Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: TomGee on 22 Sep 2005 16:40 Randy Poe wrote: > TomGee wrote: > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > TomGee wrote: > > > > > > [...], SNIP > > > > > No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the isolated object moves > > using the energy of its mass to move. > > Which to you is its kinetic energy. So you are making the statement > that to you "kinetic energy" is a thing separate from motion, > but when its there, a body uses it to move. > > So long as we agree that motion and KE always go together, > that KE has the mathematical form that I would assign it > (0.5mv^2 for a body at moderate velocity, E - mc^2 in general), > we won't disagree on the relation between KE and motion. > > > There are no bodies without > > energy visible to us and all mass contains relatively vast amounts of > > energy. A moving body has energy due to its motion in addition to the > > energy in its mass. > > Oh dear. You seem to be saying something different, that > mc^2 is part of the energy of motion. Well, I'm afraid I'll have > to disagree. A body with no motion has E = mc^2, and it won't > spontaneously start moving unless there is an external force > (Newton's First Law). And when it does, the KE will be present, > in exactly the amount E - mc^2. > > No, that's wrong. I am saying that mc^2 is fine but it is invalid wrt the universe unless and until we include the factor of motion in it because everything in the universe is in motion due to the BB's expansion process and due too to other events which have affected the velocity of discrete objects or systems. Thus, in reality, in our universe, things move in all directions and they move at varying speeds. Therefore, the amount of energy in a given mass is determined by multiplying its mass times c^2 plus the energy it has due to its motion, or, as the original formula was stated, E=mv^2+(energy of motion). An object's "energy of motion" is its momentum because while momentum is a quantity it is also an inherent force that influences the object's reaction to any action. However, AE dropped off the energy-of-motion factor from the formula he "borrowed" and that made the formula invalid wrt the universe since nothin can be at rest within the universe. He took the general case of deduction which is the full formula for energy and made it an induction, or, a "special case" of the general case. An induction is fine in many cases, but not wrt the reality of the universe where it conflicts with it. AE made up the special case not to compete with reality but to make it useful as a tool for a certain use. There is one case in reality where it appears that an object is not in motion, and that is when we compare the motion of one object to another object. Two or more objects can be at constant velocity (CV) wrt each other when they are moving at the same speed and in the same direction. You and your chair, e.g., are at constant velocity when you are sitting in it, but when you get up and leave, you are no longer at CV with it as you are moving within the universe at a speed different than that of the chair and in a different direction as well. Of course, you and the chair are both moving pell mell through space even it can appear you and the chair are stationary. That is an illusion since nothing can be stationary within the universe. It is not an illusion, however, if we say that wrt to each other, you and the chair are at CV. That can be true, then, and since the velocity of both are equal, it can be cancelled out when comparing other factors between the chair and you. Thus, we can validly use AE's shortened version of the energy vs mass equation which drops off the momentum factor. Now here, most readers are waving hands saying that the energy equation that includes momentum includes the energy of motion by definition and so that is a correct and total measurement of the energy in a given mass. Well, if it does that wrt to the real universe, fine. If not, it is only as valid as AE's shortened version. And only that KE will be > recoverable in collisions, or in the form of other energy > such as PE or useful work. The energy stored in mc^2 is not > generally available to us outside in mechanical processes. > > > The total energy of a mass is measurable as > > momentum > > No, incomparable quantities. They go together, but they aren't > the same thing. Bodies with KE also have momentum. Both are > separately conserved. In inelastic collisions momentum is > conserved but KE is not. > > > and it can be applied as a force as well, > > No, energy can't be "used as a force". Length can't be "used as > an area" or as a time. Energy can't be used as a length. > > > as in the 3rd law of inertial motion. > > That doesn't tell use "energy can be used as a force". It > does relate force and momentum: F = dp/dt. > > It would be a pity if you were right, but you contradict yourself immediately by saying above that force and momentum are equivalent. > > > > Thus, momentum is both a measurement and a force, > > like it or not. > > Your "thus" does not follow. The fact that F and p are related > by F = dp/dt does not mean p "can be used as F". > > Why not? According to you above, they're equal to each other. I told you it's time to climb out of your divisive box into the cohesive universe. Don't be like those dolts at FEMA, or like GWB taking responsibility for the catastrophe and taking a vacation for punishment, or the head of FEMA blaming his underling for his own stupidity, or like the underling falling for it (wonder what he was promised for that act of martyrdom?). > > > > > And finally I guess you'd say that a body with KE will maintain > > > a constant velocity forever if there are no external forces. > > > And again I'd agree: if there are no external forces, KE > > > is conserved, and so motion is unchanged. > > > > > Oh, wonderful. I am surprised, but elated too at having been able to > > get my point across to you. However, I would not say the constant > > velocity can be maintained forever. > > Well then I'm not sure why you're elated since there is no part > of the above paragraph on which we agree. > > Sure there is: "...a body with KE will maintain a constant velocity..." Just not forever. > > > > Remember, "Any system will run > > down when left to itself, through various forms of attrition." > > Incorrect. Systems in which friction are present will run > down due to energy losses. Is this another quote from Encarta? > Give it up. > What about entropy? What friction is required there for all objects? > > > > > They are OF different dimensions. They HAVE different dimensions. > > > They are different things. That's why we don't like to use a word > > > like "force" to describe a thing like KE which doesn't have > > > the dimensions of force. > > > > > Yes, we don't like to use force in that way, I agree, but we need to > > No, we don't "need to" mix our units, since doing so gives different > answers. When I said we don't "like to use force that way" I meant > the semantic usage. We don't like to apply the same name to things > which can't be used in the same equations. It confuses things. > > I agree, we don't like to do that. > > > In the equation F = dp/dt, it is just as correct if we use the > word "force", as you are wont to in your Encarta-motivated > vocabulary, for F as well as for p, so long as one is careful > never to use the p-type "force" on the left or the F-type "force" > on the right. If one uses the word "force" to mean momentum and > uses momentum units to mean this type of "force", you'll confuse > everyone you talk to, but you can still have correct equations. > > Yes, I know it's confusing, but we are seeking the truth in a world which is rife with even more confusing untruths and that is worth having to face the prospect of the possiblility that we may have to change our views. > > > So we don't like this abuse of language and no we don't "have" > to abuse our language. It might lead us to do stupid mistakes, > like use "A force" in equations where we can only use "B force". > > Well no, don't do that, by all means. > > > > Yes, that's true. But we know energy comes in various forms and can be > > measured in various ways. > > All of which are subject to conservation of energy and all of > which are measured in the same units. > > > My model contends that energy is the fifth > > force > > Well, that language makes it sound like you're using it as the > kind of "force" that can be used where we use F. For instance, > you would use "energy = ma". And that's just wrong. If it's a > "force", then it will accelerate masses, because that's > what everything we call a force does. > > The two are often used as being equivalent, but not where it will make a difference as you point out. At some point of research, certain distinctions must be made so as to identify the various components involved. As you point out, we must distinguish between F and energy when the equation is incorrect without the distinction. That's what I claim about AE's use of the energy/mass equivalence formula which he invented from the full equation of the general case. > In other words, saying its the "fifth force" while it doesn't obey > a single equation that the other four forces do, is wrong-o. > > Yes, I agree that at the level where it cannot replace the force factor or obey an equation which any of the other forces do, it cannot be used. But just like we can use AE's shortened version of reality, at some point we should be able to say "energy" and "force" as equivalent. E.g., power is energy or force used to drive machinery or produce electricity. At that level of explanation, energy and force are seen as being equivalent in describing power. > > > > and that as such it will be the cornerstone of the GUT > > Well, that will be hard to do for something which fails on > the grounds that F = ma. > > No, it won't, unless you're looking for a great revelation as to the meaning of life or something. The truth is not so easily found and that makes life worth living. > > > > > Energy is not, of course, a force. Trying to equate energy to > > > ma will lead to nonsense. > > > > > Is that what you thought about mass and energy? > > No. That was introduced a half-century before I was born. > > Gee, too bad, you missed a good show (or so I've been told). > > > > Were you one of those > > who would burn at the stake anyone claiming that mass and energy are > > equivalent? > > No. Do you have some evidence that anybody ever did that? > > > And now that everyone agrees with that, are you now saying > > the same thing about energy and force. > > No. Einstein's theories were radical but don't fail on elementary > dimensional grounds. > > Yes, they do if you think E=mc^2 is reality applied to a single mass. > > > Remember, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo > the clown. > > Yes and that made Bozo successful while Galileo's work was claimed by Newton. > > > Being "different from existing physics" doesn't > automatically > mean you're right. > Correct. > > > > Let's examine the possibility that my wish to unite the two could work. > > OK, I examine it. I try to put energy on the left hand side > of F = ma. Oops, it fails out the starting gate. End of story. > > It's no wonder you're so confused; you're so short-sighted when it comes to making valid examinations of ideas.
From: Randy Poe on 22 Sep 2005 16:59 TomGee wrote: > Randy Poe wrote: > > TomGee wrote: > > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > > TomGee wrote: > > > > > > > [...], > SNIP > > > > > > > No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the isolated object moves > > > using the energy of its mass to move. > > > > Which to you is its kinetic energy. So you are making the statement > > that to you "kinetic energy" is a thing separate from motion, > > but when its there, a body uses it to move. > > > > So long as we agree that motion and KE always go together, > > that KE has the mathematical form that I would assign it > > (0.5mv^2 for a body at moderate velocity, E - mc^2 in general), > > we won't disagree on the relation between KE and motion. > > > > > There are no bodies without > > > energy visible to us and all mass contains relatively vast amounts of > > > energy. A moving body has energy due to its motion in addition to the > > > energy in its mass. > > > > Oh dear. You seem to be saying something different, that > > mc^2 is part of the energy of motion. Well, I'm afraid I'll have > > to disagree. A body with no motion has E = mc^2, and it won't > > spontaneously start moving unless there is an external force > > (Newton's First Law). And when it does, the KE will be present, > > in exactly the amount E - mc^2. > > > > [Snip a bunch of silliness] > And only that KE will be > > recoverable in collisions, or in the form of other energy > > such as PE or useful work. The energy stored in mc^2 is not > > generally available to us outside in mechanical processes. > > > > > The total energy of a mass is measurable as > > > momentum > > > > No, incomparable quantities. They go together, but they aren't > > the same thing. Bodies with KE also have momentum. Both are > > separately conserved. In inelastic collisions momentum is > > conserved but KE is not. > > > > > and it can be applied as a force as well, > > > > No, energy can't be "used as a force". Length can't be "used as > > an area" or as a time. Energy can't be used as a length. > > > > > as in the 3rd law of inertial motion. > > > > That doesn't tell use "energy can be used as a force". It > > does relate force and momentum: F = dp/dt. > > > > > It would be a pity if you were right, but you contradict yourself > immediately by saying above that force and momentum are equivalent. Where did I say that? I would have snipped more, but I wanted to leave all the stuff you quoted from me so you can point me to the passage where you think I said F = p. > > > Thus, momentum is both a measurement and a force, > > > like it or not. > > > > Your "thus" does not follow. The fact that F and p are related > > by F = dp/dt does not mean p "can be used as F". > > > > > Why not? According to you above, they're equal to each other. Where did I say that? [snip non-physics diatribe] > > Well then I'm not sure why you're elated since there is no part > > of the above paragraph on which we agree. > > > > > Sure there is: "...a body with KE will maintain a constant > velocity..." Just not forever. Since I said forever, we don't agree. > > Incorrect. Systems in which friction are present will run > > down due to energy losses. Is this another quote from Encarta? > > Give it up. > > > What about entropy? What friction is required there for all objects? A stable system in which nothing is happening will not lose energy, and will not change in entropy. A lump of rock sailing through interstellar space is not going to spontaneously increase in entropy. Ever. > > > Yes, we don't like to use force in that way, I agree, but we need to > > > > No, we don't "need to" mix our units, since doing so gives different > > answers. When I said we don't "like to use force that way" I meant > > the semantic usage. We don't like to apply the same name to things > > which can't be used in the same equations. It confuses things. > > > I agree, we don't like to do that. Good. Then you'll stop saying silly things like "energy", which is used in one place in equations, "is a force", which is used in different equations. > > In the equation F = dp/dt, it is just as correct if we use the > > word "force", as you are wont to in your Encarta-motivated > > vocabulary, for F as well as for p, so long as one is careful > > never to use the p-type "force" on the left or the F-type "force" > > on the right. If one uses the word "force" to mean momentum and > > uses momentum units to mean this type of "force", you'll confuse > > everyone you talk to, but you can still have correct equations. > > > > > Yes, I know it's confusing, Not just confusing. Wrong. > but we are seeking the truth No "truth" is gained by taking separate semantic concepts and giving them the same name. > > So we don't like this abuse of language and no we don't "have" > > to abuse our language. It might lead us to do stupid mistakes, > > like use "A force" in equations where we can only use "B force". > > > Well no, don't do that, by all means. You changed your mind again? First you agree it's bad to create semantic confusion, then you say in the interest of "truth" we need to create semantic confusion. Now you agree it's bad again. Will you shortly say it's good again? > > > My model contends that energy is the fifth > > > force > > > > Well, that language makes it sound like you're using it as the > > kind of "force" that can be used where we use F. For instance, > > you would use "energy = ma". And that's just wrong. If it's a > > "force", then it will accelerate masses, because that's > > what everything we call a force does. > > > The two are often used as being equivalent, The two are NEVER used as equivalent in any equation. > involved. As you point out, we must distinguish between F and energy > when the equation is incorrect without the distinction. OK, semantic confusion still bad. > That's what I > claim about AE's use of the energy/mass equivalence formula which he > invented from the full equation of the general case. Incoherent. > > > In other words, saying its the "fifth force" while it doesn't obey > > a single equation that the other four forces do, is wrong-o. > > > > > Yes, I agree that at the level where it cannot replace the force factor > or obey an equation which any of the other forces do, it cannot be > used. > > But just like we can use AE's shortened version of reality, at some > point we should be able to say "energy" and "force" as equivalent. And back to "semantic confusion good". > E.g., power is energy or force used to drive machinery or produce > electricity. No, it is not. Power, energy, and force are three different things. Power plants are designed to produce a certain amount of POWER (not energy or force). The utility charges you for your consumption of ENERGY (not power or force). > At that level of explanation, energy and force are seen > as being equivalent in describing power. No, they are not seen as equivalent. I agree that Encarta seems to use them as equivalent. To that extent, Encarta is creating unnecessary semantic confusion. I forget, is creating unnecessary semantic confusion good or bad at this point in the conversation? Oh yes, your last statement was that confusion is good. Well I disagree, confusion is bad. > > > and that as such it will be the cornerstone of the GUT > > > > Well, that will be hard to do for something which fails on > > the grounds that F = ma. > > > > > No, it won't, unless you're looking for a great revelation as to the > meaning of life or something. F = ma is not the meaning of life. But if I put power or energy on the left-hand side, it will be incorrect. I'm looking for the equations that describe reality to actually describe reality. I'm looking for "truth" in the sense that the answers are right. > > > Is that what you thought about mass and energy? > > > > No. That was introduced a half-century before I was born. > > > Gee, too bad, you missed a good show (or so I've been told). > > > > > > > Were you one of those > > > who would burn at the stake anyone claiming that mass and energy are > > > equivalent? > > > > No. Do you have some evidence that anybody ever did that? I see you don't. So the set of "those who would burn at the stake..." is an empty set. I am not a member of any empty sets. > > > And now that everyone agrees with that, are you now saying > > > the same thing about energy and force. > > > > No. Einstein's theories were radical but don't fail on elementary > > dimensional grounds. > > > Yes, they do if you think E=mc^2 is reality applied to a single mass. First, I said "fail on elementary dimensional grounds". Does E = mc^2 fail on elementary dimensional grounds? Second, E = mc^2 is correct when momentum is zero. > > Remember, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo > > the clown. > > > Yes and that made Bozo successful It did not make Bozo a scientific revolutionary. Just a clown. > > > Let's examine the possibility that my wish to unite the two could work. > > > > OK, I examine it. I try to put energy on the left hand side > > of F = ma. Oops, it fails out the starting gate. End of story. > > > It's no wonder you're so confused; you're so short-sighted when it > comes to making valid examinations of ideas. Putting E on the left hand side of that equation fails on elementary dimensional grounds. It gives wrong and inconsistent results. Do you think I can put E on the left-hand side of F = ma? So if I have an energy, it will be equal to mass times acceleration? Any object with kinetic energy is accelerating? - Randy
From: Herman Trivilino on 22 Sep 2005 17:22 "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > Now here, most readers are waving hands saying that the energy equation > that includes momentum includes the energy of motion by definition and > so that is a correct and total measurement of the energy in a given > mass. In that sentence you use the word "mass" as if it is an object. And you attribute to it a property called "energy". Don't you agree that energy and mass are properties? An object has mass. An object has energy. A mass cannot have energy. That's nonsense. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: G=EMC^2 Glazier on 22 Sep 2005 17:47 Hi TomGee Motion is the changing of position in reference to an assumed point of center. A significant movement. Than we have the meaning for "perpetual motion,and that is getting more mechanical energy going out than what's but in. I think I see where your coming from TomGee,but you are trying to fit just "motion" in the hard way. I like "spin" better,and that is why I have a "Spin is in Theory" to help answer natures greatest mystery Beert
From: TomGee on 22 Sep 2005 19:44
Randy Poe wrote: > TomGee wrote: > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > TomGee wrote: > > > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > > > TomGee wrote: > > > > > > > > [...], > > SNIP > > > > > > > > > No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the isolated object moves > > > > using the energy of its mass to move. > > > > > > Which to you is its kinetic energy. So you are making the statement > > > that to you "kinetic energy" is a thing separate from motion, > > > but when its there, a body uses it to move. > > > > > > So long as we agree that motion and KE always go together, > > > that KE has the mathematical form that I would assign it > > > (0.5mv^2 for a body at moderate velocity, E - mc^2 in general), > > > we won't disagree on the relation between KE and motion. > > > > > > > There are no bodies without > > > > energy visible to us and all mass contains relatively vast amounts of > > > > energy. A moving body has energy due to its motion in addition to the > > > > energy in its mass. > > > > > > Oh dear. You seem to be saying something different, that > > > mc^2 is part of the energy of motion. Well, I'm afraid I'll have > > > to disagree. A body with no motion has E = mc^2, and it won't > > > spontaneously start moving unless there is an external force > > > (Newton's First Law). And when it does, the KE will be present, > > > in exactly the amount E - mc^2. > > > > > > > > [Snip a bunch of silliness] > > And only that KE will be > > > [SNIP a bunch of silliness] > > > > > > > > The total energy of a mass is measurable as > > > > momentum > > > > > > [SNIP a bunch of silliness] > > > > > > > and it can be applied as a force as well, > > > [SNIP a bunch of silliness] > > > > > > > as in the 3rd law of inertial motion. > > > > > > That doesn't tell use "energy can be used as a force". It > > > does relate force and momentum: F = dp/dt. > > > > > > > > It would be a pity if you were right, but you contradict yourself > > immediately by saying above that force and momentum are equivalent. > > Where did I say that? I would have snipped more, but I wanted > to leave all the stuff you quoted from me so you can point > me to the passage where you think I said F = p. > > If you think you did not say it. then just what do you mean by F=dp/dt? > > > > > > Thus, momentum is both a measurement and a force, > > > > like it or not. > > > > > > Your "thus" does not follow. The fact that F and p are related > > > by F = dp/dt does not mean p "can be used as F". > > > > > > > > Why not? According to you above, they're equal to each other. > > Where did I say that? > > [snip non-physics diatribe] > > > > Well then I'm not sure why you're elated since there is no part > > > of the above paragraph on which we agree. > > > > > > > > Sure there is: "...a body with KE will maintain a constant > > velocity..." Just not forever. > > Since I said forever, we don't agree. > > > > Incorrect. Systems in which friction are present will run > > > down due to energy losses. Is this another quote from Encarta? > > > Give it up. > > > > > What about entropy? What friction is required there for all objects? > > A stable system in which nothing is happening will not lose > energy, and will not change in entropy. > > Of course, energy is conserved. But I cannot even imagine such a system where "nothing is happening" since in our universe, our reality, something is always happening and friction seems to be ever present. Even the most stable system imaginable must be ever moving within the universe due to the expansion process, and that motion causes changes to be "happening". > > >A lump of rock > sailing through interstellar space is not going to spontaneously > increase in entropy. Ever. > > You mean, without some cause for the increase? Right. Moving through space requires some force, external or internal, to cause it to move. External forces tend to change in time, and so do the internal forces present in matter. Motion cannot occur spontaneously without a cause behind it. That's my whole point, thank you. > > > > > Yes, we don't like to use force in that way, I agree, but we need to > > > > > > No, we don't "need to" mix our units, since doing so gives different > > > answers. When I said we don't "like to use force that way" I meant > > > the semantic usage. We don't like to apply the same name to things > > > which can't be used in the same equations. It confuses things. > > > > > I agree, we don't like to do that. > > Good. > > Then you'll stop saying silly things like "energy", which is used > in one place in equations, "is a force", which is used in > different equations. > > > > In the equation F = dp/dt, it is just as correct if we use the > > > word "force", as you are wont to in your Encarta-motivated > > > vocabulary, > > Attacking a source without support for the attack is pure opinion for which no one must feel obligated to respond to it. > > > > > for F as well as for p, so long as one is careful > > > never to use the p-type "force" on the left or the F-type "force" > > > on the right. If one uses the word "force" to mean momentum and > > > uses momentum units to mean this type of "force", you'll confuse > > > everyone you talk to, but you can still have correct equations. > > > > > > > > Yes, I know it's confusing, > > Not just confusing. Wrong. > > No, that's not what you said at first. You said one can _still_ have correct equations. What changed your mind so quickly, something I said? > > > > but we are seeking the truth > > No "truth" is gained by taking separate semantic concepts and > giving them the same name. > > Very well, if you say so. > > > > > So we don't like this abuse of language and no we don't "have" > > > to abuse our language. It might lead us to do stupid mistakes, > > > like use "A force" in equations where we can only use "B force". > > > > > Well no, don't do that, by all means. > > You changed your mind again? First you agree it's bad to > create semantic confusion, then you say in the interest of > "truth" we need to create semantic confusion. Now you agree > it's bad again. Will you shortly say it's good again? > > Lying does not reveal any good points in your character. > > > > > > My model contends that energy is the fifth > > > > force > > > > > > Well, that language makes it sound like you're using it as the > > > kind of "force" that can be used where we use F. For instance, > > > you would use "energy = ma". And that's just wrong. If it's a > > > "force", then it will accelerate masses, because that's > > > what everything we call a force does. > > > > > The two are often used as being equivalent, > > The two are NEVER used as equivalent in any equation. > > > involved. As you point out, we must distinguish between F and energy > > when the equation is incorrect without the distinction. > > OK, semantic confusion still bad. > > > That's what I > > claim about AE's use of the energy/mass equivalence formula which he > > invented from the full equation of the general case. > > Incoherent. > > To you, of course. I keep forgetting about your confusion. Sorry.... Let me explain it. You and AE believe that E=mc^2 is equivalent to reality. I have shown you it is not, but that at certain levels of research it has great utility, esp. in my explanation of constant velocity wrt two or more objects. So as I said before and which you snipped out, for you, it is okay to use something which is not reality but which uses components of reality to make it useful, even while ignoring some aspect of the reality which must be necessarily involved if we wish to claim that it is reality. But let me try to do the same, and Oh Nooo! You can't do that, Tom, its verboten, plus it's wrong! Isn't that just a teeny bit hypocritical? > > > > > > In other words, saying its the "fifth force" while it doesn't obey > > > a single equation that the other four forces do, is wrong-o. > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree that at the level where it cannot replace the force factor > > or obey an equation which any of the other forces do, it cannot be > > used. > > > > But just like we can use AE's shortened version of reality, at some > > point we should be able to say "energy" and "force" as equivalent. > > And back to "semantic confusion good". > > > E.g., power is energy or force used to drive machinery or produce > > electricity. > > No, it is not. Power, energy, and force are three different > things. Power plants are designed to produce a certain amount > of POWER (not energy or force). The utility charges you for > your consumption of ENERGY (not power or force). > > Stop acking silly. At certain levels of use, of course they are 3 different things. But at other levels of valid use they are equivalent. > > > > At that level of explanation, energy and force are seen > > as being equivalent in describing power. > > No, they are not seen as equivalent. > > Yes, they are. > > > I agree that Encarta seems to use them as equivalent. To that extent, > Encarta is creating unnecessary semantic confusion. > > Why don't you just go and kill Encarta since you hate it so much. Did Bill Gates fire you or something? Messsed with your sister or mother? What is it that makes you ack so childish about it? I don't make fun of your stuff from Wiki wiki, do I? I mean, I could, but it's enough for me to make fun of your bad behavior and leave your sources alone. > > > I forget, is creating unnecessary semantic confusion good or bad > at this point in the conversation? Oh yes, your last statement > was that confusion is good. Well I disagree, confusion is bad. > > I agree, that's why I'm trying to help you out of it. You're not making it easy though. > > > > > and that as such it will be the cornerstone of the GUT > > > > > > Well, that will be hard to do for something which fails on > > > the grounds that F = ma. > > > > > > > > No, it won't, unless you're looking for a great revelation as to the > > meaning of life or something. > > F = ma is not the meaning of life. But if I put power or energy > on the left-hand side, it will be incorrect. I'm looking for > the equations that describe reality to actually describe > reality. I'm looking for "truth" in the sense that the > answers are right. > > For most, that is a commendable goal, but I'm afraid that equations do not hardly ever describe reality, and you have long ago been taught that or learned it on your own. > > SNIP silly repartee.... > > > > > And now that everyone agrees with that, are you now saying > > > > the same thing about energy and force. > > > > > > No. Einstein's theories were radical but don't fail on elementary > > > dimensional grounds. > > > > > Yes, they do if you think E=mc^2 is reality applied to a single mass. > > First, I said "fail on elementary dimensional grounds". > > Does E = mc^2 fail on elementary dimensional grounds? > > Second, E = mc^2 is correct when momentum is zero. > > Well then tell us when it is that momentum can be zero? > > > > > Remember, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo > > > the clown. > > > > > Yes and that made Bozo successful > > It did not make Bozo a scientific revolutionary. Just a clown. > > You may want to be a failed scientist revolutionary but I would rather be a successful clown. > > > > > > Let's examine the possibility that my wish to unite the two could work. > > > > > > OK, I examine it. I try to put energy on the left hand side > > > of F = ma. Oops, it fails out the starting gate. End of story. > > > > > It's no wonder you're so confused; you're so short-sighted when it > > comes to making valid examinations of ideas. > > Putting E on the left hand side of that equation fails on elementary > dimensional grounds. It gives wrong and inconsistent results. > > Do you think I can put E on the left-hand side of F = ma? So if > I have an energy, it will be equal to mass times acceleration? > Any object with kinetic energy is accelerating? > > Sigh. I have explained my response to your claim where I explain the various valid levels of research but I have little hope you will understand it. |