The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.y.Porat on 1 Mar 2010 11:51 On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:215076eb-d356-45d2-98f3-0fda9048683e(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Feb 28, 10:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:c464de34-eea3-4d29-a496-1d52a3dfa65a(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Feb 28, 4:13 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 27, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > On Feb 27, 1:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is > >> >> > > > possessed > >> >> > > > by > >> >> > > > organized portions of matter. > > >> >> > > I have noticed a definition in wiki which seems to imply that > >> >> > > energy > >> >> > > is more complicated than the definition above: > >> >> > > "The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > context of thermodynamics, can provide a measure of the amount of > >> >> > > energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work." > >> >> > > (http:// > >> >> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy) > > >> >> > > If energy is the ability to do work, but at the same time entropy > >> >> > > implies that some portion of energy is not available to do work, > >> >> > > then > >> >> > > how do we re-define that portion of the energy in a system not > >> >> > > available to do work? Is there a more complex definition of > >> >> > > energy? > > >> >> > That's actually an excellent point. Kinetic energy, one of the forms > >> >> > of energy, is divided into stochastic and collective energy. The > >> >> > collective energy is the kind of thing you would write (1/2)mv^2 for > >> >> > a > >> >> > baseball of mass m. Stochastic energy is that which is indicated > >> >> > (but > >> >> > not measured) by a thermometer; it is the *random* kinetic energy of > >> >> > the individual molecules in the body. The former can be wholly > >> >> > converted into work. The latter can only be partially converted, > >> >> > with > >> >> > the limit set by Carnot's Theorem. > > >> >> > In addition, rest energy (the energy associated with rest mass) > >> >> > can't > >> >> > be converted into work, but the entropic definition above has > >> >> > nothing > >> >> > to do with this. > > >> >> > I don't know of any other cases, off the top of my head. > > >> >> Defining energy in terms of work is just the 19th century macroscopic > >> >> approach to physics before the atomic basis of nature was available.. > >> >> It is not logical to define the parts in terms of pieces of the > >> >> whole since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing > >> >> parts together: this is cookery. The macro (like averages) must be > >> >> defined in terms of the micro. This is why Maxwell's Equations of EM > >> >> is a statistical theory and NOT a fundamental theory of physics. > > >> > --------------------- > >> > that > >> > quote > >> > 'since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing > >> > parts together: this is cookery > >> > end of quote > > >> > that cookery that you are talking about > >> > showes us clearly > >> > that biding energies = mass loss!! > > >> Indeed it does .. been telling you that for a while. > > >> > iow > >> > lost of mass that is transformed to > >> > ENERGY!! > > >> Indeed it is .. and that does not need to be mass IN MOTION. It is the > >> REST > >> mass. > > >> > (by **exactly !!!**** > >> > again - *exactly * E=mc^2 > > >> Yeup > > >> > is a wonderful prove that > >> > energy is > >> > MASS IN MOTION !! > > >> NO ... because E = mc^2 is the relationship between REST energy and REST > >> mass when NOT IN MOTION > > > ---------------- > > psychopath > > Y.P > > ------------------ > > "psychopath Y.P" .. how true that is. Incapable of rational discussion (or > rational thought) .. he's a senile old man with delusions of grandeur and > anger management issues who should be on medication for his illness. ------------------ th eretarded psychopath clames that the amount of enery emitted by the sun in half a second( HALF A SECOND) '**is the same** as in ONE SECOND !! got it who is that retarded Josef Goebbels ??? even Goebbels had just one name that psychopath pig crook anonymous is called 1 artful 2 inertial 3 his real name !! sometimes 1 and 2 in one thread !! got it readers with whom we are dealing ??? Y.P -----------------------------
From: BURT on 1 Mar 2010 16:16 On Mar 1, 8:51 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:215076eb-d356-45d2-98f3-0fda9048683e(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Feb 28, 10:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:c464de34-eea3-4d29-a496-1d52a3dfa65a(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On Feb 28, 4:13 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> >> On Feb 27, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > On Feb 27, 1:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is > > >> >> > > > possessed > > >> >> > > > by > > >> >> > > > organized portions of matter. > > > >> >> > > I have noticed a definition in wiki which seems to imply that > > >> >> > > energy > > >> >> > > is more complicated than the definition above: > > >> >> > > "The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in > > >> >> > > the > > >> >> > > context of thermodynamics, can provide a measure of the amount of > > >> >> > > energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work." > > >> >> > > (http:// > > >> >> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy) > > > >> >> > > If energy is the ability to do work, but at the same time entropy > > >> >> > > implies that some portion of energy is not available to do work, > > >> >> > > then > > >> >> > > how do we re-define that portion of the energy in a system not > > >> >> > > available to do work? Is there a more complex definition of > > >> >> > > energy? > > > >> >> > That's actually an excellent point. Kinetic energy, one of the forms > > >> >> > of energy, is divided into stochastic and collective energy. The > > >> >> > collective energy is the kind of thing you would write (1/2)mv^2 for > > >> >> > a > > >> >> > baseball of mass m. Stochastic energy is that which is indicated > > >> >> > (but > > >> >> > not measured) by a thermometer; it is the *random* kinetic energy of > > >> >> > the individual molecules in the body. The former can be wholly > > >> >> > converted into work. The latter can only be partially converted, > > >> >> > with > > >> >> > the limit set by Carnot's Theorem. > > > >> >> > In addition, rest energy (the energy associated with rest mass) > > >> >> > can't > > >> >> > be converted into work, but the entropic definition above has > > >> >> > nothing > > >> >> > to do with this. > > > >> >> > I don't know of any other cases, off the top of my head. > > > >> >> Defining energy in terms of work is just the 19th century macroscopic > > >> >> approach to physics before the atomic basis of nature was available. > > >> >> It is not logical to define the parts in terms of pieces of the > > >> >> whole since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing > > >> >> parts together: this is cookery. The macro (like averages) must be > > >> >> defined in terms of the micro. This is why Maxwell's Equations of EM > > >> >> is a statistical theory and NOT a fundamental theory of physics. > > > >> > --------------------- > > >> > that > > >> > quote > > >> > 'since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing > > >> > parts together: this is cookery > > >> > end of quote > > > >> > that cookery that you are talking about > > >> > showes us clearly > > >> > that biding energies = mass loss!! > > > >> Indeed it does .. been telling you that for a while. > > > >> > iow > > >> > lost of mass that is transformed to > > >> > ENERGY!! > > > >> Indeed it is .. and that does not need to be mass IN MOTION. It is the > > >> REST > > >> mass. > > > >> > (by **exactly !!!**** > > >> > again - *exactly * E=mc^2 > > > >> Yeup > > > >> > is a wonderful prove that > > >> > energy is > > >> > MASS IN MOTION !! > > > >> NO ... because E = mc^2 is the relationship between REST energy and REST > > >> mass when NOT IN MOTION > > > > ---------------- > > > psychopath > > > Y.P > > > ------------------ > > > "psychopath Y.P" .. how true that is. Incapable of rational discussion (or > > rational thought) .. he's a senile old man with delusions of grandeur and > > anger management issues who should be on medication for his illness. > > ------------------ > th eretarded psychopath clames > that the amount of enery emitted by the sun > in half a second( HALF A SECOND) > '**is the same** as in > ONE SECOND !! > got it who is that retarded Josef Goebbels ??? > > even Goebbels had just one name > that psychopath pig crook anonymous > is called > 1 artful > 2 inertial > 3 his real name !! > sometimes 1 and 2 in one thread !! > > got it readers with whom we are dealing ??? > > Y.P > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Kinetic flow energy is mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: Mahipal7638 on 1 Mar 2010 16:50 On Feb 26, 8:54 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote: > > >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. > > Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine > replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long > ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what > other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus: > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is possessed by > organized portions of matter. > > glird No one here on Usenet, or a University-of-your-choice, or Corporation- of-your-choice, is in a position to define, let alone redefine, Energy. With or without quotes. "Energy." Independent of any Mechanics -- Newtonian, Einsteinian, or otherwise -- energy is a useful to Physics and Engineering mathematical abstraction, as is entropy. Accept it. Usually, any combinations beyond fundamentals like length, time, mass, charge... dimensional units are, unfortunately even for my mindset, deemed abstractions. The way Humans think, or claim to think, even a bit is an abstraction. Why? It gives them room to intimidate the unindoctrinated. As recent 8millionPlus automobile recalls demonstrate, SW programmers know little about acceleration and brakes logic -- in the practical car driving sense. The reality of energy? It's real. A concrete instance of a mathematical abstraction. The question that matters most, or energizes more (that's in KirkSpeak (TM)), is available from rewording your quest as: What is the energy of Reality? Sure, Reality is an abstraction as well. But Reality contains a lot of concrete. Q: What is the energy of Reality? A: 1, since energy, mass or otherwise, is conserved. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/meforce.pdf
From: ben6993 on 1 Mar 2010 17:54 On Mar 1, 9:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Photons don't have a point of view (in the sense that they don't have any > inertial frame of reference where they are at rest). The energy of a photon > is what happens to some other object when the photon 'hits' it. I accept that I can't use the photon's viewpoint. (You know I wrongly keep trying to imagine what it is like from the photon's viewpoint.) > > by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us > > it appeard to have a reduced energy, > It always had reduced energy to us. OK, and re-phrasing: We calculate it has less energy (because of redshift) that an observer seeing a similar photon soon after its emission would have calculated it. And the greater the redshift, the less is the energy we calculate. > > can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its > > framework and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy > > gain of the photon? > Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is constant > the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star that emitted > it is constant the whole time. > There is no change Agreed. Re-phrasing again: I was originally wondering if the lower energy in our frame compared to the higher energy in the frame of emission of the photon was comparable to a higher entropy state in our frame. Ie is it really less energy or is it merely less useable energy. But I can't see it now. It must be less energy. It is odd that redshifted light gives less energy on impact, even though the speed of the photon is still c despite the high speed of separation of the two galaxies where emission and absorption occur. > > 2. Assume that a rocket was using the entire mass of the universe as > > fuel for its burners in order to accelerate closer and closer to speed > > c. > > OK. A tad impractical, of course :) <snip> > I'm not sure how the mass gets into the rocket in this idea, if it wasn't > there to start with. I was thinking of relativistic increase in mass through high speed. <snip> > I'm not sure what the argument is. The idea was of doing work with the whole energy of (or most of) the universe and so greatly increasing its entropy. But wondering if the resultant high entropy system could still do work outside the system. Ie energy can be different frames but can entropy also be different in different frames.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 18:00
"Y.y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1a7d7667-41bb-4d41-bc89-6ba1e8418f34(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:215076eb-d356-45d2-98f3-0fda9048683e(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Feb 28, 10:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:c464de34-eea3-4d29-a496-1d52a3dfa65a(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Feb 28, 4:13 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> >> >> On Feb 27, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Feb 27, 1:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is >> >> >> > > > possessed >> >> >> > > > by >> >> >> > > > organized portions of matter. >> >> >> >> > > I have noticed a definition in wiki which seems to imply that >> >> >> > > energy >> >> >> > > is more complicated than the definition above: >> >> >> > > "The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy >> >> >> > > in >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > context of thermodynamics, can provide a measure of the amount >> >> >> > > of >> >> >> > > energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work." >> >> >> > > (http:// >> >> >> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy) >> >> >> >> > > If energy is the ability to do work, but at the same time >> >> >> > > entropy >> >> >> > > implies that some portion of energy is not available to do >> >> >> > > work, >> >> >> > > then >> >> >> > > how do we re-define that portion of the energy in a system not >> >> >> > > available to do work? Is there a more complex definition of >> >> >> > > energy? >> >> >> >> > That's actually an excellent point. Kinetic energy, one of the >> >> >> > forms >> >> >> > of energy, is divided into stochastic and collective energy. The >> >> >> > collective energy is the kind of thing you would write (1/2)mv^2 >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > baseball of mass m. Stochastic energy is that which is indicated >> >> >> > (but >> >> >> > not measured) by a thermometer; it is the *random* kinetic energy >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > the individual molecules in the body. The former can be wholly >> >> >> > converted into work. The latter can only be partially converted, >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > the limit set by Carnot's Theorem. >> >> >> >> > In addition, rest energy (the energy associated with rest mass) >> >> >> > can't >> >> >> > be converted into work, but the entropic definition above has >> >> >> > nothing >> >> >> > to do with this. >> >> >> >> > I don't know of any other cases, off the top of my head. >> >> >> >> Defining energy in terms of work is just the 19th century >> >> >> macroscopic >> >> >> approach to physics before the atomic basis of nature was >> >> >> available. >> >> >> It is not logical to define the parts in terms of pieces of the >> >> >> whole since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing >> >> >> parts together: this is cookery. The macro (like averages) must be >> >> >> defined in terms of the micro. This is why Maxwell's Equations of >> >> >> EM >> >> >> is a statistical theory and NOT a fundamental theory of physics. >> >> >> > --------------------- >> >> > that >> >> > quote >> >> > 'since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing >> >> > parts together: this is cookery >> >> > end of quote >> >> >> > that cookery that you are talking about >> >> > showes us clearly >> >> > that biding energies = mass loss!! >> >> >> Indeed it does .. been telling you that for a while. >> >> >> > iow >> >> > lost of mass that is transformed to >> >> > ENERGY!! >> >> >> Indeed it is .. and that does not need to be mass IN MOTION. It is >> >> the >> >> REST >> >> mass. >> >> >> > (by **exactly !!!**** >> >> > again - *exactly * E=mc^2 >> >> >> Yeup >> >> >> > is a wonderful prove that >> >> > energy is >> >> > MASS IN MOTION !! >> >> >> NO ... because E = mc^2 is the relationship between REST energy and >> >> REST >> >> mass when NOT IN MOTION >> >> > ---------------- >> > psychopath >> > Y.P >> > ------------------ >> >> "psychopath Y.P" .. how true that is. Incapable of rational discussion >> (or >> rational thought) .. he's a senile old man with delusions of grandeur and >> anger management issues who should be on medication for his illness. > > ------------------ > th eretarded psychopath clames What is it you are claiming this time, Porat? > that the amount of enery emitted by the sun > in half a second( HALF A SECOND) > '**is the same** as in > ONE SECOND !! I wouldn't be surprised if you claimed that at all. Of course, *I* have never claimed such a thing, nor said anything that could imply that. In fact I have said the exact opposite from my first postings here. > got it who is that retarded Josef Goebbels ??? You are. We all know that. > even Goebbels had just one name > that psychopath pig crook anonymous > is called > 1 artful > 2 inertial > 3 his real name !! > sometimes 1 and 2 in one thread !! > > got it readers with whom we are dealing ??? Yes .. they all understand you are a senile old man with anger management issues who need psychological help. And as I Have explained, I am someone who was away from home and couldn't use his usual newsgroup server and so used a different account. So .when are you going to stop lying Porat? |