People like to blather on and on about what is “qi” and so on. They never really come to a consensus. The right-brained stuff tells me – who cares. Having some left-brained explanation is really irrelevant. Nevertheless, the left-brained stuff says, in more modern terms, what the heck is “energy” anyway? I’m pretty sure I don’t understand “energy” so why would I think I could explain “qi”, which seems, roughly, like some kind of “energy”? Here is a quote from Wikipedia. I would assume I have some understanding of these paragraphs but … really I haven’t a clue. I tried to digest the whole entry but let’s face it, I can’t!!! It’s even harder to understand than the question of what is philosophy, and what is the difference between philosophy, strategy and theory? This intellectualization is for sure, useless, but what the heck. The left brain really likes to amuse itself.

In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek ενεργός, energos, “active, working”)[1] is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Energy is often defined as the ability to do work.

Several different forms of energy, including kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, elastic, electromagnetic, chemical, nuclear, and mass have been defined to explain all known natural phenomena.

Energy is converted from one form to another. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether’s theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.[2]

Although the total energy of a system does not change with time, its value may depend on the frame of reference. For example, a seated passenger in a moving airplane has zero kinetic energy relative to the airplane, but nonzero kinetic energy relative to the earth.

That last paragraph is interesting because Tim Cartmell makes an analogy like that to explain “stillness in motion”. That makes a lot of sense and is easier to understand. Suddenly, you change the frame of reference after “sticking” in the same frame and possibly causing a feeling of “disappearing into emptiness” or “there is nothing to apply force to” and your partner/opponent is suddenly thrown out. Still, I can’t really understand the other stuff in the paragraphs above that one. Ugh. I’m sure I don’t really need to, but still.

Where the Wikipedia article quotes Feynman, things are a bit easier to grasp:

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law — it is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.