Law of Body in Motion

[arkain101]

I agree to a degree of what you are saying. But I think you are creating a specific situation in a generalized law.

 

Yes the ball did now apply motion to itself, yes the human applied motion to the ball. But all that is important is, Object A put energy into object B, whether the ball and human are connected or not. We could assume there was no ball and the mans hand flew off cause he threw so hard. Would you say the hand was at rest because it did not apply energy to itself?

 

In my view, all things are kenetic energy in some sense, but not all sources of kenetic energy are in a substantial enough relationship to make substantial use.

 

All things are also gravity, or gravity is also all things. You cant have a force of gravity without a partner source, and that force is completely relationship dependent on the two independent gravity origins.

 

Which probably goes without saying anyway.

[Eclogite]

All things are also gravity, or gravity is also all things. You cant have a force of gravity without a partner source, and that force is completely relationship dependent on the two independent gravity origins.

 

Which probably goes without saying anyway.

I recognised all the words. I recognised the validity of the grammar. I have absolutely no idea, however, what you are trying to say.

 

Gravity is not everything, and everything is not gravity. What do you mean by stating that equivalence? What do you base it on?

 

Why can't you have gravity without a partner source? Two gravity origins?!!!

 

All I can think is that it was still 1 April when you posted this.:hihi:

[Guadalupe]

Hi! arkain101 :rose:

 

 

I agree to a degree of what you are saying. But I think you are creating a specific situation in a generalized law.

 

Yes the ball did now apply motion to itself, yes the human applied motion to the ball. But all that is important is, Object A put energy into object B, whether the ball and human are connected or not. We could assume there was no ball and the mans hand flew off cause he threw so hard. Would you say the hand was at rest because it did not apply energy to itself?

 

In my view, all things are kenetic energy in some sense, but not all sources of kenetic energy are in a substantial enough relationship to make substantial use.

 

All things are also gravity, or gravity is also all things. You cant have a force of gravity without a partner source, and that force is completely relationship dependent on the two independent gravity origins.

 

Which probably goes without saying anyway.

 

 

If we were to assume there were no ball and the mans hand did fly off for whatever the reason, which is out of the norm, the hand did not put itself into motion and therefor the hand is in constant Potential Energy.

 

But, when we start assuming, without really doing some serious thinking and research, we sometimes run into trouble.

 

In any case, my Law of Body in Motion, applies to any and all situations.

 

Potential & Kinetic Energy has never been a law but, it was considered to fall under the umbrella of Isaac Newton’s 1st law.

 

What exactly does my Law of Body in Motion really mean? It clarifies more in detail as to what is Potential & Kinetic Energy and what is not.

 

Example, of what is Potential Energy: An arrow in motion is in constant Potential Energy. Because, the arrow did not put itself into motion.

 

I hope, this helps to better understand my Law of Body in Motion.

 

 

:rainbow:

[arkain101]

It doesnt help that much, because a person can use a term potential energy in a few different ways. Such as, a blowing wind has the potential to make energy or, an elastic band pulled back has potential energy..

From what I've read Im getting confused to which way you are using the word to the application..but I will read through again and reply with a more precise post.

 

Looking forward to see whether I agree with this or not with you.

[Guadalupe]

Hi! arkain101 :D

 

 

 

It doesnt help that much, because a person can use a term potential energy in a few different ways. Such as, a blowing wind has the potential to make energy or, an elastic band pulled back has potential energy..

From what I've read Im getting confused to which way you are using the word to the application..but I will read through again and reply with a more precise post.

 

Looking forward to see whether I agree with this or not with you.

 

 

 

Using the elastic rubber band as an example: The elastic rubber band is in constant Potential Energy when pulled pack and remains in constant Potential Energy when released.

 

I can understand your confusion. Potential & Kinetic Energy is old school teaching, that all things in motion are Kinetic Energy and all things at rest is Potential Energy. This is incorrect.

 

My Law of Body in Motion is new to the world and it may take some time to be accepted. All the laws, I’ve created, made me realize, I was standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

 

;)

[arkain101]

All the laws, I’ve created, made me realize, I was standing on the shoulders of giants.

I've hear this expression before, and people have explained it differently, what do YOU mean by it.

[Guadalupe]

 

Using the elastic rubber band as an example: The elastic rubber band is in Potential Energy when pulled back but, when released, the elastic rubber band becomes Kinetic Energy.

 

I can understand your confusion. Potential & Kinetic Energy is old school teaching, that all things in motion are Kinetic Energy and all things at rest is Potential Energy. This is incorrect.

 

My Law of Body in Motion is new to the world and it may take some time to be accepted. All the laws, I’ve created, made me realize, I was standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

 

:cocktail:

 

 

 

By standing on the shoulders of giants, I am building on the foundations that great men and women have created.

 

My laws, are not a result of my own work alone, but a compilation of the thoughts and ideas of many, as well as many years of my own research.

 

 

 

:cocktail:

[Eclogite]

Law of Body in Motion states:

1. A body at rest or a body that is put into motion, by an external force, remains constant, as Potential Energy.

2. A body that is put into motion, by its own internal force, remains constant, as Kinetic Energy.

:

From Law 1 you are stating the body remains constant. What remains constant? Are you stating the potential energy of the body remains constant? If so, your phrasing is ambiguous and unclear. If you mean something else, what?

 

Exactly the same point for Law 2 with reference to kinetic energy.

 

What insight into kinetics do these Laws offer that are not offered by the 'conventional' laws of motion?

[arkain101]

a moving object is a moving object and that is called Kinetic Energy, an energy source of mass at velocity. It seems that you are only changing the wording of the laws but the nature remains as it is.

 

Internal or external force, how come this matters ? Maybe you can explain why you came to this laws.

[Guadalupe]

Sorry for taking so long in answering your questions. My disability sometimes forces my mind to take a little vacation now and then. :eek:

 

Let us begin. Kinetic and Potential Energy were never laws but were taught that they fell under the umbrella of Newton’s law of motion.

 

As it stands now, the teaching is that anything and everything that is moving or in motion is Kinetic Energy.

 

Since the earth is moving or in motion, that would mean everything inside of it or on it or above it, is Kinetic Energy.

 

Everything not moving or not in motion is Potential Energy which in reality makes it non-existent in our universe.

 

This is one of the reasons why I felt that it was important to create law(s) to specify what exactly is Kinetic Energy and what is Potential Energy.

 

Example:

 

1. A body in motion is in constant Kinetic Energy when using internal force.

 

2. A body in motion is in constant Potential Energy when using external force.

 

:)

[arkain101]

There is already a type of law.

 

Something that is moving has kenetic energy because it can transfer that energy to something.

 

The earth is moving, but we are moving with it. So for us the earth has no useable kenetic energy. It is at rest.

 

Its for the opportunity to make use of the energy.

 

In other words, if we want to do work we can use a kenetic energy source or a potential energy source.

 

Gasoline is a potential. It is a compacted spring that needs only high energy to release it, to do work.

 

Potential and Kenetic share a relationship. For example. A rock on a cliff has a potential of say 100Joules if it were to fall off and hit the ground below. It is to say it has a potential kenetic energy of 100Joules. For when it hits the ground it will be measured to have 100joules of kenetic energy and will be capable to do work.

[Guadalupe]

From Law 1 you are stating the body remains constant. What remains constant? Are you stating the potential energy of the body remains constant? If so, your phrasing is ambiguous and unclear. If you mean something else, what?

 

Exactly the same point for Law 2 with reference to kinetic energy.

 

What insight into kinetics do these Laws offer that are not offered by the 'conventional' laws of motion?

 

 

Hi! Eclogite, :)

 

What I meant was that the ball in motion remains in constant potential energy and does not become kinetic energy just because of the transfer of energy to the ball by the pitcher.

 

A body in motion is in constant Kinetic Energy when using internal force.

 

A body in motion is in constant Potential Energy when using external force.

 

 

 

:cup:

[Guadalupe]

There is already a type of law.

 

Something that is moving has kenetic energy because it can transfer that energy to something.

 

The earth is moving, but we are moving with it. So for us the earth has no useable kenetic energy. It is at rest.

 

Its for the opportunity to make use of the energy.

 

In other words, if we want to do work we can use a kenetic energy source or a potential energy source.

 

Gasoline is a potential. It is a compacted spring that needs only high energy to release it, to do work.

 

Potential and Kenetic share a relationship. For example. A rock on a cliff has a potential of say 100Joules if it were to fall off and hit the ground below. It is to say it has a potential kenetic energy of 100Joules. For when it hits the ground it will be measured to have 100joules of kenetic energy and will be capable to do work.

 

 

Hi! arkain101, :doh:

 

The rock, being potential energy, is unable to fall off the cliff by itself. I would say that an external force made it possible for the rock to fall off the cliff.

 

What ever this external force that caused the rock to fall off the cliff, the rock remains in constant Potential Energy from start to finish because the rock itself did not use its own internal force to make it Kinetic Energy.

 

The point I am trying to make with these laws is not whether or not the energy is work, thermal, or transfer related, but rather HOW the object was able to be put into motion.

 

The question being was it external or internal force that put the object into motion. This is what differentiates whether it is Kinetic Energy or Potential Energy.

 

 

:naughty:

[arkain101]

oh okay, yah I think I see what you mean now.