From: Inertial on
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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


From: Y.Porat on
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
------------------
From: Y.Porat on
On Feb 28, 10:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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.

------------------
but i am talking to you as well
idiot crook as well

and you said just above that
in mass there is no motion
inner motion
EVEN IF AN IDIOT LIKE YOU
DO NOT SENSE IT WITH IS IMMEDIATE SENSES !!

therefore YOU SAY THAT energy that is emitted during
atomic or nuc reactions
is not mass in motion ...

while experimentally it is shown
that th e mass loss in those reactions
is exactly the energy emitted there !!!
exactly by the formula
E=mc^2 !!!
and you are the last one to tell me about those reactions !
2
who are you to teach me physics ??

(indeed you can teach me about 'curved space time
(:-)
but i will teach you about instead about my Circlons
even if those last ones are just nice guesses
btw
dont answer me about section 2 just above
it is a waist of time for all of us

Y.P
-------------------
From: Inertial on


"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b94d49c-4bb7-4151-aeb2-c96c16a5f1c4(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 10:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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.
>
> ------------------
> but i am talking to you as well

No .. because I had not posted in this thread. You are lying again.

> idiot crook as well

Typical porat non-response

> and you said just above that
> in mass there is no motion

I said rest mass. A mass at rest is BY DEFINITION not in motion.

> inner motion

That is pretty much irrelevant to the formula for rest mass of the system /
object.

Though some proportion of the mass from a system with internal motion comes
from the relativistic mass of the moving components.

> EVEN IF AN IDIOT LIKE YOU
> DO NOT SENSE IT WITH IS IMMEDIATE SENSES !!
>
> therefore YOU SAY THAT energy that is emitted during
> atomic or nuc reactions
> is not mass in motion ...

If it is E = mc^2, then it is not mass in motion.

If it is E = Mc^2 (where M is relativistic mass) then it is

> while experimentally it is shown
> that th e mass loss in those reactions
> is exactly the energy emitted there !!!
> exactly by the formula
> E=mc^2 !!!

Which is the rest energy of the rest mass that is lost

> and you are the last one to tell me about those reactions !

You are incapable of learning, so not a lot of point. But others need to
read it.

> 2
> who are you to teach me physics ??

Someone who understands it

> (indeed you can teach me about 'curved space time
> (:-)

If you like. .though you have neough problems with far simpler concepts.

> but i will teach you about instead about my Circlons

Not interested in your nonsense

> even if those last ones are just nice guesses
> btw
> dont answer me about section 2 just above
> it is a waist of time for all of us

Too later. If you don't want something answered .. don't ask it.


From: Inertial on
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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.