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, ghi...@gmail.com 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, ghi...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
