Re: Energy is for bunny-ahs (traders)

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:53:26 +0000, David Canzi wrote:

On 11/24/24 04:14, Bertietaylor wrote:

Physics texts should avoid the word "energy" as much as possible.
>
It is an unscientific term as it is so volatile and relative.
>
Besides the so called law of conservation of energy is nonsense as shown
by the phenomenon of radioactivity. Explaining that with e=mcc is even
more nonsense.
>
High time the world quitted bad physics and followed Arindam's physics
that updates Newton and rejects Einstein.

>
If you reject conservation of energy and conservation of momentum
you are shredding Newton, not updating him.

Nonsense. Newton had nothing to do with such a ridiculous notion as law
of conservation of energy. That came from the German scientists like
Helmholtz.
Newton was right about everything mechanical. He and Galileo lived long
before electricity was discovered.
Arindam updated Newtonian laws by taking electrical forces into account.
His rail gun experiments violated inertia and created net momentum with
application of electrical current.
Just as Galileo changed the universe view with his new design telescope
Arindam changed human destiny with his new design rail gun which
violated inertia when the heavy bullet was blocked.

>
The relativism you disdain is an irremovable feature of Newton's
physics and of Galileo before him.  In an airplane flying straight
and level in non-turbulent air, a juggler can juggle just as he
would on the ground.  He wouldn't have to adjust his movements in
any way to take account of the fact that the airplane is going
hundreds of miles per hour.  That's an example of relativity.
>
In 100 years, the names of Einstein, Newton, and Galileo will still
be famous.  In 20 years nobody will remember yours.