Kinetic energy is half of mass times velocity squared. What other form
of energy can there be other than kinetic? Even the fundamental forces
need to be associated with physical objects that are responsible for
their very existence. I would say energy is kinetic energy and that
mass is potential energy. (mass that is in motion or spinning is energy)

In article .com,
says...
Kinetic energy is half of mass times velocity squared. What other form
of energy can there be other than kinetic?

Gravity, electromagnetic etc

Even the fundamental forces
need to be associated with physical objects that are responsible for
their very existence. I would say energy is kinetic energy and that
mass is potential energy. (mass that is in motion or spinning is energy)



I think you are mixing up different systems relativity and Newtonian.


Anyway think of it this way kinetic energy depends on the relative
speeds between two observers. The values are quite arbitrary. Now go
over your theory.













--
People were participants not observers in history.

Observations of Bernard - No 97

kolt wrote:
Kinetic energy is half of mass times velocity squared. What other form
of energy can there be other than kinetic? Even the fundamental forces
need to be associated with physical objects that are responsible for
their very existence. I would say energy is kinetic energy and that
mass is potential energy. (mass that is in motion or spinning is energy)

Please apply a match to a liter of gasoline, and then explain where
that energy came from.

PD

PD wrote:
kolt wrote:
Kinetic energy is half of mass times velocity squared. What other form
of energy can there be other than kinetic? Even the fundamental forces
need to be associated with physical objects that are responsible for
their very existence. I would say energy is kinetic energy and that
mass is potential energy. (mass that is in motion or spinning is energy)

Please apply a match to a liter of gasoline, and then explain where
that energy came from.

PD

You guys are like hopeless. You want me to explain the mechanism of
chemical reactions and will without condition believe in photons and
spirits. Energy (which is mass in motion) is measured as mass times
velocity squared divided by 2. This applies for any piece of matter
even if it means those that we have not discovered yet. One day we will
know everything and there will be no thing more to solve. However,
there is so much to solve not discluding the need to reverse some
mistakes like the idea of the so-called photons. The idea of photons is
sick. It is like a terrible desease that is in big need of a cure.

kolt wrote:
PD wrote:
kolt wrote:
Kinetic energy is half of mass times velocity squared. What other form
of energy can there be other than kinetic? Even the fundamental forces
need to be associated with physical objects that are responsible for
their very existence. I would say energy is kinetic energy and that
mass is potential energy. (mass that is in motion or spinning is energy)

Please apply a match to a liter of gasoline, and then explain where
that energy came from.

PD

You guys are like hopeless. You want me to explain the mechanism of
chemical reactions and will without condition believe in photons and
spirits. Energy (which is mass in motion) is measured as mass times
velocity squared divided by 2. This applies for any piece of matter
even if it means those that we have not discovered yet.

Well, if you say it applies even though we haven't discovered it yet,
then it's a statement of faith and not science, isn't it?

By the way, you know that (1/2)mv^2 doesn't work for mass in motion at
speeds close to c, don't you? I mean, it simply gets the number wrong,
wrong, wrong.

One day we will
know everything and there will be no thing more to solve. However,
there is so much to solve not discluding the need to reverse some
mistakes like the idea of the so-called photons. The idea of photons is
sick. It is like a terrible desease that is in big need of a cure.

By the way, you know that (1/2)mv^2 doesn't work for mass in motion at
speeds close to c, don't you? I mean, it simply gets the number wrong,
wrong, wrong.

I, and we all, should know that mass in motion is energy. And we should
know that it applies to anything. I have the equation right, right,
right.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:32:53 -0800, PD wrote:


kolt wrote:
Kinetic energy is half of mass times velocity squared. What other form
of energy can there be other than kinetic? Even the fundamental forces
need to be associated with physical objects that are responsible for
their very existence. I would say energy is kinetic energy and that mass
is potential energy. (mass that is in motion or spinning is energy)

Please apply a match to a liter of gasoline, and then explain where that
energy came from.

PD

Pedant point: It's harder than it looks.

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

(then click on Cigarettes or scroll most of the way down)

Also, part of the energy is coming from the air.

:-)

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

kolt wrote:
By the way, you know that (1/2)mv^2 doesn't work for mass in motion at
speeds close to c, don't you? I mean, it simply gets the number wrong,
wrong, wrong.

I, and we all, should know that mass in motion is energy. And we should
know that it applies to anything. I have the equation right, right,
right.

Welcome to sci.physics.relativity, crank.

kolt wrote:
By the way, you know that (1/2)mv^2 doesn't work for mass in motion at
speeds close to c, don't you? I mean, it simply gets the number wrong,
wrong, wrong.

I, and we all, should know that mass in motion is energy.

Actually, no we don't. Didn't I mention a gallon of gasoline? It
contains energy even before the match is applied to it. Do you *know*
where the matter in motion is there? If you can't pinpoint where the
matter in motion is, then by virtue of this single example, you don't
*know* that energy is matter in motion. Now you may *hope* or *have
faith* that energy is matter in motion, but no, you don't know it.

And we should
know that it applies to anything. I have the equation right, right,
right.

No, unfortunately you don't. Moreover, I don't know who fed you this
lie.

PD