying to jusify there own conscience into feeling better when all they are doing is artifically opening some chemical reward channels in the brain via some heavy emotional influences, to ease there pain. Emotions are not stored energy that needs to be expressed, but most of what they cause neurochemically are. These things are autosympatic reactions anyway so to a degree controlling them is almost impossible. If they were sympatic functions and you could run you brain through the same program you get from post-exersice or post-crying then you would not be able to tell the difference between them, no additional energy transfer needed.

 

[Puddles]

This thread has become way too complicated for me to comprehend and I'm getting stressed trying to understand it.

More wine please!

I'll stick with Frackal though...I understood and agree with what he said.

 

[argent]

Good discussion everybody. A good question. I will take a large dose of psychoreactive drugs, contemplate this question among others and return to you with the answer.

 

[Frackal]

Box ----> [ [size=-999] Nathan, Knoxville[/size] ] [size=-999]Frackal[/size]

 

[big4life]

People feed off of the emotions of those around them and any healthy release is good. It doesn't have to be physical, it can be through the arts, academics, etc., it just depends on the person involved and their interests.

 

[Frackal]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is an interesting correlation between the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and emotional energy.....

For example, a guy absorbs massive amounts of negative emotional energy, and he becomes very UNstable, eventually he explodes, in whatever form, to release that energy and bring himself back closer to equilibrium ..

I'm not saying that emotional energy is interchangeable with other forms of energy the way heat energy can be harnessed to do physical work...but I been kicking around the thought that emotional energy behaves in a similiar way on a different plane than physical energy.

 

[Nathan]

Can I be let out of the box now?

Well, all in all, energy is not created nor destroyed according to Thermodynamical Law at the present time anyways. At one point or another, there was a huge break in conservation of energy but that was a long time ago and no longer applies.
I think emotional energy is far too random to label in such a way. For some reason, there are certain physical laws in the universe that cannot be broken. Everything else is a result of those fundamental laws. Trying to define LAWS based on human emotion is bunk. Perhaps you can set some general guidelines but I think you're looking deeply into something that really isn't that deep at all. Sometimes the deepest thoughts are also the most shallow, you know? To say "that's just the way things are" is sometimes the most accurate description one can honestly offer. I guess I'm saying one should choose their mental battles and I would advise moving on with this one. You're beating a dead horse. Don't get me wrong, I clearly think you have some good thoughts, but all I'm saying is that this is a losing battle and you should spend your time thinking about worthier questions to which there might be an answer.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Muscles can release energy, emotions can not.

Build your muscles.

 

[Code]

You're more or less talking about a mental state, analagous to a yin/yang balance.

But I'll play the game:

The scenario you give displays an *exchange* of energy, but is not demonstrative of neither the creation nor the destruction of energy.

The guy absorbs negative energy from another source and then releases it. He doesn't actually create/destroy the energy.

 

[Frackal]

Exactly code.... are you agreeing with me or trying to correct me thinking that I said he was creating/destroying it??

My point is, it is fascinating when you parallel the laws of thermodynamics to 'emotional energy'

 

[Code]

Exactly code.... are you agreeing with me or trying to correct me thinking that I said he was creating/destroying it??

My point is, it is fascinating when you parallel the laws of thermodynamics to 'emotional energy'

I'm just upholding the laws of thermodynamics by stating the scenario merely displays the exchange of energy. But it does correspond with the laws perfectly.

On a related tangent:
Quantum physicists have been consulting with several famous philosophers re: creationism. (As per Scientific American)

 

[Frackal]

Can you give me a kind of overview about what "quantum" physics are???

 

[Code]

Can you give me a kind of overview about what "quantum" physics are???

Happy and I gave a little EF class on this a while back.
But essentially the mantra of quantum science is that "anything" can happen. But for more check this link out:
http://boards.elitefitness.com/foru...042&perpage=20&highlight=quantum&pagenumber=2

 

[Whiskey]

damn frack... been doing a little deep thinking here lately? what's next... how they were able to get the filling in a twinkie??? You ask a lot of deep questions. not bad thing, just a lot of deep questions

Oh, and yeah I agreee with you on this


Whiskey

 

[Nathan]

Happy and I gave a little EF class on this a while back.
But essentially the mantra of quantum science is that "anything" can happen. But for more check this link out:
http://boards.elitefitness.com/foru...042&perpage=20&highlight=quantum&pagenumber=2

Actually, it's the exact opposite of "anything" can happen if you ask me. Hence the term quantum, or bundle, used to describe the exchange of energy. Particles can only possess certain energies, hence "anything" is far from possible.

 

[Code]

Actually, it's the exact opposite of "anything" can happen if you ask me. Hence the term quantum, or bundle, used to describe the exchange of energy. Particles can only possess certain energies, hence "anything" is far from possible.

Not really, if we try to use newtonian physics to define something, then yes you are right. But since all things quantum fly in the face of our Newtonian Slave-drivers, we tend to box ourselves in and use Common science to explain the Uncommonalities of quantum events.

 

[Nathan]

Not really, if we try to use newtonian physics to define something, then yes you are right. But since all things quantum fly in the face of our Newtonian Slave-drivers, we tend to box ourselves in and use Common science to explain the Uncommonalities of quantum events.

Uuumm...that's super but quantum mechanics basically revolves around uncertainty and probabilities. Newtonian physics is essentially a series of approximations on a macroscopic level. It is irrelevant here since it makes predictions rather than calculate probabilities. "Anything" is not possible.

 

[Fonz]

You're trying to connect two entirely different sciences, namely physics and psychology. It ain't gonna happen bro. Maybe you can draw a parallel but the two are not the same. Fucking hell, life sucks does it not? I"m going to finish all my posts with some negative from now on.

You can to some small degree.

Electromagnetic fileds can depolarize your brain EEG and make you go into dementia.

Of course you'd have to be sitting on top of a power station for
your entire life......LOL

Fonz

 

[Code]

Uuumm...that's super but quantum mechanics basically revolves around uncertainty and probabilities. Newtonian physics is essentially a series of approximations on a macroscopic level. It is irrelevant here since it makes predictions rather than calculate probabilities. "Anything" is not possible.

Ahh, you're an "empty cup" quantum guy. See, I'm a "full cup" kinda of quantum dude. I see a slim probablity and think "Yeah, George Spellwin *could* someday fix the problems with platinum memberships." While the probability is beyond slim (1 in 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ^99) , there is still a chance.

 

[Nathan]

Ahh, you're an "empty cup" quantum guy. See, I'm a "full cup" kinda of quantum dude. I see a slim probablity and think "Yeah, George Spellwin *could* someday fix the problems with platinum memberships." While the probability is beyond slim (1 in 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ^99) , there is still a chance.

Okay, fine jackass, have it your way. Nevertheless, I remain confident that certain things, like me ever getting laid again, have a probability of zero. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a can of whip cream with my name on it.