Hexenmeister wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...

| The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion),

Ahem...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif

Energy of motion has been accounted for. E = mv^2 for TWO halves
of ONE mass.
Androcles.

I tried it and got an error message, "404 - Not found".

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| ups.com...
|
| | The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion),
|
| Ahem...
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
|
| Energy of motion has been accounted for. E = mv^2 for TWO halves
| of ONE mass.
| Androcles.
|
| I tried it and got an error message, "404 - Not found".

Hmmm...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
Works fine for me. You must have had an extra or missing character
included somehow.

This doesn't work:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.GIF
Addresses are case sensitive.

What you are supposed to do is click on the URL (blue text)
and not type it.
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/qcbwj

Androcles.

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

No, it's not. It is an effective *approximation* for (one kind of)
kinetic energy, but it only applies to massive bodies traveling at low
speeds, vc. I don't know where you got the idea that this was the
general definition for KE.

You don't know a whole lot of things, PD - too numerous to mention, in
fact. The OP did not say it applies at all speeds, only that it
applies to all bodies.

And I said that it does not apply to all bodies, nor does it even apply
to just massive bodies. It applies only to massive bodies that are
moving at low speeds.

By low speeds, you mean what? Ten mph? 0.09
c? Don't be so imprecise in your arguments.

Since it is an approximation, TomGee, it applies as long as the error
in the approximation is small enough that you don't care about it. It
is never *completely* right, though it is often close enough to not
care about the difference between what it says and what the correct
answer is.


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.

Even though your argument has
been trashed over and over again in these ngs, you and the silly Hobbit
continue to use it.

Your idea of trashing it apparently is either misstating it, or saying
that your intuition tells you it isn't so.


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.

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?

Hexenmeister wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| PD wrote:
| kolt wrote:
| KE = 1/2mv^2. This is the equation for kinetic energy.
|
| No, it's not.

Yes it is.


No, it's not. Of course, you wouldn't know, you haven't done the
experiments to test it.

PD

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | PD wrote:
| | kolt wrote:
| | KE = 1/2mv^2. This is the equation for kinetic energy.
| |
| | No, it's not.
|
| Yes it is.
|
|
| No, it's not. Of course, you wouldn't know, you haven't done the
| experiments to test it.

Yes it is. Of course, Einstein wouldn't know, he didn't do
the experiments to test it.
Androcles.



|

Hexenmeister wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| ups.com...
|
| | The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion),
|
| Ahem...
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
|
| Energy of motion has been accounted for. E = mv^2 for TWO halves
| of ONE mass.
| Androcles.
|
| I tried it and got an error message, "404 - Not found".

Hmmm...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
Works fine for me. You must have had an extra or missing character
included somehow.

This doesn't work:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.GIF
Addresses are case sensitive.

What you are supposed to do is click on the URL (blue text)
and not type it.

That's what I did and it did not work. It is too long. I cut it after
..uk and it worked. I went to "Energy Square" and also to the tiny url
page where I saw your "two halves of one mass" idea, but I don't have
the details of it so I can't comment on it.

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

No, it's not. It is an effective *approximation* for (one kind of)
kinetic energy, but it only applies to massive bodies traveling at low
speeds, vc. I don't know where you got the idea that this was the
general definition for KE.

You don't know a whole lot of things, PD - too numerous to mention, in
fact. The OP did not say it applies at all speeds, only that it
applies to all bodies.

And I said that it does not apply to all bodies, nor does it even apply
to just massive bodies. It applies only to massive bodies that are
moving at low speeds.

By low speeds, you mean what? Ten mph? 0.09
c? Don't be so imprecise in your arguments.

Since it is an approximation, TomGee, it applies as long as the error
in the approximation is small enough that you don't care about it. It
is never *completely* right, though it is often close enough to not
care about the difference between what it says and what the correct
answer is.

I'll try some ranch dressing on that little ol' word salad of yours.

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.

Even though your argument has
been trashed over and over again in these ngs, you and the silly Hobbit
continue to use it.

Your idea of trashing it apparently is either misstating it, or saying
that your intuition tells you it isn't so.

But you would have to say then that the physical system has momentum.
And by "physical system", do you mean an object(s), 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? 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,
he made it abundantly clear to it applies only to two or more objects
at CV wrt each other. Or do you have a case where the short formula
can be applied to objects that are not at CV wrt each other?

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, 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).

"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "tomgee" wrote in message
| | ups.com...
| |
| | | The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion),
| |
| | Ahem...
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
| |
| | Energy of motion has been accounted for. E = mv^2 for TWO halves
| | of ONE mass.
| | Androcles.
| |
| | I tried it and got an error message, "404 - Not found".
|
| Hmmm...
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
| Works fine for me. You must have had an extra or missing character
| included somehow.
|
| This doesn't work:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.GIF
| Addresses are case sensitive.
|
| What you are supposed to do is click on the URL (blue text)
| and not type it.
|
| That's what I did and it did not work. It is too long. I cut it after
| .uk and it worked. I went to "Energy Square" and also to the tiny url
| page where I saw your "two halves of one mass" idea, but I don't have
| the details of it so I can't comment on it.

It's a drinking straw with a spring from a ball point pen and a couple
of BBs. Compress the spring and tie it. Put that in the straw and
pass the thread out through a small hole in the straw. Drop in the BBs
at each end, then untie the string.
If the energy of each BB is E = 1/2 mv^2, then the energy in the spring
must have been E = mv^2, which has now gone, the spring is no longer
compressed and the BBs are moving.
You can do the same with cannon balls and a chemical charge such as
gunpowder or cordite, it won't change the equation. 2 * m/2 = m.

What on earth you are doing to urls I have no idea, but all I did
was use this:
http://tinyurl.com/
to make this.
http://tinyurl.com/dj3ku

Androcles.

Hexenmeister wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "tomgee" wrote in message
| | ups.com...
| |
| | | The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion),
| |
| | Ahem...
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
| |
| | Energy of motion has been accounted for. E = mv^2 for TWO halves
| | of ONE mass.
| | Androcles.

Okay, I get it. You're saying that the energy in the spring is split
between the two identical bbs, or, if there is only one bb and the
other end of the spring is against the closed end of the straw, 1/2 of
the energy of the spring goes against the straw and the other half
against the bb. So can we say E=mc^2+mv^v? No, because the energy of
the spring is not the same energy as the energy of the motion given to
your system of straw, spring, and 2 bbs that causes them to move
through the space of the universe.

Too, it seems you are making the energy in a mass velocity dependent,
meaning that the faster an object goes, the more energy it develops,
and thus the more energy, the more the mass increases. That does not
speak to the energy accruing to a mass due to its motion. Before you
release the string, your experiment is a system whose parts are all at
constant velocity (CV) wrt each other. If those components are
stationary on the surface of the earth, then they are moving through
the space of the universe along with the earth too. The earth moves
along in its solar orbit and also rotates about its axis, and the poles
precess during its orbit around the sun.

Those are 3 possible directions and speeds that the planet moves in,
and if your system is moving upon the surface of the earth, like in a
moving train, e.g., that makes it 4 different possible speeds and
directions in which your system is moving while each part of your
system is moving at the same speed and direction wrt each other. The
parts of your system are stationary wrt each other, but not wrt to your
system's motion through the universe. That motion is the one referred
to in the +(energy of motion) factor or the old formula that AE took as
his own and shortened it so that we could use it as you have used it:
To compare only the energy imparted to two bbs by a spring without
having to calculate the other motions of the earth through the space of
the universe. The energy accruing to those motions would only cancel
out anyway for each component of your system, so there is no need to
include them in your experiment.

If you needed to know precisely the amounts of those cancelled energies
of motion, you would have to know a lot more about the universe to be
able to do that. But we can make calculations in today's world by
comparisons of the relative motions of objects, and that's better than
nothing, I think.

| What you are supposed to do is click on the URL (blue text)
| and not type it.
|
| That's what I did and it did not work. It is too long. I cut it after
| .uk and it worked. I went to "Energy Square" and also to the tiny url
| page where I saw your "two halves of one mass" idea, but I don't have
| the details of it so I can't comment on it.

It's a drinking straw with a spring from a ball point pen and a couple
of BBs. Compress the spring and tie it. Put that in the straw and
pass the thread out through a small hole in the straw. Drop in the BBs
at each end, then untie the string.
If the energy of each BB is E = 1/2 mv^2, then the energy in the spring
must have been E = mv^2, which has now gone, the spring is no longer
compressed and the BBs are moving.
You can do the same with cannon balls and a chemical charge such as
gunpowder or cordite, it won't change the equation. 2 * m/2 = m.

What on earth you are doing to urls I have no idea, but all I did
was use this:
http://tinyurl.com/
to make this.
http://tinyurl.com/dj3ku

Androcles.

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "tomgee" wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | |
| | | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | | "tomgee" wrote in message
| | | ups.com...
| | |
| | | | The original formula, E=mc^2+(energy of motion),
| | |
| | | Ahem...
| | | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
| | |
| | | Energy of motion has been accounted for. E = mv^2 for TWO halves
| | | of ONE mass.
| | | Androcles.
|
| Okay, I get it. You're saying that the energy in the spring is split
| between the two identical bbs,

Yes.

or, if there is only one bb and the
| other end of the spring is against the closed end of the straw, 1/2 of
| the energy of the spring goes against the straw

No. Energy is the capacity to do work, work and energy are equivalent
but not equal.

Energy is also relative. When the car hits the pedestrian it is not the
driver
that has broken bones.
In the example I gave, "work" is the motion of the BB relative to the straw.
Energy is the compressed spring or powder charge.

| and the other half
| against the bb. So can we say E=mc^2+mv^v? No, because the energy of
| the spring is not the same energy as the energy of the motion given to
| your system of straw, spring, and 2 bbs that causes them to move
| through the space of the universe.

It was your question, you answered it.
I've already said E = mv^2 accounts for ALL the energy.
What do you want me to do?

|
| Too, it seems you are making the energy in a mass velocity dependent,

Seems?
Energy IS velocity dependent.

Also velocity is energy dependent.
v = sqrt( E/m)

1 = sqrt( 1/1), E = 1, m = 1
..25 = sqrt(1/2) E = 1, m = 2

| meaning that the faster an object goes, the more energy it develops,

Develops?
No, no. The faster an object goes, the more energy it has to do work,
but it doesn't develop more. Well, cars do. They use gasoline so more
energy can go in, but even then the don't get more energy than they carry.
Rifle bullets and BBs never get any more.

Also the BB going in the opposite direction has negative energy, it can
do no work on the target. That is very velocity dependent.
You have to be careful with mathematics,
v = sqrt( E/m) but also v = -sqrt( E/m)
You can't have both. Algebra is a convenient shorthand, a tool.
It can be misused and you'll make a sows ear out of silk purse
as Einstein did.



| and thus the more energy, the more the mass increases.

Where did you get that idea?
You are getting your knickers in a twist here. :-)


You can have a BB of mass 1, velocity 1
or a BB of mass 2, velocity 1/4 for the same spring, but you can't
have a mass 2, velocity 1 without a bigger spring.


| That does not
| speak to the energy accruing to a mass due to its motion. Before you
| release the string, your experiment is a system whose parts are all at
| constant velocity (CV) wrt each other. If those components are
| stationary on the surface of the earth, then they are moving through
| the space of the universe along with the earth too. The earth moves
| along in its solar orbit and also rotates about its axis, and the poles
| precess during its orbit around the sun.

yawn

|
| Those are 3 possible directions and speeds that the planet moves in,
| and if your system is moving upon the surface of the earth, like in a
| moving train, e.g., that makes it 4 different possible speeds and
| directions in which your system is moving while each part of your
| system is moving at the same speed and direction wrt each other. The
| parts of your system are stationary wrt each other, but not wrt to your
| system's motion through the universe. That motion is the one referred
| to in the +(energy of motion) factor or the old formula that AE took as
| his own and shortened it so that we could use it as you have used it:
| To compare only the energy imparted to two bbs by a spring without
| having to calculate the other motions of the earth through the space of
| the universe. The energy accruing to those motions would only cancel
| out anyway for each component of your system, so there is no need to
| include them in your experiment.

stretch

|
| If you needed to know precisely the amounts of those cancelled energies
| of motion, you would have to know a lot more about the universe to be
| able to do that. But we can make calculations in today's world by
| comparisons of the relative motions of objects, and that's better than
| nothing, I think.


snore

Androcles.


|
| | What you are supposed to do is click on the URL (blue text)
| | and not type it.
| |
| | That's what I did and it did not work. It is too long. I cut it
after
| | .uk and it worked. I went to "Energy Square" and also to the tiny url
| | page where I saw your "two halves of one mass" idea, but I don't have
| | the details of it so I can't comment on it.
|
| It's a drinking straw with a spring from a ball point pen and a couple
| of BBs. Compress the spring and tie it. Put that in the straw and
| pass the thread out through a small hole in the straw. Drop in the BBs
| at each end, then untie the string.
| If the energy of each BB is E = 1/2 mv^2, then the energy in the spring
| must have been E = mv^2, which has now gone, the spring is no longer
| compressed and the BBs are moving.
| You can do the same with cannon balls and a chemical charge such as
| gunpowder or cordite, it won't change the equation. 2 * m/2 = m.
|
| What on earth you are doing to urls I have no idea, but all I did
| was use this:
| http://tinyurl.com/
| to make this.
| http://tinyurl.com/dj3ku
|
| Androcles.
|