The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 6 Mar 2010 14:57 On Mar 6, 11:54 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 5:15 pm, Mahipal7638 wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 4:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 28, 6:50 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability > > > > that's possessed by organized portions of matter. > > > > -------------------- > > > > so what is that thing > > > > that enables those 'portions of matter' > > > > to do work ?? > > > > Pressure, of, by and against matter. > > > in Physics, work = md, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get, m > > > = f/a. Substituting this value of m into the first equation we get w = f(cm)/(cm/sec^2) = pressure per second per second. > > > glird > > >< What timezone are you in and how much sleep have you had after all that moonshine? What Physics, where work=md, are you thinking of?! > > > i KNEW something was wrong so I stopped in the middle of my reply. > > > In Physics, the real world kind, work=fd. Force distance. At best your md is mass distance. Or a mad doctor who doesn't make house calls, in the state of Maryland MD. A stupid typing joke, I confess. > > > Thank you for correcting my stupid error. Here is what I started to > show: > In Physics, work = fd, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get (by > substitution), > w = mad = grams x cm/sec^2 x cm > = grams x cm^2/sec^2 > = mv^2. > Taken to the relativistic limit of v, that becomes > e = w = mc^2, > in which m (in grams) is the pressure a body exerts against a scale. > > glird Light has a constant kinetic energy by its uniform speed of C. Light absorbed sideways on to motion can have no energy shift. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 6 Mar 2010 15:41 On Mar 6, 11:54 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 5:15 pm, Mahipal7638 wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 4:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 28, 6:50 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability > > > > that's possessed by organized portions of matter. > > > > -------------------- > > > > so what is that thing > > > > that enables those 'portions of matter' > > > > to do work ?? > > > > Pressure, of, by and against matter. > > > in Physics, work = md, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get, m > > > = f/a. Substituting this value of m into the first equation we get w = f(cm)/(cm/sec^2) = pressure per second per second. > > > glird > > >< What timezone are you in and how much sleep have you had after all that moonshine? What Physics, where work=md, are you thinking of?! > > > i KNEW something was wrong so I stopped in the middle of my reply. > > > In Physics, the real world kind, work=fd. Force distance. At best your md is mass distance. Or a mad doctor who doesn't make house calls, in the state of Maryland MD. A stupid typing joke, I confess. > > > Thank you for correcting my stupid error. Here is what I started to > show: > In Physics, work = fd, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get (by > substitution), > w = mad = grams x cm/sec^2 x cm > = grams x cm^2/sec^2 > = mv^2. > Taken to the relativistic limit of v, that becomes > e = w = mc^2, > in which m (in grams) is the pressure a body exerts against a scale. > > glird Pressure is out and mass acceleration/deceleration weight is in. Weight makes motion detectable. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 9 Mar 2010 09:24 On Mar 2, 1:00 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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? --------------------- psychopath ------------------------
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 17:38 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:be16f4c6-9114-49f1-9dfc-f6c4ea75ec31(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 2, 1:00 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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? > --------------------- > psychopath > ------------------------ Stalker
From: BURT on 9 Mar 2010 22:50
On Mar 9, 2:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:be16f4c6-9114-49f1-9dfc-f6c4ea75ec31(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 1:00 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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? > > --------------------- > > psychopath > > ------------------------ > > Stalker- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is weightless deceleration for freefall at approach of apehilion. Mitch Raemsch |