[geocentrism] Re: kinetic energy
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 08:24:51 +1000
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. ??
Other related posts:
