KE = 1/2mv^2. This is the equation for kinetic energy. 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.

kolt wrote:

KE = 1/2mv^2. This is the equation for kinetic energy. 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.

If anything, you have it backward. Any object with KE represents a
quantity of PE wrt you, since this is energy that can be converted into
useful work. Energy is thus all PE; the potential to do work. Suppose
you toss a ball straight up: It's KE is gradually converted entirely
into gravitational PE as it approaches the top of it's travel. OTOH, we
can alternately choose an inertial frame of reference such that the ball
never comes to a stop and has no "top" of it's travel, but rather
continuously decelerates until the Earth catches up to it and collides
with it. From yet another frame of reference the ball continuously
accelerates until it catches up with the Earth and collides with it. KE
can be transformed away, and thus isn't real.

Richard Perry

You are dead right.

EVERY equation for energy contains two -- and only two -- elements:
mass and motion.

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

ABSTRACT

Positron annihilation radiation profile in aluminum was observed
with a pair of Ge detectors in coincidence. 22Na was used as a
source of positron and the two-dimensional gamma energy
spectrum wasfi tted using a model function. Annihilation
components of positron at rest with conduction band, 1s, 2s,
and 2p electrons were observed. The in-flight positron annihilation
was also observed. The model function also took into account the
detector response function, relative effi ciency corrections and the
gamma backscattering. Coincidences involving a combination of
Compton effect, pileup, ballistic defi cit, and pulse shaping problems
were treated as well.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...rttext&tlng=en


In this measurement we analyze the shape of the
annihilation line (511 keV) obtained for several samples.
Therefore we extract the so-called S-parameter which is
defined as the ratio of counts in the central part to
the total area of annihilation line. This parameter is
sensitive to the low momentum electrons which mainly are
present in the open volume defects.
http://alf.ifj.edu.pl/~mdryzek/s-param.htm

------
Sue...

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.

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.

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.

Yo dude, I don't know where you got the idea that this is not the
equation for KE. It applies to bodies that are in motion. What other
kind of energy is there other than kinetic? Mass in motion is energy.
How much more complicated do you want to make it?

"kolt" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Yo dude, I don't know where you got the idea that this is not the
equation for KE. It applies to bodies that are in motion.

He got it from standard books on physics such as Rindler - Introduction to
Special Relativity.

What other kind of energy is there other than kinetic?

You have had it explained to you before - energy the conserved Noether
charge related to time symmetry.

Mass in motion is energy.
How much more complicated do you want to make it?

How much more complicated is it to learn the facts and stop posting
misconceptions?

Bill

kolt 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.

Yo dude, I don't know where you got the idea that this is not the
equation for KE. It applies to bodies that are in motion.

No, it only applies to massive bodies with low speeds. KE applies to
all bodies in motion, but that equation for KE does not. Don't confuse
a prescription for how to calculate it with the thing itself.

What other
kind of energy is there other than kinetic? Mass in motion is energy.
How much more complicated do you want to make it?

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

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? Yours only
involves energy having momentum, right? Even though your argument has
been trashed over and over again in these ngs, you and the silly Hobbit
continue to use it.

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

"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.


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

Too right he doesn't. He's a parrot.


|
| 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? Yours only
| involves energy having momentum, right? Even though your argument has
| been trashed over and over again in these ngs, you and the silly Hobbit
| continue to use it.
|
| 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.



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