In physics, energy balance is a systematic presentation of energy flows and transformations in a system. Theoretical basis for an energy balance is the first law of thermodynamics according to which energy cannot be created or destroyed, only modified in form. Energy sources or wave of energy are therefore inputs and outputs of the system under observation.

Have a look at this picture -

And contrast it with this -

Given the fist law of Themodynamics explained above (that given that energy is neither created or destroyed), the energy obvious in the first picture but absent(or transformed) in the second picture still exists.

Where is that energy?

Materialists, please discuss, thanks.

Isnt your heading misleading?
Review the topic title as its both deceptive and irritating.

Btw, have you ever heard of decay? That little sumtn that occurs when you leave a dead rat in a hole.

Hi Tudor, how are you today? Before we discuss the details, please do suggest a more appropriate title to me and I will be glad to apply it, thanks.

But in doing so, please note what my intention for this thread is: to demonstrate that the life force within a living craeture, which is indeed energy, does not cease to be exist - given that energy does not cease to exist. Thus I wish to discuss the whereabouts or state of that life-force or energy,

Do revert, thanks.

_{I hope you are in a good mood today.}

I had asked my sister the same question that those who claim energy can neither be created nor destroyed never quite explain what eventually occurs to certain energy once they leave their bodies of origin like you have pointed out in the dead rat. But i think that that theory should not hold water any more cause the Big bang theory clearly shows that energy was created, hence if Energy was created then it can be destroyed or even if it cannot be destroyed it was created and disproves the above theory. Now another questions that comes whenever we hear a generator function it perpetually loosses energy in form of sound, another question that comes to mind is what eventually happens to this sound energy(wasted energy) it is claimed it converts to another( i suspect kinetic energy) kind of energy and a chain of continuous conversions occur, but this definitely calls an investigation as to what eventually happens does the energy ends up in another body or continues dilly dallying in the earth. But i think your topic will be a hard nut to crack as even scientist do not know what life is or what it looks like at the end of the day many question might end up not being answered.

vedaxcool:

I had asked my sister the same question that those who claim energy can neither be created nor destroyed never quite explain what eventually occurs to certain energy once they leave their bodies of origin like you have pointed out in the dead rat. But i think that that theory should not hold water any more cause the Big bang theory clearly shows that energy was created, hence if Energy was created then it can be destroyed or even if it cannot be destroyed it was created and disproves the above theory.

It is altogether incorrect to state that the Big Bang theory proves that energy can be created - because that presupposes that "nothingness" existed before the Big Bang - which is scientifically incorrect, because the Big Bang Theory posits that the universe began to expand from a singularity - and not from nothingness. It is said that all the energy existing in the universe today already existed in a single densely packed point before the expansion, and as such you are wrong to conclude that the big bang "created" energy.

Energy cannot be created. It only goes through several modification and never had an original state. What it serves at any time determines its state at the time. Even the putrefaction of the dead rat will add to the dynamics as certain other forces or organism absorb the dormant energy in the rat.

But can energy be created? I think no. It can only be appropriated as every energy requirement for the optimal performance of the universe is already present.

This is technical somewhat so I don't wanna go OP at all.

Holla!

What about a burning candle or a light bulb being extinguished, does the light energy continue to else?

A dead organic being does not mean energy had been destroyed, be it a rat, human being, a plant or a bacteria, the energy contained there in is recycled back into the universe.

vedaxcool:

I had asked my sister the same question that those who claim energy can neither be created nor destroyed never quite explain what eventually occurs to certain energy once they leave their bodies of origin like you have pointed out in the dead rat. But i think that that theory should not hold water any more cause [b]the Big bang theory clearly shows that energy was created, [/b]hence if Energy was created then it can be destroyed or even if it cannot be destroyed it was created and disproves the above theory.  Now another questions that comes whenever we hear a generator function it perpetually loosses energy in form of sound, another question that comes to mind is what eventually happens to this sound energy(wasted energy) it is claimed it converts to another( i suspect kinetic energy) kind of energy and a chain of continuous conversions occur, but this definitely calls an investigation as to what eventually happens does the energy ends up in another body or continues dilly dallying in the earth. But i think your topic will be a hard nut to crack as even scientist do not know what life is or what it looks like at the end of the day many question might end up not being answered.

Can you produce any scientific paper about the Big Bang that says energy was created during the BB?. . . . . .

[size=13pt]Conservation Of Energy: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed[/size], this one of the most important laws of Physics, it governs every aspect of our lives. The Heat used to cook our food, comes from wood, Hydrocarbons, (gas, kerosene, electricity) etc which gets its original energy from the sun, in the form of light and heat.

[size=13pt]Energy is continually Recycled. [/size]Energy in the form Light and Heat, heats the Earth, Plants use that Energy to Create Food through Photosynthesis, Animals ( Rats) eat this Plants, giving up C02 which the plants breathe to produce yet more food. Animals (Rat) dies, decays gives up gases (Ammonia), this gas rises mix up with atmosphere falls as Rain ( Nitric Oxide) Fertilizes the Earth, which mixes with the Decayed flesh of the Rat to produce manure, if the Manure is covered with Sand, over thousands ( Millions) years it turns in Hydrocarbons (Crude Oil, Gas, Coal) Man digs up Oil, Fuels his car, Electrical Energy etc. Circle Continues.

[size=14pt]Through Out the process Energy was Not Destroyed Neither Was It Created, it only changed Form and State.  [/size]

^^^ Exactly what I am on about here. Since this is a scientific fact that neither Matter nor Energy can be destroyed, must we not conclude that the energy which is the life force of a living creature does not perish at death, but merely changes form.

Is this not a good argument for the existence of that same energy in a different form - an intangible form - which may be analogous to what is meant by the term - "the spirit of a creature. . ."

For after all what is meant by the word "spirit" if not an intangible force. . .

wirinet:

. . . , the energy contained there in is recycled back into the universe.

. . . .Reincarnation. . . . ?

^^^as matter is anything that has mass and occupies a space it can be destroyed but then it is turned into energy (like what happens in nuclear explosions) which cannot be destroyed. You seem to misunderstand the concept of energy in that you take it to be a 'spirit'. energy comes in different forms and instead of being destroyed, it gets converted into another form. Your example of the rat dying: when the rat dies, the heat, sound etc energy is turned into other forms like chemical if the rat has been left to decay. if it is in soil, this energy helps plants grow which in turn could be turned into another type of energy. Energy isnt a 'force' that roams about in the style of spirits and entities, it gets converted automatically.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Exactly what I am on about here. Since this is a scientific fact that neither Matter nor Energy can be destroyed, must we not conclude that the energy which is the life force of a living creature does not perish at death, but merely changes form.

Is this not a good argument for the existence of that same energy in a different form - an intangible form - which may be analogous to what is meant by the term - "the spirit of a creature. . ."

For after all what is meant by the word "spirit" if not an intangible force. . .

Sir,

Measurable Energy of Matter can be Calculated, it doesn't matter its form, I have a sneaking feeling that you would say that all that dead manure, animals and of course humans exist in another form of energy called Spirits/ Souls.

Analogous ( _{Shakes Head}) Sir, the whole point of writing is to communicate, you are not doing that, why don't make it Digital Wireless [/b]while you are at it, next on the thread you would another battle with Atomic Man if[b] Analogous is First Person past tense or present continues

Thanks Analissaa.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Exactly what I am on about here. Since this is a scientific fact that neither Matter nor Energy can be destroyed, must we not conclude that[b] the energy which is the life force of a living creature [/b]does not perish at death, but merely changes form.

Is this not a good argument for the existence of that same energy in a different form - an intangible form - which may be analogous to what is meant by the term - "the spirit of a creature. . ."

For after all what is meant by the word "spirit" if not an intangible force. . .

Let me first say that the question that has puzzled man since the dawn of recorded history is what is consciousness? (some people equate consciousness with life), where is it situated, within or without? and does consciousness survive death. I believe with all the doctrines and ideas presented by both religion and even science, we are no nearer the truth than when we first asked the question.

My brother, the portion i bolded had not been proven or accepted by science. It has not been proven that life or consciousness is a force in the traditional definition of the word.

Deep Sight:

. . . .Reincarnation. . . . ?

not exactly. I mean the energy contain in all the molecules and atoms that make up the body is recycled by other processes and organism, and eventually it will be put back into the universe, when our planet and the sun dies.

energy conversion explained

pick up a pen= gravitational potential, heat energy.

drop the pen= sound energy and more heat.

the gravitational potential energy changes automatically when it is lost it doesn't hang around or get 'recycled' into the universe

Deep Sight:

Given the fist law of Themodynamics explained above (that given that energy is neither created or destroyed), the energy obvious in the first picture but absent(or transformed) in the second picture still exists.

Where is that energy?

Materialists, please discuss, thanks.

You're conflating the use of the word "energy" in physics with that of the same word in esotericism.
According to physics and the total energy is still the same in both pictures for a while.
But in esotericism, there are a lot of other alternatives for this "energy".

Also, I'd like to see your "Evidence of the Spirit" since it's part of the topic.

Deep Sight:

Hi Tudor, how are you today? Before we discuss the details, please do suggest a more appropriate title to me and I will be glad to apply it, thanks.

A question mark at the end of your title would be more appropriate. As it is, your title suggests in no uncertain terms thermodynamics as evidence for ''spitit''.

But in doing so, please note what my intention for this thread is: to demonstrate that the life force within a living craeture, which is indeed energy, does not cease to be exist - given that energy does not cease to exist. Thus I wish to discuss the whereabouts or state of that life-force or energy,

Do revert, thanks.

_{I hope you are in a good mood today.}

Therez a difference in temperature between the living and dead rat, could the so-called ''life force'' not be given off as heat?

Interconversion of energy in the eco-system is so a basic concept that even a primary 6 pupil knows enough.

@ Deepsight and all

thehommer has a point, scientifically speaking both pictures have the same amount of energy, only transformed or at different phases. However, I do get your point. There is definitely something in the first picture which is not in the second picture-- the life force, soul or etc. But we have to be very careful in labelling things. The life force is not, scientifically speaking, energy; it is not the type of energy that science deals with. Neither is the soul, life force, and etc, made of the same matter that science deals with.

wirenet made a good point. One has to understand that science only deals with physical matter and energy inherent in physical matter. The soul is not physical matter and therefore it's energy is not the same energy inherent in physical matter. I have explained to you in an earlier thread that matter and energy are inseparable. But the type of energy depends on the type of matter. Thus physical matter is inseparable with physical energy, ethereal matter is inseparable with ethereal energy, spiritual substance is inseparable with spiritual energy.

Wherever there is matter, there is energy; and vice-verse. Hence wherever there is physical matter, there is physical energy. Since all the physical particles of that rat are still present, even while the rat is dead, all the energy in them are still there. None is lost. Keep in mind that here we are dealing with the energy inherent in physical matter, which is the only thing that science deals with.

Since science deals with only physical matter and its energy; one cannever, based on science, explain the non-physical phenomena -- soul, life force and etc.

While I sense what you mean, the wording you used is not correct, because scientifically speaking no energy has been lost between the two pictures. All the energy inherent in the physical body of the rat is still present, only that it is transforming; decomposition itself is a type of energy transformation.

The definition of energy that teachers teach at elementry level gives one the wrong impression of what energy is. This erroneous definition of energy makes one think that where something dead, that energy is lost. I remember in secondary school they told me that "Energy is the ability to do work" but this definition is not very correct.

The ability to do work is a characteristic or property of energy and not energy itself. As one grows in science, one learns that energy can reside, be used, exchanged, or transformed, whitout doing any work or without any work being involved.

Energy is one of those things that science finds it very difficult to define. Energy is simply matter; and matter is simply energy.

Here is what authorities have said about energy:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."

Richard Feynman

"Energy is inherent in all matter. Energy is something that appears in many different forms which are related to each other by the fact that conversion can be made from one form of energy to another. Although no simple definition can be given to the general term energy, E, except that it is the capacity to produce an effect, the various forms in which it appears can be defined with precision."

Source: Thermodynamics, by Virgil Moring Faires, and Clifford Max Simmang, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. (a college text book)

So dear Deepsight, while your argument is correct(I can sense where you are coming from from), the science backing it up is wrong.

Here is a better argument to make:
[b]Since no energy(scientific energy), and no matter(physical matter) is lost between the two pictures, therefore that which made the rat in the first picture alive(the living force) did not originate from physical matter. Hence there is a soul(non physical matter) in living things which is independent of physical matter.

The fact that both the dead and the living body, have the same amount of matter and energy; that which animates the living is definitely not physical matter, otherwise its absence will result in the reduction of physical matter in the body.

An analogy might suffice: If two cars have the same amount of matter and energy; and one car is moving while the other is not. One can logically conclude that that which makes the moving car move is not as a result the  matter and energy of car, rather it is an independent entity that drives the car.

Since a car by itself cannot move around; matter by itself cannot become mobile or alive.

There is definitely something in mobile living things, something non-physical; the soul.
[/b]

Deep Sight:

. . . .Reincarnation. . . . ?

I don't think so. Energy transformation has nothing to do with reincarnation theory.
Rather "incarnation' has to do with the energy in the food we eat. We eat, then the food pass thru several transformations and mixing with already present energy in our body a new kind of energy is formed out of the composition of previous potential forms. When the new potential forms are produced (Sperm and Ovum), then if unused in women they are washed away monthly to contribute to further energy reproduction, and also that of the men are discharged in some other manner that would still contribute to the composite uni-verse.

wirinet:

What about a burning candle or a light bulb being extinguished, does the light energy continue to else?

A dead organic being does not mean energy had been destroyed, be it a rat, human being, a plant or a bacteria, the energy contained there in is recycled back into the universe.

In the case of a light bulb, when its put out it quits using the electrical energy generated and thereby energy is conserved from lack of use but not destroyed. And for candle light, the naked fire use the energy in the wax to produce heat energy, when put out the energy is then conserved in the wax until next use.

Holla!

justcool:

The definition of energy that teachers teach at elementry level gives one the wrong impression of what energy is. This erroneous definition of energy makes one think that where something dead, that energy is lost. I remember in secondary school they told me that "Energy is the ability to do work" but this definition is not very correct.

The ability to do work is a characteristic or property of energy and not energy itself. As one grows in science, one learns that energy can reside, be used, exchanged, or transformed, whitout doing any work or without any work being involved.

Energy is one of those things that science finds it very difficult to define. Energy is simply matter; and matter is simply energy.

Energy IS the ability to do work but it is also the potential ability to do work. Without doing work or without the potential ability to do work, there is no energy. see dead rat.

Energy is not matter. Matter in its most basic is anything that takes up space. While there is energy in matter. When matter is destroyed the energy (or potential energy)is released. Matter is not and can never be energy it can only have energy.

justcool:

An analogy might suffice: If two cars have the same amount of matter and energy; and one car is moving while the other is not. One can logically conclude that that which makes the moving car move is not as a result the  matter and energy of car, rather it is an independent entity that drives the car.

No, one can logically conclude that the moving car is making use of the chemical energy in it (petrol) and changing it into kinetic energy to work and heat and sound energy as a by product while the other either doesn't have the same chemical energy or hasn't been prompted to use it. So it is the energy in the car not some spirit entity

@ Analissa/ thehomer -

Analissa:

^^^as matter is anything that has mass and occupies a space it can be destroyed but then it is turned into energy (like what happens in nuclear explosions) which cannot be destroyed. You seem to misunderstand the concept of energy in that you take it to be a 'spirit'. energy comes in different forms and instead of being destroyed, it gets converted into another form. Your example of the rat dying: when the rat dies, the heat, sound etc energy is turned into other forms like chemical if the rat has been left to decay. if it is in soil, this energy helps plants grow which in turn could be turned into another type of energy. Energy isnt a 'force' that roams about in the style of spirits and entities, it gets converted automatically.

thehomer:

You're conflating the use of the word "energy" in physics with that of the same word in esotericism.
According to physics and the total energy is still the same in both pictures for a while.
But in esotericism, there are a lot of other alternatives for this "energy".

Fair enough.

Nevertheless that which I want to pitch to you today is this - 

That the Universe; nay; all existence perforce radiates with energy. I am almosty tempted in this regard to state outrightly that all existence is energy: but I will at this point refrain from stating so until I have developed a further thought construct which I may articulate later in this thread.

For the initial purpose, let me simply state that all existence radiates with energy - and that this energy is one, inseparable and the same - but only manifests in different forms throughout the universe and indeed throughout all existence.

This is the cardinal and first premise on which I wish to make a thought progression in this regard: if you do disagree with it, please do let me know so that we do not end up mis-footed or misunderstanding one another.

The logic on which I may press this oneness of all energy is as follows.

1. In physical terms - The initial expansion from the point of a singularity which is referred to as the Big Bang presupposes that all the energy existing in the Universe was at that initial point densely concentrated in a single point. In this it is clear that all the energy is really ONE energy and that all the physical matter and energy that has expanded therefrom is an expansion of the SAME ONE energy. Thus all the various forms and manifestations on that energy are simply different forms and manifestations, but still the same ONE energy that was initially densely concentrated at a single point which may be referred to as a singularity.

2. In non-physical terms the same reasoning follows - not because there is any relation to the physical expansion called the big bang but because it is consistent with reason to see that everything in existence is interconnected in one fashion or the other: nothing is able to exist in a void of its own - rather everything exists within a set of other things or within a system of one sort or the other. It can thus be gleaned from this that there is compound nature of things which are interconnected and thus refer to ONE compound existence and not individual existences in silos.

3. Following from the foregoing (No. 2) we can rationally conclude the physical energy (as discussed in No. 1 above) does not exist in a silo - i.e: it does not exist as an element that does not derive from other things in existence: that it is part of a set, or system and accordingly forms ONE compound with all other things in existence and discussed in No. 2 above.

What this means is that physical energy cannot cxonceivably exist outside the existence of all other elements of existence as a whole - and as such is tied therewith and one therewith.

The inevitable conclusion being that all energies are of the same compound which defines all existence - only that they are expressed or manifest in different forms.

This is why I would insist that spiritual energy, physical energy, mental energies, and indeed all sorts of energy are really all simply different manifestations of the SAME ONE compound energy that is existence.

With reference to the rat, what this would mean is that its active existence as a life form is an expression of this same compound energy that I speak about: thus that it could not have any physical energy save within the broader context of all existent energies.

This is going to be an interesting discussion and there are several advanced levels to it that I would like us to address one at a time as they are very subtle points: but before we do so we must perforce reach some sort of common understanding on the foregoing otherwise it would be futile.

Tudór:

A question mark at the end of your title would be more appropriate. As it is, your title suggests in no uncertain terms thermodynamics as evidence for ''spitit''.

I have taken note and adjusted the title in terms of your suggestion.

Nevertheless as we proceed I hope to achieve exactly that.

Thanks.

Therez a difference in temperature between the living and dead rat, could the so-called ''life force'' not be given off as heat?

Excellent. Now let us take a close look at this.

If the "so called life force" is "given off as heat" - this would suggest that that physical heat by itself is the actuating element for the existence of the rat as a living form. This is ineluctable: at death you suggest that the "so called life force" is "given off as heat": in reversing this process you thereby suggest to me that what is now missing from the rat - what has departed from it - is that physical heat - and thus it is that physical heat that is actaually what made the rat alive.

Do you think you can sustain the inference you have thereby made: namely that the element that makes things alive as conscious creatures, complete with awareness, is physical heat? Because if that were the case then physical heat by itself would posess attributes of life - given that you suggest that it is the element that departs which renders a body dead, no?

Your surmise is therefore not suffiently deep. It dwells only upon the exchange of energy which is observable in ecosystems but does not probe the core question being asked. As I have shown above, it is actually contradictory and internally inconsistent.

Because that which it does for me is show inescapably that the heat that departs at death must perforce be heat that is imbued with life - otherwise its departure would not cause a cessation of life: and if intangible heat imbued with life is not the description and definition of a spirit - I do not know what else is!

^^
What the hell is ''spiritual energy'', ''mental energy''??

Analissa:


the gravitational potential energy changes automatically when it is lost it doesn't hang around or get 'recycled' into the universe

A good argument may be made that there is no difference between "changing automatically" and "recycled into the universe."

They mean exactly the same thing, do not think of the universe as being "out there" - every part of this earth and its physical processes is part of the universe, no?

Tudór:

^^
What the hell is ''spiritual energy'', ''mental energy''??

Reconsider in light of -

Deep Sight:


Because that which it does for me is show inescapably that the heat that departs at death must perforce be heat that is imbued with life - otherwise its departure would not cause a cessation of life: and if intangible heat imbued with life is not the description and definition of a spirit - I do not know what else is!

And -

Deep Sight:
What this means is that physical energy cannot cxonceivably exist outside the existence of all other elements of existence as a whole - and as such is tied therewith and one therewith.

The inevitable conclusion being that all energies are of the same compound which defines all existence - only that they are expressed or manifest in different forms.

@ Justcool, that was a brilliant post, I will return later to discuss, cheers.

_{I have not forgotten I am owing you some reversions on the thread about thought forms being matter.}

Deep Sight:

I have taken note and adjusted the title in terms of your suggestion.

Nevertheless as we proceed I hope to achieve exactly that.

Thanks.

Excellent. Now let us take a close look at this.

If the "so called life force" is "given off as heat" - this would suggest that that physical heat by itself is the actuating element for the existence of the rat as a living form. This is ineluctable: at death you suggest that the "so called life force" is "given off as heat": in reversing this process you thereby suggest to me that what is now missing from the rat - what has departed from it - is that physical heat - and thus it is that physical heat that is actaually what made the rat alive.

Do you think you can sustain the inference you have thereby made: namely that the element that makes things alive as conscious creatures, complete with awareness, is physical heat? Because if that were the case then physical heat by itself would posess attributes of life - given that you suggest that it is the element that departs which renders a body dead, no?

Your surmise is therefore not suffiently deep. It dwells only upon the exchange of energy which is observable in ecosystems but does not probe the core question being asked. As I have shown above, it is actually contradictory and internally inconsistent.

Because that which it does for me is show inescapably that the heat that departs at death must perforce be heat that is imbued with life - otherwise its departure would not cause a cessation of life: and if intangible heat imbued with life is not the description and definition of a spirit - I do not know what else is!

i really dont understand this multi-coloured stuff up there but but heat is a consequence of the work achieved by chemical reactions in a living body. As soon as the cells cease to work they stop producing heat and through decay convert to different energy forms.

Heat is continually being produced and expelled from the body. Therz an exchange of heat between body and environment. According to you as I'm walking on the street right now in this wicked summer heat spirits are flying off my skin in form of heat?

If the dead rat cells are somehow artificially  stimulated to work again, they'll still produce heat! 
the heat is not ''imbubed'' with life rather its a consequence of life.

How you equate loss of kinetic energy as a result of death to spirit is beyond me.

Tudór:


Heat is continually being produced and expelled from the body. Therz an exchange of heat between body and environment. According to you as I'm walking on the street right now in this wicked summer heat spirits are flying off my skin in form of heat?

I need to make clear that that was not my statement: it was rather an inference i drew from your statement - which i believed to be wrong and contradictory: I certainly made it clear that physical heat for me is not the actuating element of life - and as such the scenario you draw above cannot be traced to my statements.

I have simply stated that the "life-force" that departs at death is clearly imbued with heat, energy and life. This, I call a spirit, not physical heat.

If the dead rat cells are somehow artificially  stimulated to work again, they'll still produce heat! 
the heat is not ''imbubed'' with life rather its a consequence of life.

Do you recognise the mighty implication of this statement?

How you equate loss of kinetic energy as a result of death to spirit is beyond me.

We will see as we go along. Gotta go use some kinetic energy now!

@Deepsight,

How are you? Your thread is very interesting. Hopefully, I will offer my perception as the thread develops. In the meantime, the following questions may be helpful to you as you articulate your perceptions
1. What is matter?
2. What is Energy?
3. Is energy contained in matter?
4. Can there be matter without energy?
5. Can energy exist without matter?
6. When it is said that energy is transformed from one form to the other, what is it that constitutes these forms?
7. What is counsciousness?
8. What is the relationship between energy and gravity?
9. Is the Sun counscious or is there a Counsciousness that uses the Sun as its cloack?
10. Are there counsciousness in a rock, a brain cell, a tree or a spematozoa? Are there energy in a rock, a brain cell, a tree or a spermatoza?
Stay blessed.

Dear Analissa, thanks for replying to my post.

Analissa:

Energy IS the ability to do work but it is also the potential ability to do work. Without doing work or without the potential ability to do work, there is no energy. see dead rat.

You are not very very correct. Your definitions are too elementary. Energy and work are too different things. Energy can exist whitout the ability to do work.

What is work?

Work is the product of force and distance.

Example: When you heat a pot of water to boiling point in a stove. You have transferred thermal energy from the fire to the pot and the water but zero work has been done.

The human brain uses that the energy and it can think, is that work?

Energy is inherent in all matter, and you cant have matter without energy. Only at elementary stage do people define energy as the ability to do work. In advanced science classes, that definition is very wrong.

Also consider that the same amount of energy can result in different amount of work done. A car can go 10 miles with a gallon of gasoline while another car can go 15 miles with the same amount of gasoline. Despite this the amount of energy in the gasoline remains constant as much as the mass of the gasoline remains constant. The amount of work done is more closely related to the efficiency of the system and not the energy. Energy is relative to mass(matter) rather than work.

The ability to do work is more relative to the efficiency of a system and not necessarily the energy.

Analissa:

Energy is not matter. Matter in its most basic is anything that takes up space. While there is energy in matter. When matter is destroyed the energy (or potential energy)is released. Matter is not and can never be energy it can only have energy.

First of all, matter is not destroyed. The notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed still stands. You definition of matter is missing a very crucial constituent of matter: Mass. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. But this definition is also very elementry.

An advanced view on matter is that matter is condensed energy. So in nuclear reaction, when energy is released and matter is seemingly destroyed; matter is not actually destroyed. One can say that in such cases matter changes its state-- it becomes pure energy.

Einstein discovered that the universe's total  matter plus energy is constant: energy can be converted to matter, and matter can be converted to energy.

He came up with the equation: E=mc^2

Yes matter can become energy; matter is actually energy. Here is an intresting article that you might want to read:
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html

The truth is that we are surrounded by energy; everything we see, including ourselves are energy. It is only our brain that gives us the illusion of solidity of matter, and etc. Our brain plays a lot in our perception. The reality which we will never see is that everything is energy. This is really very deep; I dont want to go into it now. Consider the 'wave/particle duality' nature of light.

Analissa:

No, one can logically conclude that the moving car is making use of the chemical energy in it (petrol) and changing it into kinetic energy to work and heat and sound energy as a by product while the other either doesn't have the same chemical energy or hasn't been prompted to use it. So it is the energy in the car not some spirit entity

A car filled petrol cannot move by itself. A man has to drive the car. You need to reread my analogy, you definitely did not understand it. What you described is the mechanism of the movement and not what initiates the movement.

A car filled with petrol is like a dead rat as long as the car does not have a driver. Both systems (car and dead rat) have energy but lack a driver.


Thanks