Simplifying Terms
in [Relativity]
|
From: jdawe on 24 Jan 2010 05:58 We have 'mass' : Energy or Matter That can be: In Motion or At Rest Which simply means we have: energy in motion or energy at rest + matter in motion or matter at rest So, we don't need to make up terms like 'kinetic' to refer to energy in motion or 'potential energy' to refer to energy at rest. We simply have: energy in motion or energy at rest Which brings me to 'force' : push or pull Now rather than trying to make up a special term to refer to the pull force of gravity as 'emitted pull' and the pull force of fluid matter as maybe 'potential pull' we can simply: call gravity 'pull in motion' or call fluid matter 'pull at rest' So, therefore we have: pull in motion or pull at rest + push in motion or push at rest Naturally, push\pull at rest decelerates an object. or push\pull in motion accelerates an object. -Josh.
From: Inertial on 24 Jan 2010 06:56 "jdawe" <mrjdawe(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e147239e-43a7-4676-b4aa-aa5210233910(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > We have 'mass' : > > Energy > > or > > Matter No .. Energy and mass are equivalent .. both at present in matter. So 'matter' is energy AND mass > That can be: > > In Motion > > or > > At Rest No .. it is always both [snip rest of nonsense from incorrect assertions]
From: jdawe on 24 Jan 2010 19:33 On Jan 24, 10:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e147239e-43a7-4676-b4aa-aa5210233910(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > We have 'mass' : > > > Energy > > > or > > > Matter > > No .. Energy and mass are equivalent .. both at present in matter. > > So 'matter' is energy AND mass > > > That can be: > > > In Motion > > > or > > > At Rest > > No .. it is always both > > [snip rest of nonsense from incorrect assertions] Inertial, If "Energy and mass are equivalent" then to say "matter is energy AND mass" is to say energy, matter and mass are all the same thing with no difference. " > In Motion > > > or > > > At Rest > No .. it is always both" is also to say there is no difference between "in motion and at rest". This is why propositions by aliasing juveniles are to be disregarded. -Josh.
From: jdawe on 24 Jan 2010 19:37 On Jan 24, 9:58 pm, jdawe <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We have 'mass' : > > Energy > > or > > Matter > > That can be: > > In Motion > > or > > At Rest > > Which simply means we have: > > energy in motion > > or > > energy at rest > > + > > matter in motion > > or > > matter at rest > > So, we don't need to make up terms like 'kinetic' to refer to energy > in motion or 'potential energy' to refer to energy at rest. We simply > have: > > energy in motion > > or > > energy at rest > > Which brings me to 'force' : > > push > > or > > pull > > Now rather than trying to make up a special term to refer to the pull > force of gravity as 'emitted pull' and the pull force of fluid matter > as maybe 'potential pull' we can simply: > > call gravity 'pull in motion' > > or > > call fluid matter 'pull at rest' > > So, therefore we have: > > pull in motion > > or > > pull at rest > > + > > push in motion > > or > > push at rest > > Naturally, > > push\pull at rest decelerates an object. > > or > > push\pull in motion accelerates an object. > > -Josh. So the force opposing tree now looks like: force = push + pull with: push = push at rest + push in motion pull = pull at rest + pull in motion then: push at rest = matter at rest + energy at rest pull at rest = matter in motion + energy in motion to get push in motion we invert energy\matter at rest into energy \matter in motion. to get pull in motion we invert energy\matter in motion into energy \matter at rest. -Josh.
From: Inertial on 25 Jan 2010 09:14 "jdawe" <mrjdawe(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:61888163-680e-40d6-99c8-c0a5c408fad1(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 10:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e147239e-43a7-4676-b4aa-aa5210233910(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> > We have 'mass' : >> >> > Energy >> >> > or >> >> > Matter >> >> No .. Energy and mass are equivalent .. both at present in matter. >> >> So 'matter' is energy AND mass >> >> > That can be: >> >> > In Motion >> >> > or >> >> > At Rest >> >> No .. it is always both >> >> [snip rest of nonsense from incorrect assertions] > > Inertial, > > If "Energy and mass are equivalent" then to say "matter is energy AND > mass" is to say energy, matter and mass are all the same thing with no > difference. Your first real insight > > " > In Motion >> >> > or >> >> > At Rest > >> No .. it is always both" > > is also to say there is no difference between "in motion and at rest". And there is your second .. almost. There is a difference between rest and motion, but every object is both at rest AND in motion ,depending on who is observing them. This is very basic physics > This is why propositions by aliasing juveniles are to be disregarded. I try to ignore you, but you keep posting your naive nonsense over and over.
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: de Broglie's statement and the double slit experiment Next: THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AFTER DEATH |