🚀 go-pugleaf

The reason I put energy above momentum is that energy can be
transformed into many more different varieties than momentum
can, at least in my understanding.  Also, one could, at least
theoretically have conservation of energy, assuming transfers
into other varieties, 3without conservation of momentum, which
I am considering on the macroscopic (Newtonian level).
Not having read the book "spacetime physics" I am unaware of
the context in which the term is used/coined.  Perhaps I would
agree with it -- perhaps not.  I'll see if a copy of that book
is around here to consult.
I also suppose that I need a heirarchy (sp) of rules and
regulations and this seemed to be a good one to use.

According to Bill Barowy:
>
>  Dave,
>
> I am very interested in why you wrote:
>
> >This may seem strange in reference to the question, but it may
>  >help in some ways.  I explain to my students that there are
>  >"Orders of Conservation Laws" with "Conservation of Energy"
>  >being the top one.  All others are subservient to it.
>
> In Ed Taylors book "spacetime physics" he talks about conservation of
> momenergy in which he seems to put momentum and energy on an equal status
> by combining the two.  How can conservation of energy be above conservation
> of momentum?
>
> Bill Barowy
> Educational Technology,
> Bolt Beranek and Newman,
> 150 CambridgePark Drive,  Cambridge MA  02140
> (W) 617 - 873 - 2036  (F) 617 - 873 - 2455
>


--
Dave Button -- Osbourn Park High School
Manassas, VA 22111  There is no try, there is only do and not do.  Yoda