The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 28 Feb 2010 00:07 On Feb 27, 12:21 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, 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 > > --------------------- > just mass in motion!! > no need for big philosophy ! > > E = mc^2 > that s all the story !! > > what is unbelievable is > that so few people understand it: > > it started with that block of understanding that > energy has mass > started with the idiotic notion that > no mass can reach c > but all those dumbo s (mathematicians )that consider themselves > physicists - > could not think about the possibility > that there is an exception to that 'rule' > ie > the photon CAN move at c !!! > actually you could see it based on the > **trend** of experimental data > ie > as mass is smaller and smaller > it can reach closer and closer to c !!! > what can be simpler than that ??!! > > not to mention that > hf ie h contains mass !!! > not relativistic and not shmelativistc mass just the one kind that > exits !!! > no need to invent each Sunday and Monday > i new kind of mass !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------ Kinetic energy is mass. Light has no kinetic energy because C is a constant. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 28 Feb 2010 02:59 On Feb 28, 7:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 12:21 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, 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 > > > --------------------- > > just mass in motion!! > > no need for big philosophy ! > > > E = mc^2 > > that s all the story !! > > > what is unbelievable is > > that so few people understand it: > > > it started with that block of understanding that > > energy has mass > > started with the idiotic notion that > > no mass can reach c > > but all those dumbo s (mathematicians )that consider themselves > > physicists - > > could not think about the possibility > > that there is an exception to that 'rule' > > ie > > the photon CAN move at c !!! > > actually you could see it based on the > > **trend** of experimental data > > ie > > as mass is smaller and smaller > > it can reach closer and closer to c !!! > > what can be simpler than that ??!! > > > not to mention that > > hf ie h contains mass !!! > > not relativistic and not shmelativistc mass just the one kind that > > exits !!! > > no need to invent each Sunday and Monday > > i new kind of mass !!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------ > > Kinetic energy is mass. Light has no kinetic energy because C is a > constant. > > Mitch Raemsch -------------------- 1 in macrocosm energy is mass in motion no sane physicist denies it 2 there is no principal difference about energy if it i s done by constant or variable velocity iow constant or not constant velocity is not relevant !! to that issue Y.P ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 28 Feb 2010 03:07 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!! iow lost of mass that is transformed to ENERGY!! (by **exactly !!!**** again - *exactly * E=mc^2 is a wonderful prove that energy is MASS IN MOTION !! ATB Y.Porat -----------------
From: Inertial on 28 Feb 2010 03:03 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d36e369a-8758-4d23-a8ff-59a90eb819e2(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > 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. This is one of the many things Porat continues to get wrong .. he insists than energy MUST ONLY BE mass in motion.. but that is only kinetic energy. He just cannot see past that. I think its his senility.
From: Inertial on 28 Feb 2010 03:18
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fbc90653-431b-4afa-88fb-076f8784f8d5(a)y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 28, 7:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Feb 27, 12:21 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, 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 >> >> > --------------------- >> > just mass in motion!! >> > no need for big philosophy ! >> >> > E = mc^2 >> > that s all the story !! >> >> > what is unbelievable is >> > that so few people understand it: >> >> > it started with that block of understanding that >> > energy has mass >> > started with the idiotic notion that >> > no mass can reach c >> > but all those dumbo s (mathematicians )that consider themselves >> > physicists - >> > could not think about the possibility >> > that there is an exception to that 'rule' >> > ie >> > the photon CAN move at c !!! >> > actually you could see it based on the >> > **trend** of experimental data >> > ie >> > as mass is smaller and smaller >> > it can reach closer and closer to c !!! >> > what can be simpler than that ??!! >> >> > not to mention that >> > hf ie h contains mass !!! >> > not relativistic and not shmelativistc mass just the one kind that >> > exits !!! >> > no need to invent each Sunday and Monday >> > i new kind of mass !!! >> >> > ATB >> > Y.Porat >> > ------------ >> >> Kinetic energy is mass. Light has no kinetic energy because C is a >> constant. >> >> Mitch Raemsch > > -------------------- > 1 > in macrocosm > energy is mass in motion > no sane physicist denies it Of course they do .. you're only describing kinetic energy > 2 > there is no principal difference about > energy > if it i s done by constant or variable velocity > iow > constant or not constant velocity is not relevant !! to that issue > Y.P You do realize, Porat, that you are talking to Mitch .. who is nothing but a troll and posts random meaningless combinations of words in reply to anything. He may well by a robot. |