On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:08:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > Well your reply seems ambiguous. You seem to be saying that you agree with > me but that we are both wrong! Could you perhaps clarify that? > > Edgar > Sorry about that dear chap. I guess I was saying there was some truth in what you said both times. But some of was less so. It's hard to be sure precisely because it dpends on what you said and whether I read it right. Potential energy is very real, in that it is energy,. The part that iswn't real is the 'conception' it is only 'potential' The reason for that is as you say though....it's a good methodological approach. If that;'s what you said , then you were right, the way you defined it as not real in terms of dynamical translations, is wrong if that's what you mean. But if all you meant was that strictly speaking 'potential energy' fuelled such a translation but will in the future when it's released. Then that;'s right too. On your theory of energy as caught up with relative motion,. It's hard to say how right you are because there's a few conceivable ways to come that view. It's obviously right in that energy is in the relationship of all activity above 0 kelvin. If you mean it more abstractly, then there's a very real sense in which you are right. But I don't think you meant that sens because if you had I think you would have defined things differently Which is neither here nor there in the end. More generally, I am fairly critical of the type of theory you make. They care good for the type, but they are now looking more intractably 'explanatory' than before. I suppose because you've not shown signs of wanting to try to up the standard in the direction of something that can discover, and rule itself in or out in the process. I know you feel they are neat solutions for hard problems. But though I do appreciate your ideas and do think you do better than most, your theories to me are philosophical, And Philosophical ideas all never solve anything much that science would be interested in. That I know of. Let along authentic hard problems. Personally I think you are easily good enough to up your game.
> > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:45:33 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:37:46 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Here's one more theory from my book on Reality: >>> >>> All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative >>> motion. They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for >>> there to be mass-energy conservation, and different forms of relative >>> motion are what they are. >>> >>> Rest mass in this theory is just vibrational motion. It is relative >>> motion, but since this relative motion is so spatially confined, it appears >>> the same to all external observers. It is equally relative to all >>> observers, thus it appears absolute in having the same value relative to >>> all observers. Thus rest mass is the same to all observers, even though it >>> is actually relative motion. >>> >>> This is somewhat similar to string theory's notion of particles as >>> vibrating strings. But in my theory the vibration itself is not the >>> particle and there is no need for extra dimensions. In my theory, the >>> vibration takes place in ordinary 3D space and represents only the mass of >>> the particle. Only in 3D space is it interconvertible to other 3D relative >>> motions. >>> >>> [In my theory particles themselves are composed of their particle >>> properties (not vibrating strings), one of which is mass-energy, but that's >>> another part of the theory I won't get into in this post.] >>> >>> So in this theory the conversion of mass to energy is quite simple. It's >>> just the conversion of the equivalent amount of vibrational motion into >>> either the relative linear motion of kinetic energy and/or the relative >>> wave motion of EM energy. >>> >>> This theory neatly conceptually unifies all forms of mass and energy, >>> and the conversion of one form to another as simply the conversion of one >>> form of relative motion to an equivalent amount of another. >>> >>> All other forms of energy neatly conform to this explanation including >>> what we call potential energy which is really just an accounting trick. >>> What we call potential energy is actually just some form of blocking (or >>> impinging) energy from a system external to the system under consideration. >>> To just analyze the system itself, we imagine a potential energy IN the >>> system equivalent to the actual blocking energy outside the system. It just >>> makes things easier to analyze. So potential energy is not a real form of >>> energy, not a real relative motion, but an accounting trick to confine >>> analysis to an isolated system when systems are not actually energetically >>> isolated from their environments. >>> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >> >> This is on the right track IMHO Edgar. And probably marks the point of >> our closest meeting. Oi, not that close fella, remove your hand please. >> >> That said you still make the same mistake they do. >> >> It can't be defined as one thing at one level in particular. >> >> In that sense, it can only ever be bounded off that >> way..... abstractly. Energy is one of the abstact laws. Which is not to say >> it ain't physical. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
