Talk:Energy

Why should Energy be it's own article, and Radiation not? Please explain the difference. Thanks! -- Renegade54 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I wasn't aware that radiation was a now simply a category, nor have I seen redirecting a non-list page to a category as commonplace occurrence. However, according to Cid: "rd to cat; while this is nothing more than a list, this should suffice; preserving page history here, in case someone wants to make more of this article at some point" indicating that the page could still exist if the article was expanded beyond one reference and a list-- which I could very well see going back to being an article because there are several generic references to "radiation" that are not covered in what is categorized-- for example Captain Esteban's paranoia about radiation on Genesis. I think the same applies here, especially since many of the items listed in this article don't fall within the parameters of the category, and themselves could be expanded upon. --Alan del Beccio 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Alan... good explanation. -- Renegade54 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states that energy, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed; this is not quite true. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa. For example, the antimatter-matter annihilation mentioned in the article converts 2 kg of matter (and 1kg of antimatter) into $$1.8\times10^{17}$$ J. Mass-energy conversion also happens in nuclear fusion and fission. Though it is incorrect to talk about the conservation of matter or the conservation of energy, it is correct to talk about the conservation of mass/energy.--92.20.215.125 20:16, June 9, 2010 (UTC)