Re: E = 1/2mv^2


PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
kolt wrote:
KE = 1/2mv^2. This is the equation for kinetic energy.

SNIP

Simply put, it
is mass in motion. Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion.
Therefore, it should be that E = KE, for what other kind of energy can
there be other than kinetic? It also follows that mass = potential
energy.

Your KE does not involve mass and motion, does it, PD?

It does not *necessarily* involve mass, that's right.

Yours only
involves energy having momentum, right?

No, I wouldn't say that. Energy is a property of a physical system,
momentum is another property of a physical system. I wouldn't say the
energy has momentum.

SNIP

But you would have to say then that the physical system has momentum.
And by "physical system", do you mean an object(s),

Yes, objects. Note this includes more than *material* objects or
*massive* objects.

What objects, specifically, are "'more than' material' objects or
massive objects"?

The fields associated with the four fundamental interactions, for
example.

Fields are objects? That has to be the most stupid argument you ever
thought up (actually, it's hard to say which is dumber, that or your
claim that fields "extend everywhere").

You bet. Fields carry momentum and energy and quantum numbers, and they
transfer properties between one thing and another. It's not an
argument. It's a fact.

ROFLOL!! World, listen to this: PD believes fields are objects!!
Loony tunes time!

Object: 1. something visible or tangible: something that can be seen
or touched
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

Note that "visible or tangible" does not imply material substance or
having mass.

Of course it does not imply it, IT SAYS IT! Then, it defines visible
or tangible as something that can be seen or touched. I believe you
have revealed yourself to be an imposter physicist. You're naked
allright, but you're not an emperor at all - you're just a streaker!

Perhaps the American Heritage Dictionary's version of common usage
definition is a little clearer for you:
ob·ject n.
1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by
vision or touch

So now after all these years, Encarta is not common enough for you, eh?
Well. let me go you one better with this from Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary: 1a Something material that may be perceived by
the senses.

You're at the edge of the cliff, PD, will you take my hand as a friend,
or will you in your stubbornness go over the edge and choose a living
death of conformity?

or do you mean a
system in Theoretical Physics, wherein is practiced disdain for reality
and math is held to be the God of all truth? If you mean the former,
then how can a (massless) photon exist where a physical system does
not?

But a physical system does exist there, Tom, it does. I don't know
where you got the idea that a physical system means a system of massive
objects.

No, there are no physical systems in Theoretical Physics, only math
constructs and a whole lot of imagination. What other objects exist in
a physical system other than massive objects?

The fields associated with the four fundamental interactions, for
instance.

No. Fields are not visible tangible things, so you are wrong in saying
that they are objects.

First of all, be careful of how you quote the definition from Encarta.
Encarta says it is visible *or* tangible. Both are not required in
every case.

Do you read Encarta as saying that both are required? You highlighted
"or" and then you say it means both are required. What would it mean,
then, if it had said, "and"? You don't know what "or" means and you
claim to be a college grad, postgrad, and a Phd? Why should any sane
person reading this believe anything you say? Especially when your
best source of information is an old dictionary? You have certainly
wasted a lot of our time here, and I don't mind telling you, I'm just
about through with you and your nonsense.

Secondly, fields can certainly be visible.

False. How stupid of you to think that.

Electromagnetic fields are
certainly visible.

False. How stupid of you to think that.

A gravitational field is certainly perceptible by
one or more of the senses.

False. How stupid of you to think that, Mr. Physicist.

The Earth's magnetic field can certainly
push on a magnetized needle, and you can feel that. That's tangible.

Yes it is, since the needle is an object, and that's what you feel as
the effect of the gravitational field. You don't feel the field,
silly, you feel the effects of it.

If the latter, you are arguing about fantasy against reality, as
is your wont.

The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion), refers to the fact
that everything is in motion wrt the universe. Your silly massless
photon concept ignores that reality and proclaims that a case of
constant velocity overthrows that reality. AE made it abundantly clear
that his shortened formula, E=mc^2, was valid only in a case of two or
more objects at constant velocity wrt each other.

Really? Where did AE make that abundantly clear? Reference, please.

Instead,
you cite where he said it was valid wrt the universe, or
reality. Any smart brain can see that while he may not have said it,

Ah, so he didn't say it. You are just saying he implied it. To you.

I said he made it abundantly clear. And the word, "may" does not mean
he did not say it, as you conclude.

Then cite where he said it.

I already told you.

No, you said he made it abundantly clear. To you. I want to know the
passage that made it abundantly clear to you what he meant. Cite that
passage.

Well, I have exlained how he made it abundantly clear to me just below
this, but for some reason you cannot understand why that makes it so
clear. Another way he made it abundantly clear is when he said that
time and space are interdependent and flexible and depend upon the
state of motion of an observer. Read my essay; it is the first
footnote.

He said that motion is only
meaningful wrt other bodies, and he named his theory Relativity. That
explains why he shortened the formula: because to him, everything is
relative motion.

he made it abundantly clear to it applies only to two or more objects
at CV wrt each other.

From what passage do you even gather that? From what reading, Tom?

See the above.

Then cite where he said it.

I already did.

I don't see a page reference or quotation marks about anything in his
words.

My essay points to his words via the article's author. Do you wish to
question him as to where he got it from? Be my guest.

Or do you have a case where the short formula
can be applied to objects that are not at CV wrt each other?

So you have no such case, PD? So you concede the point?

I've already told you, TomGee, that the "short formula" is not the
general formula. The general formula is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. There
is no point you are making, and there is none to concede.

I said the short formula is not the general one. The point is that
your formula is the same as the general one, which is E=mc^2+(energy of
motion).

Then we agree. Since I never said otherwise, there is nothing to
concede.

So you agree then that the short formula is only applcable to objects
moving at CV wrt each other, right?

You, et al, made it
a religion and elevated it to claims that it represents reality.

Really? I think I've been cautioning people that it is not as general a
formula as
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, and that their use of E=mc^2 is not justified.
How is that elevating it to a religion, Tom?

Because E=mc^2 is a shortened version appropriately applicable only to
objects at CV wrt each other,

Uh, your support for that, please?

How many times do I need to explain it to you? You have failed to
produce a case where the short formula applies wrt the universe.

I've already told you, TomGee, that the "short formula" is a
popularization of the correct formula. You haven't shown that E=mc^2 is
applicable only to objects at CV wrt to each other. Support for that,
please.

I already showed you mine, now where is your support for your claim
that it is applicable to objects that are not at CV wrt each other?

Sure. (Note that in the following I'm using your definition of "not at
CV wrt each other.) In proton-antiproton collisions at 1.8 TeV
(measured prior to the collision), hundreds of collision products
emerge from the interaction point and their energies are measured.
These energies sum up to 1.8 TeV.

Yes? And your point is...?

therefore, you are wrong in saying its
use is not justified (at all). If now you claim that energy and mass
are interdependent, as it seems in your formula above where you add the
mass's momentum, I agree with you (historic moment).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... momentum is another property of a physical system. ... more objects at constant velocity wrt each other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... more objects at constant velocity wrt each other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... momentum is another property of a physical system. ... more objects at constant velocity wrt each other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... momentum is another property of a physical system. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... momentum is another property of a physical system. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)