Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #655392 > unrolled thread

Re: Energy?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-29 17:14 -0700
    Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 20:43 -0700
      Re: Energy? Eddy Vadász <azsd@ddd.hu> - 2024-07-30 16:46 +0000
      Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-30 22:29 -0700
        Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-31 10:02 +0200
          Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 10:30 +0200
            Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-31 15:30 +0000
              Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-31 21:02 +0200
                Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 22:37 +0200
              Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 22:43 +0200
                Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-01 03:12 +0000
                  Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-01 07:15 +0200
                  Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-02 10:05 +0200
                    Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-02 11:05 +0200
                      Re: Energy? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-02 13:32 +0200
                        Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-02 15:22 +0200
                    Re: Energy? Bobauk Guang Chou <gbnbu@agag.cn> - 2024-08-02 09:48 +0000
          Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 13:46 +0200
        Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-31 12:43 -0700
          Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-01 10:45 -0700
            Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 12:32 -0700
              Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-01 17:03 -0700
          Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-02 08:52 -0700
            Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-03 12:43 +0200
              Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-03 16:30 +0200
                Re: Energy? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-03 16:38 +0200
                  Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-03 17:37 +0200
              Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 18:22 -0700
                Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 19:46 -0700
                Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-04 11:22 +0200
                  Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 08:03 -0700
                    Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-05 09:01 +0200
                  Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-04 18:03 +0000
                    Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 11:33 -0700
                      Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-04 19:38 +0000
                        Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 13:16 -0700
                        Re: Energy? Verdell Muklevich Fung <vvll@lhvvec.ru> - 2024-08-04 23:42 +0000
                    Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-04 22:13 +0200
                    Re: Energy? Rictor Tatár <trttr@cirrtrra.hu> - 2024-08-05 11:08 +0000
                Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-05 08:45 -0700
                  Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-06 10:15 -0700
                    Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-07 11:13 -0700
                      Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-09 09:38 -0700
                        Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-10 10:37 +0200
                          Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-10 09:59 -0700
                          Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-16 11:05 +0200
                            Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 07:33 -0700
                              Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:22 -0700
                            Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 12:09 -0700
                            Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-17 08:33 +0200
                              Re: Energy? Dmitry Kalmár <ilrbl@pknd.hu> - 2024-08-17 11:28 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#655392 — Re: Energy?

There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
word...Energy.



Stefan Ram wrote:
> 
>   In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
>   system with mass m = 0:
> 
> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
> 
>   . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
>   at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
>   p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
> 
>   So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
>   must have momentum.
> 
>   But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
> 
>   300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
>   no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
> 
>   Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
>   be a particle with "E = 0"?
> 
>   Here's the Unicode:
> 
> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗
> 
>   and
> 
> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
> |have a particle, E ≠ 0, and therefore p⃗ ≠ 0.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#655395

On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
> word...Energy.
>
>
>
> Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>    In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
>>    system with mass m = 0:
>>
>> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
>>
>>    . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
>>    at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
>>    p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
>>
>>    So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
>>    must have momentum.
>>
>>    But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
>>
>>    300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
>>    no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
>>
>>    Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
>>    be a particle with "E = 0"?
>>
>>    Here's the Unicode:
>>
>> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗
>>
>>    and
>>
>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
>> |have a particle, E ≠ 0, and therefore p⃗ ≠ 0.
>

Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
"Aristotle's and Leibniz'".

The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
which are the same word, one for power the other potential.

So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655396

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
>> word...Energy.
>>
> Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other, "Aristotle's
> and Leibniz'".
> The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae, content and
> connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
> which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
> So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.

you guys look like gays to me.

 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸_‘𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗺𝘆’
The Venezuelan president has called the billionaire a threat to peace in 
the South American country 
https://www.r%74.com/news/601834-maduro-venezuela-musk-archenemy/

Time for Russia to finally do something to help Maduro, no one is asking 
Russia to station nukes or anything in Venezuela but just try to help him 
out here, America may try to perform a coup to overthrow him

Elon Musk, a jew from South Afrika, but white, so his Ancestors were Slave 
whip/killer. He was married to lots of Women and has many Children but 
still didn't colonised one Planet like Mars. He met Bibi Netanjahu which 
is killing Babies and Children in Syria and Gaza. So the kids of this 
Tesla Billionair will also do war on other Planets and Space and kill 
other Babies.

Musk is pied piper and the Trojan horse rolled into one

Not only in the South America, Musk is a threat to peace worldwide. He 
donated satellites to the fuckin nazi ukrane, to kill Russians, good 
Christian people.

Muskes is a megalomaniac who stole the name Tesla from the Czech 
electronics company

Amusing that Musk accuses some politicians as puppets when Musk himself is 
no more than a puppet of the Israeli regime. It’s clear to me now that 
Musk is no entrepreneur but a fascist through and through.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655401

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
> > word...Energy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>
> >>    In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
> >>    system with mass m = 0:
> >>
> >> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
> >>
> >>    . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
> >>    at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
> >>    p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
> >>
> >>    So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
> >>    must have momentum.
> >>
> >>    But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
> >>
> >>    300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
> >>    no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
> >>
> >>    Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
> >>    be a particle with "E = 0"?
> >>
> >>    Here's the Unicode:
> >>
> >> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗
> >>
> >>    and
> >>
> >> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
> >> |have a particle, E ≠ 0, and therefore p⃗ ≠ 0.
> >
> 
> Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
> "Aristotle's and Leibniz'".
> 
> The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
> content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
> which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
> 
> So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.

What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655403

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
> > > word...Energy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stefan Ram wrote:
> > >>
> > >>    In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
> > >>    system with mass m = 0:
> > >>
> > >> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
> > >>
> > >>    . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
> > >>    at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
> > >>    p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
> > >>
> > >>    So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
> > >>    must have momentum.
> > >>
> > >>    But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
> > >>
> > >>    300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
> > >>    no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
> > >>
> > >>    Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
> > >>    be a particle with "E = 0"?
> > >>
> > >>    Here's the Unicode:
> > >>
> > >> EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ · pâ∞˜
> > >>
> > >>    and
> > >>
> > >> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
> > >> |have a particle, E â≈  0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈  0.
> > >
> > 
> > Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
> > "Aristotle's and Leibniz'".
> > 
> > The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
> > content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
> > which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
> > 
> > So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.
> 
> What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?

Einstein did not need to define energy.
He, and all physicists who mattered, knew what it was.
Ever since Huygens, who first cleared it up.

A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law of
conservation of energy.

It is operational, and properly circular,
as it should be.
It is adequate as long as general relativity is not involved.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655404

W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:

> A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
> Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law of
> conservation of energy.

And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655413

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> >
> > A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
> > Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
> of
> > conservation of energy.
>
> And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
> "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
> (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).

So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law?  Maybe he has noticed that his own energy gone
down the toilet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655417

gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> > >
> > > A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
> > > Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
> > of
> > > conservation of energy.
> >
> > And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
> > "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
> > (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
> 
> So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
> law?  Maybe he has noticed that his own energy gone
> down the toilet?

Yes, a complete lack of understanding of what it is all about,
in his case.
You may use the law of conservation of energy
to discover new and as yet unknown forms of energy.
But after you have done that the books must balance once again,
now including he new form,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655419

W dniu 31.07.2024 o 21:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>> W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>>>>
>>>> A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
>>>> Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
>>> of
>>>> conservation of energy.
>>>
>>> And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
>>> "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
>>> (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
>>
>> So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
>> law?  Maybe he has noticed that his own energy gone
>> down the toilet?
> 
> Yes, a complete lack of understanding of what it is all about,
> in his case.
> You may use the law of conservation of energy
> to discover new and as yet unknown forms of energy.


Tell me, poor halfbrain - do you think
your so called "law" is "falsifiable" with
the definition above?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655420

W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>> >
>> > A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
>> > Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
>> of
>> > conservation of energy.
>>
>> And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
>> "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
>> (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
> 
> So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
> law? 

Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
believe  The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
little ones; but  only  idiots like you
can believe  such crap.
With the definition above - your "law" is
a simple truism, and some  fanatic idiots
screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655422

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
> > > "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
> > > (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
> >
> > So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
> > law?
>
> Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
> believe  The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
> Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
> little ones; but  only  idiots like you
> can believe  such crap.

So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
Why would that be?  Perhaps it's because he
doesn't believe in anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

> With the definition above - your "law" is
> a simple truism, and some  fanatic idiots
> screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.

Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
doesn't understand science.  Of COURSE
conservation of energy is falsifiable!  It
can be determined by making measurements.
So far, it hasn't been falsified.  Supposed
problems have arisen in the past and were
put to rest by finding new forms of energy
or new particles.

What's not falsifiable (and nonscientific)
is Wozzie's belief system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655423

W dniu 01.08.2024 o 05:12, gharnagel pisze:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
>> > > "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
>> > > (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
>> >
>> > So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
>> > law?
>>
>> Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
>> believe  The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
>> Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
>> little ones; but  only  idiots like you
>> can believe  such crap.
> 
> So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
> doesn't believe in conservation of energy.

A lie, as expected from a relativistic
piece of shit in general and from
Harrie especially.
I said it's a truism, why wouldn't I
believe a truism?


> Why would that be?  Perhaps it's because he
> doesn't believe in anything?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
> 
>> With the definition above - your "law" is
>> a simple truism, and some  fanatic idiots
>> screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.
> 
> Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
> doesn't understand science.  Of COURSE
> conservation of energy is falsifiable!  It
> can be determined by making measurements.

Oh, reaally, Harrie?
Can measuring "1/2 m v^2, and everything else that
is missing from the law of conservation of energy"
give something different than the conservation
of energy?
Do Jedi knight wave their lightsabers too?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655454

gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
> > > > "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
> > > > (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
> > >
> > > So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
> > > law?
> >
> > Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
> > believe  The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
> > Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
> > little ones; but  only  idiots like you
> > can believe  such crap.
> 
> So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
> doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
> Why would that be?  Perhaps it's because he
> doesn't believe in anything?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
> 
> > With the definition above - your "law" is
> > a simple truism, and some  fanatic idiots
> > screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.
> 
> Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
> doesn't understand science.  Of COURSE
> conservation of energy is falsifiable!  It
> can be determined by making measurements.
> So far, it hasn't been falsified.  Supposed
> problems have arisen in the past and were
> put to rest by finding new forms of energy
> or new particles.

So it is not falsifiable by experiments.
It can only be falsified -by failure-
to find a new and better theory
of what energy is. (in which it is again conserved)

Of course such a situation is impossible,
for such a failure to find a better thery
could just be due to our collective stupidity.
We can never be sure that it cannot exist,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655457

W dniu 02.08.2024 o 10:05, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>> W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
>>>>> "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
>>>>> (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
>>>>
>>>> So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
>>>> law?
>>>
>>> Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
>>> believe  The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
>>> Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
>>> little ones; but  only  idiots like you
>>> can believe  such crap.
>>
>> So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
>> doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
>> Why would that be?  Perhaps it's because he
>> doesn't believe in anything?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
>>
>>> With the definition above - your "law" is
>>> a simple truism, and some  fanatic idiots
>>> screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.
>>
>> Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
>> doesn't understand science.  Of COURSE
>> conservation of energy is falsifiable!  It
>> can be determined by making measurements.
>> So far, it hasn't been falsified.  Supposed
>> problems have arisen in the past and were
>> put to rest by finding new forms of energy
>> or new particles.
> 
> So it is not falsifiable by experiments.
> It can only be falsified -by failure-
> to find a new and better theory
> of what energy is. (in which it is again conserved)
> 
> Of course such a situation is impossible,
> for such a failure to find a better thery
> could just be due to our collective stupidity.
> We can never be sure that it cannot exist,

Even a relativistic idiots can (partially) think
sometimes.
That's right. Your alleged "Law of Nature"
allegedly revealed to you by Nature Herself - is
really a simple language truism.
You really have no clue of what science is doing
to  you and what it is using you for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655462

Le 02/08/2024 à 11:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> ...
> You really have no clue of what science is doing
> to  you and what it is using you for.

Well... Tell us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655464

W dniu 02.08.2024 o 13:32, Python pisze:
> Le 02/08/2024 à 11:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> ...
>> You really have no clue of what science is doing
>> to  you and what it is using you for.
> 
> Well... Tell us.

It's complicated and you're dumb. Unless
you ever learn to at least try listening
to wiser ones - it would be a waste of
time.
Anyway, what I said about the conservation
of energy is a general rule: your alleged
"Laws of Nature" are just tautologies of
the mad newspeak produced by your mad
ideology.
Yes, they are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655460

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer, doesn't understand science. 
>> Of COURSE conservation of energy is falsifiable!  It can be determined
>> by making measurements. So far, it hasn't been falsified.  Supposed
>> problems have arisen in the past and were put to rest by finding new
>> forms of energy or new particles.

not true. In fucking europe we have half-engineers, which is only a one 
with a bachelor BSc, hence not a real engineer. Engineers starts with MSc 
and PhDs, my friend. I bet the polakker is a half-engineer, the most.

> So it is not falsifiable by experiments. It can only be falsified -by
> failure- to find a new and better theory of what energy is. (in which it
> is again conserved) Of course such a situation is impossible,
> for such a failure to find a better thery could just be due to our
> collective stupidity. We can never be sure that it cannot exist, Jan

you are so fucking stoopid, the harnagel is one of the most genuine 
posters in this group.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655406

W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:


> A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
> Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law of
> conservation of energy.

Which makes your alleged "Law of Nature"
- a simple language truism.

And it's not a critique.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655418

On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
>>> word...Energy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
>>>>     system with mass m = 0:
>>>>
>>>> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
>>>>
>>>>     . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
>>>>     at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
>>>>     p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
>>>>
>>>>     So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
>>>>     must have momentum.
>>>>
>>>>     But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
>>>>
>>>>     300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
>>>>     no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
>>>>
>>>>     Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
>>>>     be a particle with "E = 0"?
>>>>
>>>>     Here's the Unicode:
>>>>
>>>> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗
>>>>
>>>>     and
>>>>
>>>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
>>>> |have a particle, E ≠ 0, and therefore p⃗ ≠ 0.
>>>
>>
>> Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
>> "Aristotle's and Leibniz'".
>>
>> The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
>> content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
>> which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
>>
>> So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.
>
> What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
>
>
>

It's capacity to do work.

It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.

I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.

These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.

Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.

Moment and Motion, ....


If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655441

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
> >>> word...Energy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>     In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
> >>>>     system with mass m = 0:
> >>>>
> >>>> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
> >>>>
> >>>>     . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
> >>>>     at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
> >>>>     p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
> >>>>
> >>>>     So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
> >>>>     must have momentum.
> >>>>
> >>>>     But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
> >>>>
> >>>>     300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
> >>>>     no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
> >>>>
> >>>>     Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
> >>>>     be a particle with "E = 0"?
> >>>>
> >>>>     Here's the Unicode:
> >>>>
> >>>> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗
> >>>>
> >>>>     and
> >>>>
> >>>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
> >>>> |have a particle, E ≠ 0, and therefore p⃗ ≠ 0.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
> >> "Aristotle's and Leibniz'".
> >>
> >> The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
> >> content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
> >> which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
> >>
> >> So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.
> >
> > What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> It's capacity to do work.
> 
> It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
> and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
> that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
> and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
> velocity, and neutron lifetime.
> 
> I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
> and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
> and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
> and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
> 
> These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
> is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
> of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
> super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
> theory.
> 
> Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
> to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
> the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
> action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
> 
> Moment and Motion, ....
> 
> If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
> is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.


It appears to be written in English, but seems too differcult to read!

i don't understand what happened to the English language...

by the time it leaves the USA, ...

"Whew! That was a close one." in London reads "That was a near one!"

and by the time it reaches Russia...ALL THE LETTERS ARE
WRITTEN...BACKWARDS!!!!


What the hell is going on????


How did the fucking Russians end up with backward letters???

Do they walk backwards too?











-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web