>>13782818I'm feeling generous so I'll give an answer.
>>13782906Not an answer pseud.
>>13783203>weYou're not a physicist. You didn't define anything.
If you wrote a post below this, I didn't read it. Dont care to. Now, OP:
>>13782818Firstly, energy in physics is defined only with respect to changes. There are no actual energy values assigned to discrete moments in time, only a quantifiable change in energy. The principle of conservation of energy for mechanical processes merely states the total change in energy in a process must be zero. For example, when an object falls from a height h, its change in potential energy is negative whilst its change in kinetic energy is positive. When it hits the ground, the change in kinetic energy is zero whilst its internal change of energy increases (hence the object either distorts or breaks). Some objects have high elasticity coefficients and convert the kinetic energy into potential (hence bouncing back up).
If you're asking for processes in which the total change in energy of an object is negative... well that would be very weird indeed and I'm not familiar with any such processes.
