sorry for any confusion. I thought I lost this one before posting. So I've said another response. Ignore this, cos stops midsentence somewhere
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:29:07 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > 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? >> >> Edgaa >> > > the small talk was tongue in cheek hopefully obviously. I think what you > said about potential energy is right, in some important ways. But calling > it accounting goes way too far. Objects are associated with free energy > Potential energy is v's ery real. The sense that it isn't, is the word > 'potential'. It is real energno different. So the sense 'potential energy' > is real, is highly contextual....in many situations it's a much better > clear linguistic presentation, then we talked about the energy expelled in > my arm lifting a weight above my head conserved in that the object has > acquired energy, which we can see by dropping it on your foot > > Throwing 'potential' allows the educator to pause before moving on. The > weight stored energy. As does a would rubber band. |It's all real. > Otherwise the conservation law is broken > > But there's no 'potential' in any sense other than local, the weight > hasn't been dropped yet. > > On the other matter,k I think you're right that energy > > > >> 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.
