From Newsgroup: sci.physics.research

In an internal combustion engine, energy is generated and then channeled
in one direction, and that scalar energy becomes a vector force.

Therefore, we can consider energy as a set of equal and opposite forces directed in all possible directions.

Thus, energy, despite being composed of vector forces, is a scalar
simply because none of these forces prevails over the opposing force.

However, if at a certain point one of these forces increases or
decreases without the opposing force doing the same, part of this energy becomes a vector force.

Is this correct?

Luigi Fortunati

[[Mod. note --
No, in general it's not correct. Energy and force are two different
things, and it's not correct is to say that energy is composed of
forces.

Energy is the ability to do work, and an important special case of
this is mechanical work, where a force acts on a body which moves.

But, there are (other) types of energy which aren't associated with
mechanical work. For example, think about the energy carried by electromagnetic radiation (e.g., sunlight), or more generally, by the
energy contained in a (large) set of photons.
-- jt]]
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.research

Il 18/02/2026 04:23, Luigi Fortunati ha scritto:

In an internal combustion engine, energy is generated and then channeled
in one direction, and that scalar energy becomes a vector force.

Therefore, we can consider energy as a set of equal and opposite forces directed in all possible directions.

Thus, energy, despite being composed of vector forces, is a scalar
simply because none of these forces prevails over the opposing force.

However, if at a certain point one of these forces increases or
decreases without the opposing force doing the same, part of this energy becomes a vector force.

Is this correct?

Luigi Fortunati

[[Mod. note --
No, in general it's not correct. Energy and force are two different
things, and it's not correct is to say that energy is composed of
forces.

Energy is the ability to do work, and an important special case of
this is mechanical work, where a force acts on a body which moves.

But, there are (other) types of energy which aren't associated with mechanical work. For example, think about the energy carried by electromagnetic radiation (e.g., sunlight), or more generally, by the
energy contained in a (large) set of photons.
-- jt]]

Okay, in general, that's not correct, but in one particular case, it is.

In a balloon, the internal air particles continually collide with the
walls, keeping it inflated.

In this case, we can say that the sum of all the forces exerted by the
air particles against the walls of the balloon is internal "energy,"
without direction.

[[Mod. note --
No, we can't (correctly) say that.

One way to see this is to compare two balloons A and B, both having
the same shape, and both inflated to the same pressure, but with B
being 10 times the diameter of A.

B has 1000 times as much volume of A, so compressing the air into B
required 1000 times as much energy as compressing the air into A, and puncturing B can release 1000 times as much energy as puncturing A.

Since both balloons are inflated to the same pressure, the force
exerted by the compressed air on each square cm of B's outer skin
is the same as the force exerted by the conpressed air on each
square cm of A's outer skin. B has 100 times as much surface area
as A, so the sum (really a surface integral) of all the forces
exerted by the compressed air against B's outer skin is 100 times
as much as the sum (surface integral) of all the forces exerted by
the compressed air against A's skin.

Comparing A vs B, we see that B stores 1000 times as much energy,
but has only 100 times as much total-force-on-outer-skin. Since
energy varies *differently* from the total-force-on-outer-skin,
these things can't be the same.
-- jt]]

And when the balloon punctures and the air escapes, we can say that the
scalar internal energy has transformed into something else with vector characteristics because the balloon, which was previously stationary, is
now accelerating due to the unbalanced air forces.

So, at least in this case, we can say that the balanced pushes are
energy and the unbalanced pushes are forces.

Luigi Fortunati
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.research

Il 19/02/2026 02:43, Luigi Fortunati ha scritto:

Il 18/02/2026 04:23, Luigi Fortunati ha scritto:

In an internal combustion engine, energy is generated and then channeled
in one direction, and that scalar energy becomes a vector force.

Therefore, we can consider energy as a set of equal and opposite forces
directed in all possible directions.

Thus, energy, despite being composed of vector forces, is a scalar
simply because none of these forces prevails over the opposing force.

However, if at a certain point one of these forces increases or
decreases without the opposing force doing the same, part of this energy
becomes a vector force.

Is this correct?

Luigi Fortunati

[[Mod. note --
No, in general it's not correct. Energy and force are two different
things, and it's not correct is to say that energy is composed of
forces.

Energy is the ability to do work, and an important special case of
this is mechanical work, where a force acts on a body which moves.

But, there are (other) types of energy which aren't associated with
mechanical work. For example, think about the energy carried by
electromagnetic radiation (e.g., sunlight), or more generally, by the
energy contained in a (large) set of photons.
-- jt]]

Okay, in general, that's not correct, but in one particular case, it is.

In a balloon, the internal air particles continually collide with the
walls, keeping it inflated.

In this case, we can say that the sum of all the forces exerted by the
air particles against the walls of the balloon is internal "energy,"
without direction.

[[Mod. note --
No, we can't (correctly) say that.

One way to see this is to compare two balloons A and B, both having
the same shape, and both inflated to the same pressure, but with B
being 10 times the diameter of A.

B has 1000 times as much volume of A, so compressing the air into B
required 1000 times as much energy as compressing the air into A, and puncturing B can release 1000 times as much energy as puncturing A.

Since both balloons are inflated to the same pressure, the force
exerted by the compressed air on each square cm of B's outer skin
is the same as the force exerted by the conpressed air on each
square cm of A's outer skin. B has 100 times as much surface area
as A, so the sum (really a surface integral) of all the forces
exerted by the compressed air against B's outer skin is 100 times
as much as the sum (surface integral) of all the forces exerted by
the compressed air against A's skin.

Comparing A vs B, we see that B stores 1000 times as much energy,
but has only 100 times as much total-force-on-outer-skin. Since
energy varies *differently* from the total-force-on-outer-skin,
these things can't be the same.
-- jt]]

Everything is correct as always, but I wrote other things.

Referring to the energy of the inflated balloon (and not to other
energies), I wrote that...

1) The scalar energy of the inflated balloon is the set of vector forces
of the air pushing against the walls.

2) This energy, despite being composed of vectors, is scalar because,
for every force pushing to the right, there is another pushing equally
to the left, and for every force pushing up, there is another pushing
down, and so on.

3) The presence of these equal and opposite forces ensures the mutual cancellation of all the forces present, so no vector quantity remains.

All this persists as long as the balloon remains inflated, but ceases to
exist when it punctures (for example) on the right.

In this case, the internal forces pushing to the left (and no longer
balanced by those pushing to the right) take over and accelerate the
balloon to the left.

The same forces that formed the internal scalar energy of the inflated
balloon now become the net force *vector*, which accelerates the balloon according to the second law, F=ma.

That said, why am I interested in the connection between energy and force?

I'm interested because the stresses that occur at the point of contact
during the collision create two distinct and separate energies, one for
each body, with two different histories.

Luigi Fortunati
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.research

In the animation https://www.geogebra.org/classic/qwsbenj2, body A of
mass mA = 6 kg collides with body B of mass mB = 3 kg.

The force F1 pushes body B to the right, while the forces F2 and F4 push
body A to the left.

Instead, the force F3 pushes both body A and body B to the right.

Can you determine how much of the force from F3 contributes to pushing
body B?

Luigi Fortunati
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2