Thanks Allen. That is how I saw it. Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:15 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: kinetic energy This might be a mater of perspective unless you prescribe to absolute frames of reference. Only against an absolute frame of reference does motion have any meaning. Otherwise you are left with relativity, which although proves nothing, basically tries to demonstrate that nothing can be proven.... If the earth is the absolute frame of reference and not moving then it would be the plane or ball, I would think. In the HC construct where the Earth is spinning, the same is relatively true as well. Here is why... although the plane may be travailing against the earth's spin the force of that spin was already imparted to the plane before it took off from the ground. In essence it is still spinning with the earth in flight and all subsequent motion of the plane is superimposed or in addition to that overall spin. The actual definition of force or energy, I think is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. . Personally, I think the present concept of Kinetic energy is incorrect so mehow. If force is a function of energy and mater in it, motion and force could be two different entities and force would only be generated if the motion is disturb. However, none of this has any meaning external of absolute frames. Although both the mountain and the plane have relevant mass, it would be the force created by the motion of the plane's mass and energy imparted to it, that is disturbed by the mountain not visa versa, because only the ball or plane would have real motion. I think the accepted concept of kinetic energy may be too simple? Allen Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I have had some confusing thoughts about basic physics. Kinetic energy : is it the energy stored in a body due to its movement ? The bowler imparts some energy to the cricket ball. But does he? let me confuse you with what I thought about it. This is in the Hc world where the earth is rotating and the batsman is at the western end of the pitch. He is allegedly moving at very high speed towards the east. The bowler throws the ball at him. Now it seems to me that in effect this ball thrown towards the west is in fact made to slow down ( going against the earths rotation) and the batsman in reality smashes into the ball. How can they say the ball has kinetic energy given to it by the bowler. Isn.t the kinetic energy really in the batsman? I raised this before. but not over the definition of energy. If a plane heading west crashes into a mountain, is not the reality as regards energy , that the mountain crashed into the plane. ??