View Full Version : Work equation?
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 06:37 AM
Work is defined as: The transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. It is calculated as the product of the force and the distance through which the body moves and is expressed in joules, ergs, and foot-pounds.
\textcolor{red}{W=\vec{F}dcos \theta}
If the object is not moved by the force applied, I'm sure we can all agree that \textcolor{red}{W=0~Joules}[/tex], ergo no work was done. Does this also imply that there was no energy output?
Scenario 1:
A man applies [itex]\textcolor{red}{4N} of force on an object. In the end, he moves the object a total of \textcolor{red}{2m} horizontally. So from this we can say: \textcolor{red}{W=(4N)(2m)cos(0)}. This gives us: \textcolor{red}{W=8~Joules}. Agree? There was work done, and there was also energy output by the man in a total amount of \textcolor{red}{8~Joules}.
Scenario 2:
A man applies the same amount of force on another object. This object is much more massive than the first object. He eventually gets tired of trying to move the object, and can not go on. So, he accomplished to move the object \textcolor{red}{0m} across a horizontal surface. So, from this we can say: \textcolor{red}{W=(4N)(0m)cos(0)}. This gives us: \textcolor{red}{W=0~Joules}. There was no work done. Does that mean there is no energy output since the amount of work done was \textcolor{red}{0~Joules}? Obviously, this man used energy to TRY and push the object. He was tired, because he output all his energy trying to move the boulder, but the equation says otherwise.
Scenario3:
\textcolor{red}{\vec{F}=G\frac{M_1M_2}{r^2}}
The earth pulls on the moon with a certain amount of force. The moon pulls back with that same amount of force. This allows the moon to orbit the earth. Does the force that keeps the moon in orbit apply work?
\textcolor{red}{G=6.67300x10^{-11}N-m^2/kg^2}
\textcolor{red}{M_1(Earth)=6x10^{24}kg}
\textcolor{red}{M_2(Moon)=7x10^{22}kg}
\textcolor{red}{r_{distance}=3.844x10^8m}
After calculating all that out, \textcolor{red}{\vec{F} \approx 18.9x10^{19}N} That's a lot of force in the earth-moon system. It would seem logical to say that this force outputs energy inorder to keep the moon in orbit, right? If that were the case, where is this energy coming from? To get around this work is introduced into the situation. The moons orbit is not perfectly circular, but its eccentricity is 0.0549. That is neglible. So, if we plug and chug in the work equation we get \textcolor{red}{W=0~Joules}. We know that is not true though, because energy is used to keep the moon in robit. The reason why most scientists believe that no work is done is because if energy were output, there would be no source of this energy to drain, ergo violating the laws of conservation of energy.
There is obviously something wrong with this. No, this is not an attempt to try and go against physics. I just want answers.
I want just a sipmle explanation. Not scrutiny from everyone.
Your analogy of a man pushing a rock is not a good example. The man is a complex mechanism with every cell doing work just to stay in existance.
When you get a good handle on it you will see that the moon staying in orbit does not require work except for the tides both on the moon and the earth. There's nothing wrong with the equations. We just have to understand them better.
Keep on chuggin !!
Vern
Gravity Works (http://photontheory.com)
russ_watters
Aug3-04, 07:58 AM
Your analogy of a man pushing a rock is not a good example. The man is a complex mechanism with every cell doing work just to stay in existance. Actually, the analogy works fine - what he's missing is the difference between input and output. The calories burned by the man are energy input, the work done on the rock is work output.
Does the force that keeps the moon in orbit apply work? Sounds strange, doesn't it - the earth applies a force causing the moon to be in constant acceleration - yet no work is done. But thats the way it sometimes works.
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 01:53 PM
I know the difference between input and output, and those are adressed in my problem.
Sounds strange, doesn't it - the earth applies a force causing the moon to be in constant acceleration - yet no work is done. But thats the way it sometimes works.
That's simply not enough. There is something wrong with the work equation, or gravity is flawed. The work equation is what is used to cover up the blunder that there is no source of input energy for the earth on the moon. Seeing that the work equation get's 0 work, there is no need for a source of energy with no output energy. It is well known that the earth is using energy to keep the moon in place, but where is this energy coming from?
Vern, did you make up the photon theory? If so, I'll have to hand it to you. You are questioning way things work; that's always good. Whoever made the site, I like it. Vern, my analogy is plausible.
1) People are complex. When you push on something, your individual muscle fibers contract and relax over and over again. This expends energy and tires you out even when you don't move anything.
2) Pushing a box horizontally does no work against gravity. On a frictionless plane, it requires zero energy to push a box from one place to another.
3) Gravity does do work on orbiting bodies. Imagine a 100 kg satellite in an eccentric orbit with an apogee of 10,000 miles and a perigee of only 1,000 miles. That means that in going from apogee to perigee, the satellite loses 9,000 miles of altitude. Gravity does work on the satellite as it loses those 9,000 miles of altitude, giving it a little over 14 billion joules of kinetic energy. (Making the simplification that g does not change over that altitude.) As the satellite passes its perigee, it begins gaining altitude again, losing speed and doing work against gravity.
The critical thing you must realize is that the total energy is conserved. During the descent from apogee to perigee, gravity is doing work on the satellite. During the ascent from perigee to apogee, the satellite is doing the same amount of work against gravity.
If you roll a ball up the side of a bowl, it'll roll back down again, and then up the other side. And then down and back up the other side. And then down and back up the other side. All with no energy input from you other than the initial amount to get the ball rolling. In the absence of friction, it would go on rolling up and down forever. A satellite in orbit around the Earth experiences negligible friction, and thus orbits forever. All with no energy input from you other than the initial amount to get it going.
- Warren
That's simply not enough. There is something wrong with the work equation, or gravity is flawed.
No, you simply don't understand it well.
It is well known that the earth is using energy to keep the moon in place, but where is this energy coming from?
It uses no energy at all.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 02:10 PM
It uses no energy at all.
How can it do work? The output energy of earth doing work is through the forces. These forces arise from attraction. So, where does this energy come from?
You launched the satellite didn't you? With a big ol' rocket full of explosives? That's where the energy came from.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 02:17 PM
Earth-moon system only has forces through attraction. There is no initial input of energy, yet the earth and moon are able to exert forces. There is no source of this energy input for an output of energy in the form of work.
When I proposed the experiment of the man pushing boxes, I forgot to add that the surface was not frictionless. Yes, I know how muscles work. I didn't take BioII AP for nothing. This energy that is loss through muscle contraction is in the form of input energy. The only way to get an output is to move something. If nothing is moved, there is no output but only input. This is what the work equation says.
Earth-moon system only has forces through attraction. There is no initial input of energy, yet the earth and moon are able to exert forces. There is no source of this energy input for an output of energy in the form of work.
Of course there was. The solar system didn't just come from nothing, did it? No, indeed, it formed from the collapse of a large cloud of gas and dust. The collapse provided lots of energy.
When I proposed the experiment of the man pushing boxes, I forgot to add that the surface was not frictionless.
He still didn't do any work against gravity. He just did work against friction. The equations you gave were wrong, as they used an angle of 0 degrees between the normal force and the applied force. (It should have been 90 degrees.) You didn't include a friction term in the equation, even though you now claim to have been talking about friction. :rolleyes:
Yes, I know how muscles work. I didn't take BioII AP for nothing. This energy that is loss through muscle contraction is in the form of input energy. The only way to get an output is to move something. If nothing is moved, there is no output but only input. This is what the work equation says.
No. You can also produce heat (you'll get sweaty), sound, deformations in your tennis shoes, etc. The energy you expend pushing against a wall goes into all of these forms.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 02:36 PM
Sorry, Warren.
Scenario 1:
W=4N*2m*cos(90)=-3.58458893~Joules
Scenario 2:
W=4N*0m*cos(90)=0~Joules
Scenario 1 yields a negative energy output. While scenario 2 still yields no energy output.
Warren, all of the energy you input comes from your body as one system. When you input ATP to apply calcium to the actin-myocin bridge to yield output, that is a system of it's own. The output of this system is on the object which the force is applied. Whether this energy is going into the wall or to your shoes, there is no movement of the object. There is no ouput but input is present. If there is no output, there should be no input. The work equation accounts for the total amount of energy you spend regardless of where it goes into moving that object. In Scenario 1, you moved the object, although the total amount of input energy did not go directly to moving that object.
You seem quite confused. The cosine of 90 degrees is zero. Perhaps you should try doing your math homework.
There is always output. It may be heat, sound, etc. I've already said this. Do you not agree that heat is a form of energy?
- Warren
This is no different than asking where a permanent magnet get its energy from. It exerts a measurable force on any nearby magnetic object. But, it doesnt wear out, it doesn't get hot and it is way, way more powerful than gravity.
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 02:55 PM
Whoops, hehe. Last time I rely on google for calculations.
I agree that heat is a form of energy. If no work is done, there is no output energy going by the equation. It is obvious that there is energy that is output as you said in the form of heat. This is neglected going by the equation. If you are putting in a total of 4N, you should output equivalent to 4N regardless if you move the object or not. The work equation yields no output in any form of energy. The work equation is not valid for someone who does not move an object with input force.
Whoops, hehe. Last time I rely on google for calculations.
http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=cosine%2890+degrees%29&btnG=Search
I agree that heat is a form of energy. If no work is done, there is no output energy going by the equation. It is obvious that there is energy that is output as you said in the form of heat. This is neglected going by the equation.
Your equation is not complete. Duh.
If you are putting in a total of 4N, you should output equivalent to 4N regardless if you move the object or not.
The Newton is a unit of force, not work (or energy). There is no law of conservation of force. :rofl:
The work equation yields no output in any form of energy. The work equation is not valid for someone who does not move an object with input force.
The proper equation to use is simply
\Delta E = 0
The total energy of the system is conserved.
- Warren
A man applies the same amount of force on another object. This object is much more massive than the first object. He eventually gets tired of trying to move the object, and can not go on. So, he accomplished to move the object across a horizontal surface.
This is where you go wrong. Assuming there is no friction between the massive object and the ground the massive object does move. Only that if its massive enough say like if you push on an asteriod, you wouldn't see any movement because it moved to little for you to see.
If there is friction then the energy is transfered against the molecular bonds in the atoms of the ground.
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 03:25 PM
Ehhh, Warren, I'll avoid radians next time. cos(90) does not work alone. :redface:
That is not my equation. It is an equation that was first thought to help engineers. I know Newton is a unit of force. It is an input force that requires an energy to be existent. Notice I said "equivalent."
No, energy is not conserved. You have an input which consist of no output going by the work equation.
Entropy, I agree with you on both points. With the presence of friction, it transferred to the ground. This is the amount of work done, but is not yielded by the work equation, if an object is not moved. Thios transfer of friction to the ground is apart of you applying work to the object.
It is an input force that requires an energy to be existent.
:rofl: What does that even mean?
No, energy is not conserved. You have an input which consist of no output going by the work equation.
As I've already said, your equation is not complete. You only have a term for the movement of an object against a force, but you've neglected to include terms for heat, sound, etc. In the case of a person pushing against a wall, those terms are non-zero, and cannot be neglected.
This is not difficult to understand.
- Warren
rayjohn01
Aug3-04, 03:31 PM
To Ultra
I often get mixed up in questions concerning rotation -- but i've learned that's usually because I mix frames of reference. If you stand on the earth surface and look at the moon it's clear that it is not rushing either toward or away from us , and yet you can show that gravity is at work by dropping an apple. So if gravity is attracting the moon how come it does not fall. Within that framework we say that a force ( centifugal outward) exists which balances gravity in such a way that no accelleration occurs and no distance change -- hence no work is done.
You may say OK but where does this mythical force come from and why does it not appear to work for the apple ?
To see this you have to change your perspective viewpoint to a stationary one
outside of the rotating system . In this frame it is natural for massive bodies to travel in 'Straight lines' unless force is applied so that the moon in going around the earth must be feeling a force ( gravity ) to deviate it and is in fact undergoing accelleratations all the time causing it to undergo a back and forth movement which as Chroot says is a motion which causes the exchange of Kinetic and potential energy
even if it is perfectly circular.
IT ends up the same way that is the total energy is constant .
If you picture this motion from the perspective of the suns surface you will see that the moon during one month the moon undergoes a cycle of approach to the sun follwed by gaining distance , it is sinusouidal where the accelleration is greatest at nearest and furthest approach and least at maximum speed ( wrt the sun).
Hope this helps Ray.
beatrix kiddo
Aug3-04, 03:42 PM
Within that framework we say that a force ( centifugal outward) exists which balances gravity in such a way that no accelleration occurs and no distance change -- hence no work is done.
i have come across reports that say the moon is getting farther away from the earth by like .1 cm.. or something measurable like that.. wouldn't this mean that the centrifugal force was overtaking gravity?
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 03:48 PM
Forces are a result of mass. Mass is eqiuvalent to energy. Energy is a force in the form of a mass. Therefore, Newton is related to energy.
E=m_0c^2
\vec{F}=mg
m=\frac{\vec{F}}{g}
E=\frac{\vec{F}}{g}c^2
???
Possible relationship between force and energy. I dunno. Just working with it. Probably won't work because of m_0 is different than m.
Great point, rayjohn01. Let me try to see it as you do; I'll get back to your post.
Warren, would you aide me in making my equation correct?
The moon is growing more distant because tidal forces are slowly dissipating its orbital energy. Its orbit grows larger to conserve angular momentum.
- Warren
beatrix kiddo
Aug3-04, 04:14 PM
ok.. does this mean that the moon's orbital velocity is decreasing or is it increasing and the earth's orbital velocity decreasing? i am reading these sources and some are contradicting each other...
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 04:52 PM
BTW, who is Ultra?
The moon's orbital velocity is decreasing. The earth's rotational speed is decreasing as well, but its orbital velocity is not changing.
and urtalkinstupid, I think rayjohn01 meant you.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 04:54 PM
I like the name Ultra. :rofl:
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 04:56 PM
Would a decrease in the Earth's rotational velocity make the days and nights longer?
*edit*
Warren, I'm also assuming that my force and energy relationship is correct. You have yet to even comment on it. I want you to tell me it is wrong, because I think its wrong, but was just trying something.
Would a decrease in the Earth's rotational velocity make the days and nights longer?
Yes, billions of years ago the moon was much closer and a day was only around 4 hours long.
E=\frac{\vec{F}}{g}c^2
Well, it's correct, except for the fact that you shouldn't mix vector and non-vector quantities in an equation. The \vec F that you're talking about is the downward-pointing force due to the weight of the mass. You should just call it F.
Anyway, it's correct, but not very useful. F/g is just weight over gravitational acceleration, which is just the mass. All you're doing is expressing the rest mass-energy in terms of weight and gravitational acceleration instead of in terms of mass itself.
- Warren
beatrix kiddo
Aug3-04, 05:22 PM
so basically, if the sun doesn't burn us up, we will just go spiralling into it after billions or so more years.. so the tides on the earth are creating drag for the moon? and travis we discussed that i'm way more ultra than u...
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 05:28 PM
Well, I put the vector to show that there is a direction of force. Not necessarily towards the right. I know it's not very useful. I was just trying to show you what I meant by:
It is an input force that requires an energy to be existent
The Earth-Sun system exhibits only very small tidal forces as compared to the Earth-Moon system. Also, the Sun has a LOT more rotational inertia than does the Moon. Put those two together, and you can safely say that the Earth is not significantly slowing down the Sun's rotation, and is not significantly increasing in orbital radius.
If anything, the Earth is very slowly losing orbital velocity due to drag with the interplanetary medium and getting closer to the Sun. That's only a very slight effect, though.
- Warren
It is an input force that requires an energy to be existent
I still have no idea what this means, but it sounds very specious. At the very best you're misusing technical terms; at worst you're making another gravely errant leap of logic.
If I leave a book on my table, it exerts a constant force on the table all night long, and will continue to press on the table with the same force forever. It has no energy source though, and neither does the Earth.
If I put two books on the table, they actually attract each other, all the time. Even if you want to go crackpot and argue that somehow the Earth has an energy source that creates its gravity, you surely won't argue that the two books have such an energy source.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 05:35 PM
That's the point I'm trying to argue. Energy is created in order to keep that force constant. In order to make a force applicable, there is a needed input of energy.
As Chrono's said, there is the same problem with permanent magnets, except much greater, because they hang on a refrigerator door like mountain climbers hang on the side of a cliff.
This all ties into the Work equation.
nickdanger
Aug3-04, 05:42 PM
Whoops, hehe. Last time I rely on google for calculations.
I agree that heat is a form of energy. If no work is done, there is no output energy going by the equation. It is obvious that there is energy that is output as you said in the form of heat. This is neglected going by the equation. If you are putting in a total of 4N, you should output equivalent to 4N regardless if you move the object or not. The work equation yields no output in any form of energy. The work equation is not valid for someone who does not move an object with input force.
You are correct that you have output 4N, but it has not gone into work as you say. However, you have referred to the 'work equation' as though the function on force through distance is a conservation equation, but it is not. The conservation equation you want is: E = q + w, so that the total energy into the system (E=4N) must be comprised of heat out of the system plus work energy to move the object. You have to be careful to define the boundary across which energy is transfered. If the person pushing the object will stay absolutely stationary then the boundary does not make any difference when you look at the work energy because you are rightly analyzing just the movement of the object being pushed. But for heat expenditure, the system must be defined as both you and the object since during the effort both will be generating heat, especially if no movement is achieved.
beatrix kiddo
Aug3-04, 05:47 PM
chroot, doesn't the earth have kinectic and potential energy as it revolves around the sun? would this mean that there is work being done? or, because there is conservation, no work gets done?
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 05:47 PM
Wouldn't that be:
E=\Delta q +W
The change in heat would be more reasonable. You take the final temperature and subtract from the initial, right? This gives the total amount of heat put into the system.
That's the point I'm trying to argue. Energy is created in order to keep that force constant. In order to make a force applicable, there is a needed input of energy.
Quite simply, no.
As Chrono's said, there is the same problem with permanent magnets, except much greater, because they hang on a refrigerator door like mountain climbers hang on the side of a cliff.
Both magnetism and gravity are conservative forces, which means they conserve energy. If they were not conservative, there would be serious consequences in the behavior of such systems in translations in time, which would pretty much rewrite physics from the ground up -- and it'd be entirely wrong. The conservation of energy and the concommitant invariance of physical laws to translations in time are perhaps the most fundamental properties of physics in this universe.
This all ties into the Work equation.
Which equation? W = \vec F \cdot \vec d? The one that you don't even understand?
- Warren
The change in heat would be more reasonable. You take the final temperature and subtract from the initial, right? This gives the total amount of heat put into the system.
Temperature and heat are not the same thing at all.
- Warren
If it's any consolation, the sun will go red giant and vaporize the earth long before have a chance to crash into it's cold, dead corpse. But what the heck, a creationist could have told you that.
nickdanger
Aug3-04, 06:11 PM
Wouldn't that be:
E=\Delta q +W
The change in heat would be more reasonable. You take the final temperature and subtract from the initial, right? This gives the total amount of heat put into the system.
You make a good point. But in fact neither q nor w need to be thought of as a change. The heat in particular is just a quantity passing the boundary between the system and the surroundings. We sum the the heat and the work to get the quantity, E. This is certainly a delta if you want to think about absolute energy of the system, but there are problems with this and it is not necessary to reference the change from absolute energy content for most thermodynamic problems.
nickdanger
Aug3-04, 06:17 PM
Warren is correct. It's energy by heat and not temperature at all
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 06:22 PM
Yes, temperature is a measure of heat. Sorry for that. There is a required source of energy to exert work on an object. Energy is related to force. We've established that through a poorly derived equation. I'm sure a little more work we can get a nice relationship.
If a magnet is said to do no work, how is that possible? We know it requires a force to act against gravity to stay on the refrigerator, but no work is done, because it doesn't move anything. In examples ithat nvolved pushing stuff, the energy is transferred into heat, if nothing is moved. What is the case with the magnet?
you seem to have a problem with work not being done unless movement is involved.
since that's how we DEFINE "work" maybe you'd better use a different term.
since that's how we DEFINE "work" maybe you'd better use a different term.
It is not how we define work.
- Warren
There is a required source of energy to exert work on an object.
You've yet to substantiate this claim.
If a magnet is said to do no work, how is that possible? We know it requires a force to act against gravity to stay on the refrigerator, but no work is done, because it doesn't move anything. In examples ithat nvolved pushing stuff, the energy is transferred into heat, if nothing is moved. What is the case with the magnet?
Magnetism is a conservative force. A human's muscles pushing something do not constitute a conservative system.
- Warren
It is not how we define work.
- Warren
come again? Force Distance, no?
Work is defined differently in different contexts. In ideal gas mechanics, for example, it's W = p \Delta V.
- Warren
well let's not get sidetracked. for the system at hand distance is the factor.
in an orbital system, the distance between the object and its satellite is what we're calculating with. in a perfect circular orbit, no work would ever be done. in an elliptical orbit work is done one way by the primary drawing the satellite closer and increasing its velocity, then the other way back to apex by the sattelite, using up the velocity to get back to where it started.
hence conservation of energy in the system.
no NET work
Thanks JoeWade, that's already been said.
- Warren
i said it using smaller words
rayjohn01
Aug3-04, 09:32 PM
Beatrix
If the distance between them increases ( which I am told it does ) and their masses do not change , then their center of mass does not change but the force of gravity decreases ( between them ) , to balance this the common( and opposite) centifugal force must decrease which means both orbital velocities decrease wrt their center of mass. Since the mass of the earth is much greater than the moon it's orbital velocity is much smaller but the percentage changes to each are the same and equal to half the percentage change of the distance.
Alkatran
Aug3-04, 10:06 PM
Here's what you're having trouble understanding:
The velocity never changes. The distance between the two objects never changes.
Now, notice that energy is NOT a vector. This means that a change in direction WILL NOT CHANGE ENERGY AT ALL. You can rotate the speed all you want, you have the same kinetic energy.
Now, you also need to understand that there are different 'types' of energy and they are calculated differently. For example, kinetic energy is calculated via the equation you've already given: d*F = Ek. However, potential gravity is another type of energy and has a different equation associated to it: d*F=Eg.
Oh wait! They're the same thing! or are they?
The distance in the kinetic energy is distance TRAVELLED. The distance in the potential gravity equation is the distance BETWEEN two objects.
Since (assuming circular orbit) the moon is not changing speed, its kinetic energy is unchanging, so we can calculate the potential gravity change:
Since the moon is the same distance from the earth on both sides, and the same force is (generally) being exerted on it, potential gravity is conserved as well.
Now, since the orbit is actually elliptical, and potential gravity energy drops as the moon approaches earth, this energy needs to go somewhere. It ends up as kinetic energy, making the moon move faster as it approaches earth, and, therefore, moving slower as it recedes.
Understand?
beatrix kiddo
Aug3-04, 10:30 PM
it's ok, tran.. my post was old...
Now, since the orbit is actually elliptical, and potential gravity energy drops as the moon approaches earth, this energy needs to go somewhere. It ends up as kinetic energy, making the moon move faster as it approaches earth, and, therefore, moving slower as it recedes.
Understand?
yeah.. that's why i didn't do a follow up post...
Now, notice that energy is NOT a vector. This means that a change in direction WILL NOT CHANGE ENERGY AT ALL. You can rotate the speed all you want, you have the same kinetic energy.
u really, REALLY don't have to tell me energy isn't a vector..
Alkatran
Aug3-04, 10:35 PM
it's ok, tran.. my post was old...
yeah.. that's why i didn't do a follow up post...
u really, REALLY don't have to tell me energy isn't a vector..
I wasn't arguing specifically towards you, more along the lines of this:
Yes, temperature is a measure of heat. Sorry for that. There is a required source of energy to exert work on an object. Energy is related to force. We've established that through a poorly derived equation. I'm sure a little more work we can get a nice relationship.
If a magnet is said to do no work, how is that possible? We know it requires a force to act against gravity to stay on the refrigerator, but no work is done, because it doesn't move anything. In examples ithat nvolved pushing stuff, the energy is transferred into heat, if nothing is moved. What is the case with the magnet?
Because electromagnetic forces are calculated in the same way gravity is, the same "different energy" argument applies. However, as was already stated, the force/work/energy/I'm really not sure, not my area from gravity is spread through the molecular bonds in the atoms that the magnet is 'latching' onto. (right?)
urtalkinstupid
Aug3-04, 11:17 PM
Force is related to Energy, Force is related with work, so Energy and Work are related.
I was not saying energy was a vector that can be applied in a direction. The energy is spread out (scalar), while force is applicable in a direction vector). Are you trying to tell me that work is not scalar, so I can't relate Energy to it, because it contains a vector? I'm not getting it.
Alkatran has it right, as does chroot. You don't need an energy supply if no work is being done. Force and energy are not the same thing. Energy is conserved, force is not.
Alkatran
Aug3-04, 11:40 PM
Force is related to Energy, Force is related with work, so Energy and Work are related.
I was not saying energy was a vector that can be applied in a direction. The energy is spread out (scalar), while force is applicable in a direction vector). Are you trying to tell me that work is not scalar, so I can't relate Energy to it, because it contains a vector? I'm not getting it.
I'm not exactly sure how to explain this to you, because you have a history of misinterpreting explanations. But let's just say that whatever it is that gets rid of the vector part of a force is the multiplication by distance.
You can't add vectors to scalar quantities, so if work isn't scalar you can't add it to energy... and we do. So.. work is scalar.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 12:43 AM
You can convert scalar to vector and vice versa.
You can convert scalar to vector and vice versa.
I will try to refrain from getting sucked into arguing against your flawed theories and the precious little math you use, but clearly do not understand, to support them.
russ_watters
Aug4-04, 01:11 AM
This is as far as I got in the thread and it bears repeating: This is not difficult to understand.
- WarrenThis is not difficult to understand. I'm no longer amused and I no longer believe there is any chance you kiddies are making an honest effort here.
beatrix kiddo
Aug4-04, 01:49 AM
chronos u can convert from scalar to vector.. and russ we aren't trying to amuse u..
Math Is Hard
Aug4-04, 01:55 AM
chronos u can convert from scalar to vector.. and russ we aren't trying to amuse u..
why would you do that? I am not sure I follow...? For instance, if you take away the directional component of a force and only have a magnitude of acceleration (times mass) remaining, doesn't that leave you with a push or pull in no direction?
But maybe I don't understand what you mean by "convert". :confused:
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 07:09 AM
why would you do that? I am not sure I follow...? For instance, if you take away the directional component of a force and only have a magnitude of acceleration (times mass) remaining, doesn't that leave you with a push or pull in no direction?
But maybe I don't understand what you mean by "convert". :confused:
When you use the work equation, you multiply by sin(A), which breaks it down to one of the components of the vector. This component is scalar. (You do it all the time when summing vectors)
In essence, multiplying by a trig function tends to remove the vectoriel properties of a vector.
To Urtalkinstupid:
My mistake, it's the multiplication by the angle, not the distance, which makes Work scalar.
russ_watters
Aug4-04, 07:59 AM
...and russ we aren't trying to amuse u.. No, you're probably just trying to amuse yourselves. Regardelss, the only reason you two are still members here is you are amusing to us (except a small possibility others are learning from your mistakes). Our patience, however, has limits.
The concept being explained here is (again) junior high science class simple (and I'm pretty sure I could make an average elementary school student understand it*). Its simply not possible for you two to not be smart enough to understand it. That means you guys are choosing to not understand it. Why, we're not sure, but regardless, you are not making an effort to help yourselves and you are not making a positive contribtion to this board.
*Elementary school analogy: A car stationary at idle does no useful work. All of the energy input by the engine is wasted as heat, either dissipated by the radiator/engine block or blown out the tailpipe.
You can convert scalar to vector and vice versa.
You can get a scalar from a vector (by taking the modulus for example), but you can't get a vector from a scalr without introducing another vector.
beatrix kiddo
Aug4-04, 01:21 PM
No, you're probably just trying to amuse yourselves. Regardelss, the only reason you two are still members here is you are amusing to us (except a small possibility others are learning from your mistakes). Our patience, however, has limits.
basically u see stupid and me as a couple of clowns here for ur enjoyment... and ur patience is limited... what's gonna happen when it runs out? are u gonna close this thread down, too?
Its simply not possible for you two to not be smart enough to understand it. That means you guys are choosing to not understand it. Why, we're not sure, but regardless, you are not making an effort to help yourselves and you are not making a positive contribtion to this board.
we choose not to understand?! oh we understand.. we ALL understand...
*Elementary school analogy: A car stationary at idle does no useful work. All of the energy input by the engine is wasted as heat, either dissipated by the radiator/engine block or blown out the tailpipe.
...
You can get a scalar from a vector (by taking the modulus for example), but you can't get a vector from a scalr without introducing another vector.
agreed
so Energy and Work are related.
Work and energy are the same thing.
E = {{kg} \cdot {m^2}} / {s^2}
W = F \cdot m
and...
F = {{kg} \cdot {m}} / {s^2}
so substitute F and you get...
W = {{kg} \cdot {m}} / {s^2} \cdot m =
{{kg} \cdot {m^2}} / {s^2} = E
Therefore...
E = W
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 03:30 PM
You can get a scalar from a vector (by taking the modulus for example), but you can't get a vector from a scalr without introducing another vector.
You use two scalar values and an angle to get a vector. (Unless the components of a vector aren't considered scalar?)
Anyways, it stands to reason that if you can go one way, you can go the other by doing the opposite thing. If multiplying by sin(30) eliminated the vector.. well divide by it... or use arcsin.
basically u see stupid and me as a couple of clowns here for ur enjoyment... and ur patience is limited... what's gonna happen when it runs out? are u gonna close this thread down, too?
Errr... More like ban you guys from the board.
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 04:02 PM
Errr... More like ban you guys from the board.
A bit off-topic. But yes, you guys are probably going to get banned if you keep up the pace of refusing to believe simple things.
I know this si theory development, but your goal as a physicist should really be to disprove your theory... it's just SO much easier. And if you can't, then you know that your theory is much better for it than if you'd just risked it.
beatrix kiddo
Aug4-04, 05:26 PM
Errr... More like ban you guys from the board.
But yes, you guys are probably going to get banned if you keep up the pace of refusing to believe simple things.
why would they ban us? i thought chroot told me i could be a mentor... :wink:
but your goal as a physicist should really be to disprove your theory...
why would i do that? i'm trying to prove my theory to u guys... i already know there are some flaws in it, but the current model has flaws too. nonetheless, i am going to continue advocating the push theory because i know it's right.
but the current model has flaws too.
This is false. There are no known experiments that contradict the standard model, or general relativity, over their domains.
nonetheless, i am going to continue advocating the push theory because i know it's right.
You know it's right? How do you know this?
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 05:52 PM
There is actually a good contradiction between SR and GR.
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 05:53 PM
why would they ban us? i thought chroot told me i could be a mentor... :wink:
Because of these types of comments. (Yes, I got it, I know)
why would i do that? i'm trying to prove my theory to u guys... i already know there are some flaws in it, but the current model has flaws too. nonetheless, i am going to continue advocating the push theory because i know it's right.
By failing to disprove your theory you accumulate evidence towards it's correctness.
I forget who it was that thought that everything he looked at that was a non-black non-raven accumulated evidence that all ravens were black, but I like that logic.
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 05:54 PM
There is actually a good contradiction between SR and GR.
What a waste of a post. At least tell us what they are instead of looking like you've got nothing more than the words.
There is actually a good contradiction between SR and GR.
SR can be derived from GR. Duh.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 06:02 PM
Ok, you have the elevator experiment that Eistein used for his equivalence principle.
You have one elevator in space and one elevator on earth. Both are being affected by force, but they are different forces. The one on earth is experiencing force (acceleration) by gravity at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, while the elevator in space is experiencing accelerated forces at a rate of 9.8m/s^2. So, on earth, the acceleration is 1-g. The elevator in space is being accelerated at 1-g equivalence. Therefore, you are unable to tell if you are moving or stationary, right?
Ok, here is how it contradicts with SR. In space, your velocity increase by the appliance of this 1-g force, while on earth it is unoticeable. So, in space, time will allow you to reach close to the speed of light. What happens as your velocity increases? Yes, your mass increases as well. So, you are able to tell that you are moving by an increase in mass overtime. Your velocity in space will never reach the speed of light, but it will come ever so close, like an asymptote. So, your mass will increase forever as long as you are experiencing this 1-g in space. Thus, you are able to tell if a force is applied by acceleration or gravity by the fact if your mass is increasing or not. Or something like that.
I'm sure you people will find something wrong with this. Just an idea I saw while trying to get information on SR and GR.
Thus, you are able to tell if a force is applied by acceleration or gravity by the fact if your mass is increasing or not.
The mass of a body in its own rest frame is always its rest-mass. You can't tell you're moving unless you look out the proverbial window.
- Warren
Just an idea I saw while trying to get information on SR and GR.
If you're trying to learn, you should try reading books or reputable journals instead of crackpot websites, I guess.
- Warren
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 06:08 PM
Ok, you have the elevator experiment that Eistein used for his equivalence principle.
You have one elevator in space and one elevator on earth. Both are being affected by force, but they are different forces. The one on earth is experiencing force (acceleration) by gravity at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, while the elevator in space is experiencing accelerated forces at a rate of 9.8m/s^2. So, on earth, the acceleration is 1-g. The elevator in space is being accelerated at 1-g equivalence. Therefore, you are unable to tell if you are moving or stationary, right?
Ok, here is how it contradicts with SR. In space, your velocity increase by the appliance of this 1-g force, while on earth it is unoticeable. So, in space, time will allow you to reach close to the speed of light. What happens as your velocity increases? Yes, your mass increases as well. So, you are able to tell that you are moving by an increase in mass overtime. Your velocity in space will never reach the speed of light, but it will come ever so close, like an asymptote. So, your mass will increase forever as long as you are experiencing this 1-g in space. Thus, you are able to tell if a force is applied by acceleration or gravity by the fact if your mass is increasing or not. Or something like that.
I'm sure you people will find something wrong with this. Just an idea I saw while trying to get information on SR and GR.
I feel it coming... here we go again
You are always a rest with yourself (please don't argue about moving your arms). So ACCORDING TO YOU you always have your rest mass. ACCORDING TO YOU you are exerting a slightly smaller force on Random-Person than what he percieves.
Although this sounds impossible, length contraction and time dilation (and probably a few other factors) cancel this out. So reality doesn't shatter or anything.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 06:35 PM
Books and journals are boring... :zzz:
Length contraction and time dilation seem odd! I just told you I ran into this. This guy also goes more indepth into how length contraction and time dilation are factors that contradict with GR.
P.S. When I said "Energy and Work are related," I meant "Energy and Force are related."
Math Is Hard
Aug4-04, 06:42 PM
When you use the work equation, you multiply by sin(A), which breaks it down to one of the components of the vector. This component is scalar. (You do it all the time when summing vectors)
Just a quick question, Alkatran. What is forming the angle A that you are using to for the sin ratio? I never had any trig come up in solving Work problems so I am not quite visualising this. Whenever I have calculated Work done, I've just multiplied force x distance and then specified the result as a scalar quantity (I had learned somewhere that the product of two vector quantities will always be scalar). The other way I've calculated Work done it is to integrate a force function over a distance. No trig involved here either.
What gives? Just curious.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 06:45 PM
This is false. There are no known experiments that contradict the standard model, or general relativity, over their domains.
This is false. The standard model does not provide unity among the four fundamental forces. They contradict each other in a sense they are not able to be combined.
This is false. The standard model does not provide unity among the four fundamental forces. They contradict each other in a sense they are not able to be combined.
While it's true that the predictions of GR and QM are incompatible in places such as the insides of black holes, what I said is that are no known experiments contradict either theory, and that is certainly true.
We certainly have more physics left to discover, but there is nothing wrong with the current theories over their respective domains. Any new physics that is discovered will simply be a generalization of these two theories which widens the domain.
- Warren
Books and journals are boring... :zzz:
You can choose a lifetime of ignorance if that's what you want. :shrug:
Length contraction and time dilation seem odd!
So does Mandarin Chinese to a native English speaker.
This guy also goes more indepth into how length contraction and time dilation are factors that contradict with GR.
Who is "this guy?" Whoever he is, I suspect that he's listed on crank.net for being, well, a crank. Don't believe everything you read. For someone who claims to be a free thinker, you sure do seem to get caught up in other people's malformed claims pretty often.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 06:59 PM
So does Mandarin Chinese to a native English speaker.
Not necessarily. My friend is Taiwanese, and when she speaks Mandarin, it does not sound odd.
This "guy" looks like hes pretty intelligent. I don't have the link rigth now, because I'm in the lab at college doing my summer course in mechanical engineering. :frown:
I love being ignorant. :uhh:
Not necessarily. My friend is Taiwanese, and when she speaks Mandarin, it does not sound odd.
You understand my point -- that although time dilation and length contraction seem "odd" or counter-intuitive at first, they are not wrong.
This "guy" looks like hes pretty intelligent. I don't have the link rigth now, because I'm in the lab at college doing my summer course in mechanical engineering. :frown:
If he says that GR and SR are incompatible, he is quite stupid. I'm sorry, but it's easy to show how SR falls out of GR, and anyone with an even cursory understanding of the theories can show it.
I love being ignorant. :uhh:
If you eschew books and journals (for whatever reason -- even if they're "boring") and prefer to get your education from crackpots on the internet, you are choosing ignorance.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 07:25 PM
If you eschew books and journals (for whatever reason -- even if they're "boring") and prefer to get your education from crackpots on the internet, you are choosing ignorance.
At least their babbling is interesting. Books and journals written by scientists are insipid. The same thing everytime you read them. First, they give you a jist of what they are explaining (abstract I guess). Then, they go into experimental evidence. Then, you have observations. Finally, you have a linking between observations and experiments. BORING!
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 07:27 PM
At least their babbling is interesting. Books and journals written by scientists are insipid. The same thing everytime you read them. First, they give you a jist of what they are explaining (abstract I guess). Then, they go into experimental evidence. Then, you have observations. Finally, you have a linking between observations and experiments. BORING!
You're a science fiction fan, yes? Because from what I just read you PREFER reading about theories that are proposed incorrectly (aka, the ones that are most likely to be wrong).
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 07:30 PM
You're a science fiction fan, yes? Because from what I just read you PREFER reading about theories that are proposed incorrectly (aka, the ones that are most likely to be wrong).
Stereotypes aren't good. No, I do not like science fiction. The Standard model is not yet proven. Just because it is support experimentally and observationally, does not mean it is what is happening.
CAN WE GET BACK TO WORK? No pun intended... :uhh:
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 07:35 PM
Just because it is support experimentally and observationally, does not mean it is what is happening.
That's exactly what it means. (or at least suggests)
As I've said before, experiments are what seperate the math from the physics.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 07:37 PM
I believe experiments incorporate math in them.
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 07:50 PM
I believe experiments incorporate math in them.
But math doesn't incorperate experiments in reality.
please ban already...
enough from ignorant kids who will read and argue the position of every crackpot website they can find while taking NO effort to learn and understand mainstream physics.
I don't have the link rigth now, because I'm in the lab at college doing my summer course in mechanical engineering.
Are we suppost to be impressed that you are taking a course at a college, in a lab? Dude all you just implied to us is that you fool around on the internet instead of doing what you're suppost to do at school, learn.
This is false. The standard model does not provide unity among the four fundamental forces. They contradict each other in a sense they are not able to be combined.
Maybe they aren't really unified in reality? Did you ever think of that as a possiblity? We think they all might be one superforce because electricity and magnetism became unified and then electromagnetism with the weak force. Or maybe it does unite them and we just don't "see" how it does yet.
At least their babbling is interesting. Books and journals written by scientists are insipid. The same thing everytime you read them. First, they give you a jist of what they are explaining (abstract I guess). Then, they go into experimental evidence. Then, you have observations. Finally, you have a linking between observations and experiments. BORING!
Damn! If I didn't know better I'd say they're trying to form and then prove a theory! Whats with these "scientists" and their "scientific method" anyways? Why bother looking at the real world when you can preform arrogent and misinformed thought experiments in your own egocentric universe?[/sarcasm]
Look what you just described is the essence of science. If it bores you then you're in the wrong forum.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 08:26 PM
Are we suppost to be impressed that you are taking a course at a college, in a lab? Dude all you just implied to us is that you fool around on the internet instead of doing what you're suppost to do at school, learn.
Hahaha, I get my work done. Though I do internet and work, I'm still able to leave early before everyone else. Unlike them, I know how to work fast. So, implications aren't good.
No, if it bores me, I'm not in the wrong forum. Duh! You people actually explain it in a non-boring way. So, obviously, I'm in the right place.
Hahaha, I get my work done. Though I do internet and work, I'm still able to leave early before everyone else. Unlike them, I know how to work fast. So, implications aren't good.
Why don't you just leave and go on to the internet at home if you're done with all your work?
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 08:35 PM
Umm...I am home. I left when i posted the post at 7:37 P.M. Which is an hour early, because class ends at 8:35 P.M. CST. So, whatever. This is clearly off the subject.
he has a point. if i was a physics teacher i would have already stabbed the both of them...
good work avoiding murder by bringing your ignorance here instead of displaying it to people in the real world
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 08:39 PM
A true physicists questions everything. He just doesn't go by what is presented before him. He seeks out the true answer of how everything works. Or some BS like that, haha.
Umm...I am home. I left when i posted the post at 7:37 P.M. Which is an hour early, because class ends at 8:35 P.M. CST. So, whatever. This is clearly off the subject.
Okay, all though I don't know why you wouldn't wait till you got home so you could post that link, this isn't like a chat room where people jump at you if you don't post for a few minutes. In fact the point of forums is that you can take your time figuring out what you need to say and what you need to support it instead of just hastally typing in some responses off the top of you're head.
Anyways, how about that link?
He just doesn't go by what is presented before him.
Wrong. Everyone's logic and desision-making is based off of everything they're presented with (what they "observe", everything they "observe")
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 08:44 PM
Oh, Entropy, I love your comical sense of humor. I have more than one link. Hope you people don't get too mad. :rofl:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/RelativityContradiction.html
Look at all of those pseudoscientific sites!! Aren't they interesting?
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 08:46 PM
Wrong. Everyone's logic and desision-making is based off of everything they're presented with (what they "observe", everything they "observe")
Wrong. Not all scientists take what was presented before them to be true. Some go beyond that to seek out what is REALLY happening as opposed to what experiments prove to be linked with observations.
Wrong. Not all scientists take what was presented before them to be true.
Did I say they take them to be true? I said they base decisions off of them.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 08:50 PM
Sorry, not all of them base their decisions on what is presented before them.
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 09:14 PM
Sorry, not all of them base their decisions on what is presented before them.
All decisions are based on what's "before you". There's nothing else to base them on! (Everything you know comes from what you've observed)
beatrix kiddo
Aug4-04, 09:20 PM
uhhh... if u're impressed with stupid and his class, here's what i do:
play video games all night, sleep til 2(pm), and study the push theory!!! and hours of mind-****ing tv!!!!!!!!!!!
why should we be banned? i totally thought this was TD so we can call attention to this new theory.. science HAS to recognize us, because this theory makes TOO much sense! i believe that half the people on this board side with einstein because years and years of brain-washing has taught u to accept anything that guy said... just because he's einstein doesn't mean he didn't have errors... stupid's links call attention to them.. one even had some sweet reward or something? if u are so confident u can make sense of einstein's disastrous ideas, cash in on the benefits! show ppl who are willing to give u money what u know.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 09:21 PM
Sorry, I said what I said with the least bit of clarity. What I mean by the stuff is presented before them, is the material that they read about current theories. All scientists don't believe in the current model of physics, although almost all do, but the select few don't.
Alkatran, do you know javascript? I guess you don't, since you didn't reply. :confused:
Whatever. Back to those sites. I'll start by examining the first site: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
The special theory of relativity, as developed by Einstein, is directly based on the Lorentz Transformation formula and attempts to transfer the 'equation of motion' for light signals to the space- time coordinates of moving material bodies. Not only is this generalization completely unjustified, but it has to be considered as invalid as the Lorentz- Transformation formula implicitly contains the assumption of the invariance of the velocity (of light) in moving coordinate systems, which obviously does not apply for material objects (for which the classical vectorial addition of velocities holds).
Light does travel at c relative to all observers! Galilean Relativity doesn't hold up, why can't people get it through their skulls? Countless experiments have varified this, you have Einstein's mathematics to back it up, equipment based off this is quite commonplace (and they work) and observations support it! What more do you freaking need?
By the way, me and my Physics teacher almost died laughing at that Alice Law program I downloaded.
The inconsistencies go however further than this and are to some extent already contained in the Lorentz Transformation (as formulated by Einstein): it actually contradicts the invariance of c if one scales the space and time coordinates in order to re-establish a kind of vectorial (albeit normalized) velocity addition for light: the invariance of c strictly means that the time for a light signal to travel from the source to the observer does not depend on the velocity of either of them but only on their distance at the time of the emission (more). As the usual addition of velocities does not apply, the propagation of light has therefore to be considered strictly separately in each reference frame and it is incorrect to map its 'path' in one frame into the other by means of a Galilei- transformation and subsequently 're-normalizing' the velocity of light by scaling the space and time coordinates accordingly (Einstein's basic assumption of identical and synchronized clocks obviously has to imply t'=t). In other words: a contradiction to the invariance of c when using identical space and time coordinates in the two reference frames arises only if one initially chooses the wrong frame for calculating the arrival time of the light signal (two points may coincide mathematically in different frames at a certain time instant, but they are physically not identical as they belong to different objects moving relative to each other). However, important consequences arise from the possibility to pass from one reference frame to the other (by means of acceleration or deceleration), as then the arrival time of the light signal does not only depend on the space point considered but on the whole spatial history of the observer.
Time dilation clears this up.
Einstein's re-scaling of space and time leads to similar nonsense (e.g. the existence of a maximum speed for material objects) as the one applied by the ancient philosopher Zeno of Elea (who 'proved' in his paradoxes that Achilles should be unable to overtake a tortoise, or that an arrow can never reach its target). Any alleged experimental 'evidence' for the existence of length contradiction and time dilation has therefore to be explained by other physical phenomena or instrumental effects (if the observed 'relativistic' behaviour of charged particles in high energy accelerators for instance is indeed real
It has been supported not only microscopicly but also marcoscopicly (astronomical observations), so EM effects don't explain it.
General Relativity describes this phenomenon through the concept of a distorted space around the object rather than a physical interaction with the light wave. This view can however be discounted as logically inconsistent (see Curved Space). On the other hand, it is unreasonable to assume that immaterial and massless objects like light can be in any way subject to a gravitational interaction.
It is much more likely that the propagation of electromagnetic waves is, by their very nature, only affected by electromagnetic forces.
Ha! Light has no rest mass! So if its moving (always at c) it is carring energy/mass. How can someone be taken seriously if they don't know something so fundemental?
The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
1. He totally fails to see what Einstein was trying to point out. Its not that simple because space is non-Euclidian.
2. No properties to space or time, eh? Apparently he doesn't know that measure and direction are properties. That is really, really sad.
Thats all I'll point out right now.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 09:49 PM
Thought you would get a laugh. At least those sites don't bore you. Is space said to be non-euclidean, because space is curved? I find it hard to believe just because light is bent around a massive object that space is curved.
OFF TOPIC!
beatrix kiddo
Aug4-04, 10:05 PM
By the way, me and my Physics teacher almost died laughing at that Alice Law program I downloaded.
ur lucky to have a physics teacher who doesn't illegally spank u...
Time dilation clears this up.
hmm.. go into more detail.. for MY benefit.
Ha! Light has no rest mass! So if its moving (always at c) it is carring energy/mass.
yeah.. ok that's kinda bad.. i haven't fully read the site, but i'm hoping he clears that up...?
At least those sites don't bore you.
If you get a kick out of reading them, fine by me. Just don't bring those audacious claims here with your immature attidute, they aren't welcome. This forum is for real scientific theories. I've disagreed with lots of people's theories but I don't get mad at them because they act in a respectful and objective manner. Even if I think they're horribly wrong I will still stay open-minded as long as they too seem open-minded and seem knowledgeable.
You on the other hand don't care about the truth. You just like to disargee with people. Maybe should focused a little less on trying to win the arguement and more on trying to solve the problem.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 10:16 PM
If you haven't noticed, no scientific theory is REAL. It is all theoretical, hence "scientific theory." Also, notice this is in THEORY DEVELOPMENT. So, I think I'm in the right place.
beatrix kiddo
Aug4-04, 10:17 PM
Just don't bring those audacious claims here with your immature attidute, they aren't welcome.
I've disagreed with lots of people's theories but I don't get mad at them because they act in a respectful and objective manner.
how was stupid acting like that? all he said was that those sites didn't bore u..
This forum is for real scientific theories.
this is science at its realest..
Even if I think they're horribly wrong I will still stay open-minded as long as they too seem open-minded and seem knowledgeable.
You on the other hand don't care about the truth. You just like to disargee with people. Maybe should focused a little less on trying to win the arguement and more on trying to solve the problem.
u gotta be kidding me, right? i had been into SR and GR, but when i found out about the push theory, i was open-minded enough to give it a chance and i realized that it's more logical than a concept of space-time. i do care for the truth, as does stupid, which is why we came here in the first place. it's not about me disagreeing with people. it's about people disagreeing with me :biggrin: problem status nearly solved..
how was stupid acting like that? all he said was that those sites didn't bore u..
I'm not just talking about his previous post, I'm talking about his over all tone in all his posts.
u gotta be kidding me, right? i had been into SR and GR, but when i found out about the push theory, i was open-minded enough to give it a chance and i realized that it's more logical than a concept of space-time. i do care for the truth, as does stupid, which is why we came here in the first place. it's not about me disagreeing with people. it's about people disagreeing with me problem status nearly solved..
I question someone's understanding of SR and GR when they are having trouble grasping the mechanics of elementry force, work and energy.
1. the current model makes more logical sense than any of these "crank sites" you subscribe to.
2. you're under some kind of delusion that millions of people who make their living working in the field SOMEHOW GOT IT WRONG, and that you with no knowledge of what they're talking about in the first place somehow HAVE A BETTER MODEL (that you copied off THE INTERNET)
3. the only reason you're here is to flaunt your mis-education, you have no interest in actually learning what is right
4. people have pointed out the flaws in your arguments (or i should say copied arguments) time and time again
5. you don't have a theory, why are you here?
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 10:54 PM
1. It's pretty obvious that the current models have flaws in it. Logic says it's flawed. If the current model was so great, scientist wouldn't be surprised over every little discovery, and they wouldn't be at dismay when something happens that contradicts with what they have proposed.
2. Delusion? Explain why is that scientist are baffled about galaxies that seem to be mature towards the "beginning" of the universe? Explain to me why scientists are in seek of a "Unifying Theory?" Shouldn't everything be compatible, if it is all logic? Yes, I think millions of scientist have wasted their time and still are. Yes, I'll admit at first, I was basically "copying" theories, but now, I build on them what the authors of them haven't. So, have you copied off of a theory? I think you have; you copied off all the ones you believe in.
3. Hmmm...I go to the best high school the state of Arkansas (funny name ugh) has. One of the best school's in the nation (Well, one of my teachers said it was in the newspaper of top ranked schools in the nation). So, I highly doubt i was miseducated.
4. There are flaws in the current theory that scientists are trying to fix. So many flaws have been covered up so cleverly. Cosmological constant for starters.
5. You don't have a theory either. So, why are you here?
how do you expect to correct the flaws if you don't even understand the very basics of standard model?
crawl before you fly, please.
You don't have a theory either. So, why are you here?
who says i don't? i understand and follow the standard model.
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 11:11 PM
1. It's pretty obvious that the current models have flaws in it. Logic says it's flawed. If the current model was so great, scientist wouldn't be surprised over every little discovery, and they wouldn't be at dismay when something happens that contradicts with what they have proposed.
2. Delusion? Explain why is that scientist are baffled about galaxies that seem to be mature towards the "beginning" of the universe? Explain to me why scientists are in seek of a "Unifying Theory?" Shouldn't everything be compatible, if it is all logic? Yes, I think millions of scientist have wasted their time and still are. Yes, I'll admit at first, I was basically "copying" theories, but now, I build on them what the authors of them haven't. So, have you copied off of a theory? I think you have; you copied off all the ones you believe in.
3. Hmmm...I go to the best high school the state of Arkansas (funny name ugh) has. One of the best school's in the nation (Well, one of my teachers said it was in the newspaper of top ranked schools in the nation). So, I highly doubt i was miseducated.
4. There are flaws in the current theory that scientists are trying to fix. So many flaws have been covered up so cleverly. Cosmological constant for starters.
5. You don't have a theory either. So, why are you here?
Well, it took half a page, but I was right! I wonder how long before this one is locked! Now for those points:
1: Logic says it's flawed? It seems very logical to me. You're confusing logic with the assumptions we get from everyday life (for example, absolute time).
2: The universe is a complicated thing. You can't possibly expect any theory to predict everything with perfect accuracy? We're dealing with massive distances, massive amounts of time, massive amount of who-knows-what in between, etc etc etc.
3: Hey, I went to one of the worst high schools in my province (I believe the english side was rated LAST, lucky me for being on the french side :uhh: ) My point there is that level of education doesn't really matter in the end if you're willing to learn on your own.
4: For the LAST TIME: Cosmological constant was an error. They scraped it when they found out the universe was expanding (oh wait, you don't believe that, do you?), which got rid of the need of some constant to keep everything stable.
5: To comment on other theories of course!
Just a quick question, Alkatran. What is forming the angle A that you are using to for the sin ratio? I never had any trig come up in solving Work problems so I am not quite visualising this. Whenever I have calculated Work done, I've just multiplied force x distance and then specified the result as a scalar quantity (I had learned somewhere that the product of two vector quantities will always be scalar). The other way I've calculated Work done it is to integrate a force function over a distance. No trig involved here either.
What gives? Just curious.
The reason you only multiplied force by distance is that you were doing the work horizontally. You could ignore the *cos(0) because cos(0) = 1. The trig was just simplified out.
I forget how to find the product of two vectors, but I think it still gave a vector at the end.
*edit*
http://cstl-cst.semo.edu/venezian/PH230/vectors.htm
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 11:23 PM
The Standard Model exhibits flaws. Mine is just as valid as the Standard Model. If both theories contain flaws, then how can one not be valid? You choose to be blind, read everything through brail unaware of how brail works. Everything can not be explained by the Standard Model. The standard model is so broken up. You have one concept, then another concept, another, and, wait a minute, another. Why not combine them into one? If it is so Standard, shouldn't it be just of standard appeal? Not too much for the simple mind to comprehend. All of these silly complications that they call theories. Scientists make things much more complicated than what logic allows.
JoeWade, you are getting us off topic more than we need to.
Ok, back to work.
Work and Energy are related; Entropy already pointed that out. I say Force and Energy are related, ergo making Work and Force related (also noted in the equation). You are able to convert energy into force and vice-versa. If you were to manipulate the F=ma and E=mc^2, you arrive to the relationship between force and energy.
Math Is Hard
Aug4-04, 11:30 PM
The reason you only multiplied force by distance is that you were doing the work horizontally. You could ignore the *cos(0) because cos(0) = 1. The trig was just simplified out.
I forget how to find the product of two vectors, but I think it still gave a vector at the end.
*edit*
http://cstl-cst.semo.edu/venezian/PH230/vectors.htm
Thanks, Alkatran! And thank you for that vector calculator link. :smile:
I say Force and Energy are related, ergo making Work and Force related
is there a point to that? erroneous claims with no backing do not a theory make...
Alkatran
Aug4-04, 11:35 PM
The Standard Model exhibits flaws. Mine is just as valid as the Standard Model. If both theories contain flaws, then how can one not be valid? You choose to be blind, read everything through brail unaware of how brail works. Everything can not be explained by the Standard Model. The standard model is so broken up. You have one concept, then another concept, another, and, wait a minute, another. Why not combine them into one? If it is so Standard, shouldn't it be just of standard appeal? Not too much for the simple mind to comprehend. All of these silly complications that they call theories. Scientists make things much more complicated than what logic allows.
JoeWade, you are getting us off topic more than we need to.
Ok, back to work.
Work and Energy are related; Entropy already pointed that out. I say Force and Energy are related, ergo making Work and Force related (also noted in the equation). You are able to convert energy into force and vice-versa. If you were to manipulate the F=ma and E=mc^2, you arrive to the relationship between force and energy.
The relationship between force and energy is Work. You apply a force over a distance to get energy.
Oh. Annnndddd.... you generally want to take a theory which is less flawed, not more convenient (although flawlessness is a convenience!).
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 11:48 PM
I didn't mean in the form of work. Recall when I said something along the lines of, "It takes energy to apply a force." This energy input is related to the force output.
urtalkinstupid
Aug4-04, 11:50 PM
is there a point to that? erroneous claims with no backing do not a theory make...
This is known. I meant that a different way. The way I said it is according to the current theory. I meant to say that when you apply a force you are also applying an energy.
k two magnets glued to a table.
undeniably they are exerting a force on each other. you're saying that they're using energy to do so.
where do they get this energy from then.
explain that before you go any further :|
...If you were to manipulate the F=ma and E=mc^2, you arrive to the relationship between force and energy.
Which would be? [show the math]
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:07 AM
k two magnets glued to a table.
undeniably they are exerting a force on each other. you're saying that they're using energy to do so.
where do they get this energy from then.
That's exactly my point. I want scientists to answer me that question. I am wanting to know where this energy is coming from, because there is energy as you will see below.
Chronos, here look at this:
F=ma~~~m=\frac{F}{a}~~~E=mc^2~~~E=\frac{F}{a}c^2~~ ~F=a\frac{E}{c^2}~~~W=a\frac{E}{c^2}dcos\theta
F=Force~(N)
m=mass~(kg)
a=acceleration~(m/s^2)
E=Energy~(Joules)
c=Velocity~of~Light~(m/s)
W=Work~(Joules)
d=distance~(m)
\theta=angle
That's how I worked it out. Obviously, since I'm not good at math or physics, it's probably wrong. That is the relation I FOUND... :uhh:
So what do you conclude the relationship between force and energy is, in terms of F = E. Suggestion, break down acceleration into the component terms.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:19 AM
I don't know, yet. I'm still thinking. Does the relationship seem right though?
W=a\frac{E}{c^2}dcos\theta
And how is this useful? :rofl:
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:23 AM
I'm trying to say that it takes an input energy to exert a force. You accelerate the object you apply energy to, so [itex]a[/tex] should be average acceleration. The rest should be known. Like I said...I don't think that relation is even right.
You've done nothing but rearrange terms. You haven't changed the fundamental relationships between any of the quantities.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:36 AM
Yes, partially right. Now, take two magnets. Determine the force in between them. It's there, it's energy, where is this energy coming from?
Where do you think it is coming from?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:52 AM
There are a flaws in all of the equations. I was just reverting to the Standard Model to show you the flaw. I don't believe in the equations governing magnets or gravity. They obviously exhibit flaws. Going by the Standard Model, magnets exert an energy, do not do work, and do not exert energy. Think that is true?
"Exerting an energy" isn't even a meaningful phrase, so certainly the Standard Model does not assert any such thing.
Magnets do work when they are moving things. When nothing is moving, they do not do any work. Gravity is the same way.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:56 AM
haha, the first exert was supposed to be "force" not energy. When they move things, they require energy to move something. Where is this energy coming from?
The energy for a closed system never changes.
When you pull two magnets apart, you have to expend energy. The two magnets now have potential energy. When you release them, they exchange this potential energy for kinetic energy. When they smack together, they release that energy in heat and sound. You could also build a machine to harness the energy released by their release and turn it into any kind of energy you'd like -- electricity, and so on.
What you're probably asking is this:
If I come across two magnetic objects on the ground that are separated by some distance and have never been touched by anyone, they have potential energy. Where did this potential energy come from? The answer is that it came from the collapse of the solar system, because the magnets formed from that coalescing matter. Then you can ask how did the matter that coalesced into those two magnets begin so far apart to begin with, since that implies a quantity of potential energy? The answer to that one is that the universe's total energy content is fixed and non-zero. The universe just began with a specific quantity of total energy, and that energy is still driving everything from stars to coalescing planetary systems.
Of course, you can take the ultimate step and ask where did the Universe get its initial energy? and step off the map. We honestly don't know, and perhaps will never know. Certainly, science does not have a satisfactory answer to this question yet, and there are many indications it is not a question that can be answered absolutely.
- Warren
So, are you saying a permanent magnet requires an energy source to keep it attached to the refrigerator? If so, what do you think the source of that energy might be?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 02:10 AM
I told you, yes. According to the Standard Model, it does require an energy source. I do not believe in the Standard Model, so I'm unable to answer that question, seeing as I have faint knowledge in the subject (or that's what everyone is telling me). That's why I'm asking you people. You people know way more on the subject than me, so why don't you people tell me where that energy comes from.
According to the Standard Model, it does require an energy source.
According to the real Standard Model, it does not. In your warped strawman version, perhaps it does.
- Warren
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 02:15 AM
chroot, That is not what I'm asking. You have failed to answer my question. All of the stuff you are telling me is stuff I know from reading. I've read that stuff, but I want more. For a magnet to hang on a refrigerator, there has to be a source of energy. If there isn't, the magnet can not hang forever. It applies a force to other magnets and few metals, but this force needs an energy source. It can not last forever, unless there is a source with sufficient amount of energy.
The earth-moon system: They have a force between them keeping their orbit. This force needs energy to keep going. The KE and PE of the moon's orbit does not describe what I'm asking. I'm asking where does this seeming "unlimited" amount of energy coming from that keeps this force between the moon and the earth up?
Arg, I'm sure you people know I'm not good at asking questions on the first try. So, I probably won't get the answer I want still.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 02:16 AM
According to the real Standard Model, it does not. In your warped strawman version, perhaps it does.
Not true. As you see, I used the Standard-Model equations to arrive at the relationship. The Standard Model requires an energy through the equations.
At the risk of sounding redundant, the Standard Model does not require an energy source for a magnet to hang on to the refrigerator [or moon to remain in orbit around earth]. The Standard Model has the math to support this. If you think it does not, you need to show the observational evidence that refutes this notion. Notice I did not say math. Observation is the real test of theory. Math is merely a way of explaining it. Sometimes math predicts observation. And when it does, it only asserts that math has predictive power, sometimes equal or better than logic.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 02:59 AM
When you push or pull something, it is in the form of force. This force needs a soucre. That source is energy (according to the Standard-Model equations). So, go out, pull something, and tell me if you get tired or not. You act the same way as gravity does. You put a force between you and another object and point it in a diretion. That direction is either a push or pull.
Gravity has a force it pulls with. This force can be converted in to energy between the two objects. In order for the earth to keep the moon in orbit, there would have to be an unlimited amount of energy. Gravity is a force, where does the force of attraction get its energy from? By the equation, it looks as if it comes out of nowhere. If objects are massive or close enough, they will generate a force, thus generate an energy. This implies creation of energy. We all know the Standard-Model does not allow the creation of energy.
Ah, that was probably poorly worded. I'm tired, so I don't make much sense.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 03:01 AM
At the risk of sounding redundant, the Standard Model does not require an energy source for a magnet to hang on to the refrigerator [or moon to remain in orbit around earth]. The Standard Model has the math to support this.
I've already used the math that governs the Standard-Model to show that force requires energy to be existant. You can not have a force without energy.
you can and will have such a force if there is no change in distance
listen, if you have a better explanation for these forces, do tell
i suppose you're going to say that neutrinos are pushing the magnets together...
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 08:58 AM
you can and will have such a force if there is no change in distance
Are you serious?!?!? I think that is known. I've already said that there is a force if distance isn't changing. There is a force; no work is done.
listen, if you have a better explanation for these forces, do tell
i suppose you're going to say that neutrinos are pushing the magnets together...
Actually, I'm trying to get you people to explain this stuff better to me.
You people previously told me there is no need for an energy source to apply a force to something, but through substitution of two Standard-Model equations, I and the equations say otherwise. So, in conclusion, in order for a force to be applied in a system or to an object, there must be an energy source for that force to take place.
Alkatran
Aug5-04, 10:11 AM
Let me put this as simply as I possibly can:
FORCE DOES NOT EQUAL ENERGY. Yes, I KNOW you know that, but you're obviusly confused over it.
Consider the magnet-on-fridge argument. What's keeping it there? The force of friction of course! This means that the magnet is transferring the force of gravity into the fridge, which is pushing on the ground. Since the fridge is pushing on the ground the ground is pushing back on the fridge. Next to no movement happens (I'm sure at the sub-atomic level the magnet is doing some kind of compeltely ignorable movement), energy is conserved, net force is 0, and everyone is happy.
But the point is: If net force is 0 in the magnet analogy, no energy will be produced. Since the force of friction is equal and opposite to the force of gravity, net force is 0. Thus energy change is 0.
Oh, by the way, if a magnet can't stay on a fridge without using energy, then all objects would need constant input of energy to stay together.
WAIT! I think I see where you're being confused. You think that energy can only be used once or twice! You're stuck on the idea of a car driving up a fridge, slowly losing gasoling, the fall is coming... But you need to realize that once taken, energy doesn't disappear, it continues to do it's "job" forever.
The reason a car loses gasoline is that it's CONVERTING energy. It's making movement out of atomic bonds.
At least their babbling is interesting. Books and journals written by scientists are insipid. The same thing everytime you read them. First, they give you a jist of what they are explaining (abstract I guess). Then, they go into experimental evidence. Then, you have observations. Finally, you have a linking between observations and experiments. BORING!urtalkinstupid, I've read many of your posts, both in this thread and others. I have slowly formed the opinion that you are posting to the wrong forum; it seems you have a great disdain for how science is done, and no real interest in either showing that it's an inappropriate approach to learning about the universe (in which case I expect that you'd be a frequent contributor to the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics section), or debating its weaknesses within the framework of science itself.
If my observation is at least partly correct, why do you post to PF at all?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 11:04 AM
Yes, you are right; I do know that force does not equal energy, but force is related to energy. In order for a force to be applied, there is a needed energy source.
Has my question been answered? No.
This means that the magnet is transferring the force of gravity into the fridge, which is pushing on the ground. Since the fridge is pushing on the ground the ground is pushing back on the fridge.
Since when did you refer to gravity making things push? I think it should be the ground is pulling the fridge, and the fridge is pulling the ground. Yea, doesn't make much sense putting it in the pull form. So, you are saying that magnets are conductors for gravitational fields? One problem I see in this. If gravity is lending this force, it's basically unlimited, because that magnet sits there until a force is pulling it away. This "unlimited" amount of force this gravity is providing in order ot keep the net force 0 requires an energy source of unlimited energy, seeing that force is related to energy. This energy seems as though it is created on the spot as a constant supply to the magnet.
Give me your arguement on this so I can improvise mine. I'm not able to make a direct arguement based on what you have wrote, yet. So, I'm waiting. I have to go somewhere right now, so if I don't reply, don't think it's because I don't have a plausible answer.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 11:06 AM
Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong.
Alkatran
Aug5-04, 11:35 AM
Yes, you are right; I do know that force does not equal energy, but force is related to energy. In order for a force to be applied, there is a needed energy source.
You don't need a change in energy for a force, because two forces can cancel each other out (so no energy change). Perhaps an energy source, I don't really know, above my level.
Has my question been answered? No.
Since when did you refer to gravity making things push? I think it should be the ground is pulling the fridge, and the fridge is pulling the ground. Yea, doesn't make much sense putting it in the pull form. So, you are saying that magnets are conductors for gravitational fields? One problem I see in this. If gravity is lending this force, it's basically unlimited, because that magnet sits there until a force is pulling it away. This "unlimited" amount of force this gravity is providing in order ot keep the net force 0 requires an energy source of unlimited energy, seeing that force is related to energy. This energy seems as though it is created on the spot as a constant supply to the magnet.
Gravity is pulling the fridge into the ground, so the fridge is pushed/pulled against the ground, and the ground is pushing back. THEY'RE JUST WORDS.
Give me your arguement on this so I can improvise mine. I'm not able to make a direct arguement based on what you have wrote, yet. So, I'm waiting. I have to go somewhere right now, so if I don't reply, don't think it's because I don't have a plausible answer.
AKA I can't come up with something to argue about.
Tom Mattson
Aug5-04, 11:48 AM
Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong.
Yes, but there is no entitlement to waste bandwidth at this (privately owned) website. When I locked that other thread and advised you all that PF is not a chatroom for children, I was specifically thinking of both yourself and beatrix kiddo.
This force needs a soucre. That source is energy
Let's do a thought experiment. Say you have two walls facing each other on opposite sides of your room. You put a hook on each wall. You then take a piece of rope and tie the two hooks together. You exert some energy making the rope as taut as you possibly can. You crank it down and tie a strong knot in it. The rope now has tension; it is pulling the two walls together. The walls are strong, however, and don't move. The tension in the rope will be the same tomorrow or in the year 3000 as it is today, as will the forces on the walls. It certainly took energy to tighten the rope in the first place, but it doesn't require any energy to keep it taut.
If you assert that the rope requires energy to stay taut, where does this energy come from? Why does the rope use energy when it's taut, but not when it's just laying on the floor?
If the rope uses an exhaustible source of energy to stay taut, what happens when that energy source runs out? Does the rope somehow untie itself and fall off the hooks? Does it stay the same length but magically just stop pulling on the walls? Does it turn into soup and drip onto the ground?
(according to the Standard-Model equations)... F=a\frac{E}{c^2}
This equation does not say what you think it says. You think it says that force requires a source of energy, presumably just because F appears on the left and E on the right. This is not sound reasoning. It's like saying that voltage requires a "source of current" because V = IR has voltage on the left and current on the right.
What you're doing is simply expressing a relationship between these quantities. Of course, E/c^2 is just the mass, so your equation is really just F=ma, or Newton's second law of motion. Forces and accelerations are related by mass. Mass and energy are related through c. Thus you can say that "force and energy are related through acceleration and c," but you're not saying anything new or novel. You're certainly not saying forces require sources of energy.
So, go out, pull something, and tell me if you get tired or not. You act the same way as gravity does.
No, you don't. We've already explained to you that the human body is a complex machine, with individual muscle fibers contracting and then relaxing. You already wowed us with your high-school biology curriculum. We've already been over this. If your muscle fibers could contract and then simply stay locked in that position, you'd never get tired. They don't do that, though.
In order for the earth to keep the moon in orbit, there would have to be an unlimited amount of energy. Gravity is a force, where does the force of attraction get its energy from?
You can keep saying it, but it's still wrong.
- Warren
Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong.And indeed they are (I don't think I said otherwise, did I?).
Since you did not answer my question, let me try to ask it in another way (perhaps you didn't understand my question):
PF is a forum for the discussion of physics, and other sciences. One of the cornerstones of science today is, in simple terms, the scientific method (please let me know if you are unfamiliar with what this is).
Since PF is about science, I personally expect that everyone who posts to the science threads in PF - and that includes Theory Development - has at least the intention of respecting the scientific method.
If a person has issues with the scientific method, then PF has a section where folk may discuss and debate that very topic.
When I read your posts, you appear (to me) to disparage the scientific method, and to consider it unworthy of your time to learn about it (which may explain why you don't appear to be interested to discuss the nature of science, in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics section for example). A good example of what I mean is your apparent unwillingness to accept or consider scientific method-based questions and critiques of your own ideas.
To ask again: why are you here?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:07 PM
Perhaps an energy source, I don't really know, above my level.
That's what I'm trying to say.
This equation does not say what you think it says. You think it says that force requires a source of energy, presumably just because F appears on the left and E on the right. This is not sound reasoning. It's like saying that voltage requires a "source of current" because V = IR has voltage on the left and current on the right.
What you're doing is simply expressing a relationship between these quantities. Of course, E/c^2 is just the mass, so your equation is really just F=ma, or Newton's second law of motion. Forces and accelerations are related by mass. Mass and energy are related through c. Thus you can say that "force and energy are related through acceleration and c," but you're not saying anything new or novel. You're certainly not saying forces require sources of energy.
That equation relates energy and mass to force. There are two types of forces: those that arise from mass and those that arise from energy. Energy forces are the kinds that work at a distance. I.E. Earth-Moon system, because that is a lot of force (energy) to keep moon in orbit. The space in between them is said to be the force of attraction. This has to be energy, there is no mass to constitute the force in between them. Ok, so it does not require an energy source, but an energy source would better explain how the attraction works. New or novel, nice job on being redundant. It takes energy to push or pull for anything. This energy is directed through a force. Mass is just a compact form of energy; I'm sure you all know that.
Ok, new analogy.
You weigh a certain amount of Newtons. Gravity pulls on you that exact force, thus cancelling it, right? You go up to a box. The box weighs 20N and, you push with 20N. The forces cancel out, thus making you unable to push the box. Now, you pull on the box with 30N. Not only are you moving the box, but you are also doing work. You are the only thing that is losing energy, not the box. How can the box not lose energy? You go and wrestle with a friend. You both pull each other with 20N of force; you two don't move. One pulls the other with 30N while the other with 20. You both get tired in this situation. It requires an energy for BOTH sources to keep on doing it. Yes, the human body is copmlicated, but the overall outcome is that your body takes a mass and converts it to energy to be used as the force applier. Everything needs some type of source, whether it be mass or energy, to apply a continous source. If they apply a continous force forever, this requires an unlimited source.
chroot, AP is college-level classes. So, get it right. :devil:
urtalkinstupid,
I asked you some specific questions. So did Nereid. Why are you not answering them?
There are two types of forces: those that arise from mass and those that arise from energy.
And once again, this is nothing but abject speculation.
Ok, so it does not require an energy source
And thus falls this new theory of yours, just like the last one.
- Warren
You weigh a certain amount of Newtons.
So far, so good. Gravity pulls on you that exact force, thus cancelling it, right?
Huh? The pull of gravity is your weight. Are you saying gravity cancels itself?
You go up to a box. The box weighs 20N and, you push with 20N.
I assume you mean lift with 20N? The forces cancel out, thus making you unable to push the box.
It would require a slight bit of extra force to accelerate the box from rest. Now, you pull on the box with 30N. Not only are you moving the box, but you are also doing work.
I assume you mean that you exert an upward force of 30N on the box. It will accelerate. And yes you are doing work on the box. You are the only thing that is losing energy, not the box.
You are converting chemical energy into heat and mechanical energy, some of which you are transfering to the box. How can the box not lose energy?
Huh? The box gains energy. You go and wrestle with a friend. You both pull each other with 20N of force; you two don't move.
I hope you realize that you always exert the same force on each other (assuming an ideal rope): that's Newton's 3rd law.
Whether you accelerate or not depends on the net force on you. The rope pulling on you is just one force. The ground also exerts a force on you.
One pulls the other with 30N while the other with 20.
LOL... can't happen. You both get tired in this situation. It requires an energy for BOTH sources to keep on doing it. Yes, the human body is copmlicated, but the overall outcome is that your body takes a mass and converts it to energy to be used as the force applier.
The reason why it takes energy for you to exert a force is not because "forces require energy", but because exerting a force involves your muscles in continual movement, contracting and relaxing. You are a biological system, not an inanimate object. Everything needs some type of source, whether it be mass or energy, to apply a continous source. If they apply a continous force forever, this requires an unlimited source.Nonsense.
chroot, AP is college-level classes. So, get it right. :devil:
I trust you're not taking AP physics! :wink:
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:38 PM
Sorry, I didn't see your questions chroot.
If you assert that the rope requires energy to stay taut, where does this energy come from? Why does the rope use energy when it's taut, but not when it's just laying on the floor?
Ok, so [itex]F=ma[/tex], and we all know mass is related to energy. Mass is a compact form of energy, thus giving energy the greater quantity. It takes an emmence amount of energy to compose mass, it takes much more energy to make a suitable force between two objects. (or in this case three). Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with? A loosely fit rope between two walls. It is no longer taut. No longer is energy acting through force on the objects. This energy arises between the forces that are applied. It's source?...I don't know. It's not my case to state that. That's simply my question that I'm asking you people. The rope uses energy when it is on the floor. It is held down by gravity, this is a force, and it is in the form of energy.
If the rope uses an exhaustible source of energy to stay taut, what happens when that energy source runs out? Does the rope somehow untie itself and fall off the hooks? Does it stay the same length but magically just stop pulling on the walls? Does it turn into soup and drip onto the ground?
I stated above, "Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with?" You take away forces, and the energy that keeps the rope taut is gone. It doesn't untie itself, it simply gets loose, allowing the walls to move in or accelerate in one directionas a system of the two walls and rope. Wall and rope soup...Sounds like the soup of the day. :uhh:
And indeed they are (I don't think I said otherwise, did I?).
No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.
To ask again: why are you here?
I'm here for the heck of it. I like this site, though I'm liked by very few...none. You people have actually inspired me to make a website based on the Standard odel. Isn't that exciting. A site made by me with no absurd theories! Perhaps, I will understand the Standard Model more?? Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 01:45 PM
Huh? The pull of gravity is your weight. Are you saying gravity cancels itself?
Sorry, poorly worded. What I meant was gravity is what holds you down to the Earth's surface. Not what I said. Told you guys I'm bad at wording, heh. :rolleyes:
I assume you mean lift with 20N?
No, I actually meant what I said, this time. Lift makes a better scenario though. Doc Al, you are cool unlike others. :smile:
It would require a slight bit of extra force to accelerate the box from rest.
I'm aware of that; I added that in there for clarity. As you noted in the progression of this scenario.
Huh? The box gains energy
You said it yourself: You are converting chemical energy into heat and mechanical energy, some of which you are transfering to the box.
LOL... can't happen.
It can. If one is more powerful than the other, one pulls with more force. Just like lifting a box. If you lift with more force than the box has, you overcome its force.
Heh, I'm taking AP Physics B. :wink:
Doc Al, at least you aren't mean like the others.
The rope uses energy when it is on the floor. It is held down by gravity, this is a force, and it is in the form of energy.
Then you're saying the rope uses energy in being acted upon gravitationally, and it also uses energy in being held taut. This means that the taut rope is actually using more energy than the rope on the ground, since the taut rope is having to expend energy both in having weight and in being taut. If the rope is using more energy, shouldn't it run out of that energy more quickly? If so, you have a clear experiment that can be done to test your theory.
It doesn't untie itself, it simply gets loose
The tension in the rope is maintained via intermolecular bonds. The atoms in the rope are bound together chemically. If this rope is to just suddenly run out of energy, give up and go limp, it must actually break chemical bonds to do so. This means that the rope, after giving up, will be fundamentally different from the original rope. Since it ran out of energy, you should now be able to do all sorts of paradoxical things with it. For example, tie that piece of rope between two tractors and have them pull against it. If the rope is no longer capable of supporting tension (it ran out of energy to do so) then it will simply stretch and stretch forever -- it can't exert any more forces, but it can't untie itself from the tractors either. It must just keep getting longer. This is the "rope soup" I was getting at.
Now, people have been using ropes and building materials for a very long time. The Earth itself has been around for almost 5 billion years, and its crust still seems to have the energy required to exert a force on me to keep me from falling through it. If this phenomenon (materials running out of energy to exert forces) really happens, why have we never seen it anywhere in the entire universe?
Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?
We do not welcome such people here.
- Warren
No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.There you go again, making unwarranted assumptions :mad:I'm here for the heck of it. I like this site, though I'm liked by very few...none. You people have actually inspired me to make a website based on the Standard odel. Isn't that exciting. A site made by me with no absurd theories! Perhaps, I will understand the Standard Model more?? Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?Thank you for your answer.
Do you consider PF to be a site where physics (and other sciences) is discussed, as science?
Do you recognise that discussion of physics, as a science, should be conducted on its own terms? In case this isn't clear, let me give you an analogy: if we are having a discussion on apple pie in the context of cooking, recipes and so forth, I personally would not consider it appropriate to talk about sexual fantasies concerning apple pies in that discussion, or whether the Sun is powered by a giant apple pie.
urtalkinstudid, just so that you don't make any further unwarranted assumptions, let me be clear as to my intention: I think the evidence is overwhelming that you are a troll, and so feel that you should be immediately banned from PF. However, I first want to make sure that you really do understand what PF is and what it's trying to do.
(for the avoidance of doubt, I personally have no power to ban anyone)
It can. If one is more powerful than the other, one pulls with more force. Just like lifting a box. If you lift with more force than the box has, you overcome its force.
Two very different situations:
(1) Two guys yanking on a rope: the force they exert is always the same. Or: You and superman are arm-wrestling: I don't care how strong he is, whatever force he exerts on you will exactly equal the force that you exert on him. Note that these forces are on different objects, so they don't "cancel". This is Newton's 3rd law: learn it.
(2) Lifting a box. The acceleration of the box depends on the total force on the box. You lift with 30N, gravity pulls with 20N, so the box accelerates. This is Newton's 2nd law: learn it.
Heh, I'm taking AP Physics B. :wink:
Then you'd better learn about Newton's laws before that class starts!
Doc Al, at least you aren't mean like the others.
Give it time.
Alkatran
Aug5-04, 02:22 PM
Ok, so [itex]F=ma[/tex], and we all know mass is related to energy. Mass is a compact form of energy, thus giving energy the greater quantity. It takes an emmence amount of energy to compose mass, it takes much more energy to make a suitable force between two objects.
It doesn't take energy to make a force, we've already told you this. A force isn't energy either, unless it's over a distance. It's like using a charge to make a distance, makes no sense.
Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with? A loosely fit rope between two walls. It is no longer taut. No longer is energy acting through force on the objects. This energy arises between the forces that are applied. It's source?...I don't know. It's not my case to state that. That's simply my question that I'm asking you people. The rope uses energy when it is on the floor. It is held down by gravity, this is a force, and it is in the form of energy.
Same argument as above. Your posts are so full of BS it's scary.
I stated above, "Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with?" You take away forces, and the energy that keeps the rope taut is gone. It doesn't untie itself, it simply gets loose, allowing the walls to move in or accelerate in one directionas a system of the two walls and rope. Wall and rope soup...Sounds like the soup of the day. :uhh:
Stop trying to argue by being clever (soup of the day), it won't work here and should only be done when you're actually making a valid point. I refer you to Chroot's post about the rope stretching forever.
No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.
If you have an opinion you MUST think it's right. That's what an opinion is.
I'm more for the ban every post.
beatrix kiddo
Aug5-04, 02:31 PM
this is so ridiculous..
if anyone should be banned, its people who aren't questioning the current model. stupid is just pointing out what he thinks provides evidence for his case. just because u don't agree with it doesn't mean u have the right to ban him. this is TD and criticism is welcome, but to the point where someone gets banned, especially if they aren't saying anything vulgar, is crossing the line. are u afraid this is going to be another neutrino debate, soon? i was actually hoping for it, with the exclusion of another whack ultimatum...
beatrix kiddo
Aug5-04, 02:46 PM
It doesn't take energy to make a force
but mass is energy and it takes mass to make force...
Your posts are so full of BS it's scary.
well help to eliminate the bull-**** and answer the question...
If you have an opinion you MUST think it's right.
duh.. but doesn't mean it is right...
beatrix,
The general consensus is that both you and urtalkinstupid are trolls. This means we don't feel that you guys actually believe the things you say. It also means that you're not here to learn (and you're obviously not capable of teaching anyone). We feel that you're just here to provoke people. We feel that you guys go home after school and laugh at all the crap you stir up here by making up and posting some garbage physics that you know is garbage. You would be thrown out of a classroom for doing such things, because you'd be wasting everyone's time. The good people of this forum are generally here because they like to learn, like to teach, or both. This forum does not intend to support trolls.
- Warren
beatrix kiddo
Aug5-04, 02:52 PM
lord of the rings????
i never laugh at this crap.. i'm really being serious! why would we do that? it's certainly NOT to make fun of anyone... and i have only been thrown out of a classroom twice or 5 times.. last year.. :wink: so i think it's safe to say that i am not trying to waste anyone's precious time.
Your actions speak louder than your words, beatrix.
- Warren
beatrix kiddo
Aug5-04, 02:59 PM
i was being sarcastic warren.. maybe i shouldn't because i guess it's not just stupid on the verge of being banned...
Here is a good example of how a force doesn't require energy: electron orbits a nucleus.
Heh, I'm taking AP Physics B.
Didn't beatrix say that your physics teacher illegally spanks you? I question how good the teacher really is.
this is so ridiculous..
if anyone should be banned, its people who aren't questioning the current model.
Nobody like that on these forums. We question the standard model all the time. Except we actually provide logical and informed reasons for doing so.
just because u don't agree with it doesn't mean u have the right to ban him.
He has the right to ban whoever he wants for whatever he wants. These are private forums!
this is TD and criticism is welcome, but to the point where someone gets banned, especially if they aren't saying anything vulgar, is crossing the line.
Excuse me? Not only do you have a very disrespectful tone but you also have said many vulgar, off-topic and ignorant comments in some of your posts. I can go and find lots of examples if you don't believe me. The fact alone that you are calling the admins considerations and the way inwhich they run the forum "ridiculous" is disrespectful and unwise. Commenting/suggesting on how the forum should be run isn't wrong, but blantly insulting the way the admins are doing their job is.
Just look at stupid's name "urtalkingstupid". Its obvious he made it that way to piss people off. Its like you want everyone to know that "if you disagree with me you're stupid!" without you even reading the details of their arguement.
are u afraid this is going to be another neutrino debate, soon? i was actually hoping for it, with the exclusion of another whack ultimatum...
Debate? Felt more like an endless circle of us giving you facts and you responding with verbal attacks and lame puns followed with misinformed garbage.
beatrix kiddo
Aug5-04, 03:10 PM
Didn't beatrix say that your physics teacher illegally spanks you? I question how good the teacher really is.
i meant generally!!!
Nobody like that on these forums. We question the standard model all the time. Except we actually provide logical and informed reasons for doing so.
everyone here hates me.. why don't u give us some of ur "logical" questions about the current model, so i know what to do...
Just look at stupid's name "urtalkingstupid". Its obvious he made it that way to piss people off. Its like you want everyone to know that "if you disagree with me you're stupid!" without you even reading the details of their arguement.
hahaha.. it's just a name...
Excuse me? Not only do you have a very disrespectful tone but you also have said many vulgar, off-topic and ignorant comments in some of your posts. I can go and find lots of examples if you don't believe me. The fact alone that you are calling the admins considerations and the way inwhich they run the forum "ridiculous" is disrespectful and unwise. Commenting/suggesting on how the forum should be run isn't wrong, but blantly insulting the way the admins are doing their job is.
i may comment sometimes on the admins.. but i can find places where they personally attack me.. i can also go back and look where U have personally attacked me..
Debate? Felt more like an endless circle of us giving you facts and you responding with verbal attacks and lame puns followed with misinformed garbage.
nah... it was a debate..
everyone here hates me.. why don't u give us some of ur "logical" questions about the current model, so i know what to do...
I don't hate you or stupid.
everyone here hates me.. why don't u give us some of ur "logical" questions about the current model, so i know what to do...
I question if the universe is expanding as fast or if it is at all expanding. I think that the apparent red-shift that other galaxies show may not be from doppler-shifts at all, but possibly the result of gravitational red-shift caused by a galaxies mass. I posted a topic on this in the astronomy Forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32590
i may comment sometimes on the admins.. but i can find places where they personally attack me.. i can also go back and look where U have personally attacked me..
Go and find those comments and lets see what you think attacks are. I'm sure if we did say anything "smart" or disrespectful it was a responce to you attacking us.
beatrix kiddo
Aug5-04, 03:31 PM
I don't hate you or stupid.
u just really despise us... :wink:
question if the universe is expanding as fast or if it is at all expanding. I think that the apparent red-shift that other galaxies show may not be from doppler-shifts at all, but possibly the result of gravitational red-shift caused by a galaxies mass. I posted a topic on this in the astronomy Forum:
good! now, go a step further and question the really big stuff like gravity...
Go and find those comments and lets see what you think attacks are.
i will.. later.. right now i'm too lazy.
I'm sure if we did say anything "smart" or disrespectful it was a responce to you attacking us.
sometimes yes and sometimes no.
good! now, go a step further and question the really big stuff like gravity...
I would if I had a logical reason to do so, until then I assume the current model to be true.
your energy equation derivative : F=ma~~~m=\frac{F}{a}~~~E=mc^2~~~E=\frac{F}{a}c^2~~ ~F=a\frac{E}{c^2}~~~W=a\frac{E}{c^2}dcos\theta is a direct proportion to motion at the speed of light.
so once again, no distance is being covered in relation of the two objects exerting the force, so there's no SPEED factor.
what percentage of the speed of light is Zero Speed? Nothing. hence. no energy.
this has gone as far as it's going to go, Lock it down. thanks, to all the participants.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 09:36 PM
Ok, I'm sure you guys have been waiting to hear this. You're right. Are you people happy? Are your egos satisfied? Though I say this with the least of sincerity.
Just because I propose an opposition to what is currently accepted, I am assumed to contain little knowledge of a whole subject. I know that isn't true. I have no problem with anyone here, but I'm sure a lot of you have a problem with me. So, chroot, if you can tell me how I can take my account off this forum MYSELF, I'll be glad to relieve you of doing the honor. This forum is obviously not a place to discuss ideas. You people have made that apprehensible. I did not sign up for this forum to harm others. I did not sign up for this forum to make a mockery of anyone, but you people seem to think otherwise.
Your cryptic judgements and inability to seek further than what you have been taught has lead me to the conclusion that you are just a bunch of mindless dummies being controled by a ventriloquist (Standard Model). When the ventriloquist is provoked you are ordered to defend it, in fear of the Standard Model being replaced by something that provides a better model of what is really happening. Just because my ideas do not tie in the current model, does not mean they are blemished. Maybe the ideas I propose have no connection what so ever to the current model. Whatever be the reason for you judging it so crudely, I don't know. A lot of times when someone propose a new idea in a situtation, it has nothing to do with previous proposals.
If you people want me to delete my account, I'll feel free to rid myself of this abhorrent site they associate with physics. chroot, if I am unable to do it, would you delete my account for me, if you really want to?
When scientist are baffled to the point where current science will never be able to explain anything, be sure to notice what type of new ideas arise to explain what underlies everything. So, this has been my valediction, unless you people can tolerate me. If not, later. I'll continue to persue my ideas.
Janna, have fun if you continue to be a memeber. Amman told me that these people are not worth arguing over. He's seen their arguements, and is at dismay. I know you can't resist what amman thinks. :wink:
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 09:41 PM
JoeWade, whatever you think. I could care less what you think anymore. You probably have as much care for me as I have for you. Yea, i actually noticed that speed of light contradiction. KE is a more suitable way of substitution. Force can still be related to energy.
Force can still be related to energy
yes and the relationship is ZERO at Zero Velocity.
Truly, learn physics 1 before trying online crank sites and seeing if they "fit" your immature world-view.
i say immature because you're so young and have so much to learn, yet incessantly insist you know it all better than people who study their whole lives and work IN THE FIELD.
grow up, when you do i'm certain your welcome here will be warmer, and you'll have much better ideas to discuss. Good Luck to you (and i mean that with sincerity)
-Joe
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 10:06 PM
Something has force at 0 velocity.
Math Is Hard
Aug5-04, 10:13 PM
Something has force at 0 velocity.
"has" force? :confused:
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 10:17 PM
The affect of gravity on mass is a force at zero velocity. Gravity makes this force dependent on the objects mass. Yes, the object does not have energy at rest, but gravity has a force on the rest object. Energy is in there, due to the velocity of gravity.
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 10:22 PM
I guess it can be better said that as a system, gravity and mass constitute to a force. They both are accelerating. Gravity accelerates a mass towards earth at a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. Relative to the force of gravity, the mass is moving. If a mass weren't increasing in velocity at all time, we would not be pulled down to the earth constantly.
Math Is Hard
Aug5-04, 10:23 PM
The affect of gravity on mass is a force at zero velocity. Gravity makes this force dependent on the objects mass. Yes, the object does not have energy at rest, but gravity has a force on the rest object. Energy is in there, due to the velocity of gravity.
Isn't that potential energy?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 10:30 PM
No, displacement is 0. You are on the ground.
Doesn't PE=mg\Delta y?
Math Is Hard
Aug5-04, 10:35 PM
ok, so you're saying the mass (at rest) is applying a downward force on the ground and the earth is pushing back with an upward force... I think?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 10:37 PM
No, I'm saying a mass at rest is being pulled by gravity. This leads it to constantly accelerate to the ground, even though this acceleration isn't noticeable and is known as weight. With this constant acceleration, there is a velocity within, although this isn't noticeable either until there is a noticeable displacement.
russ_watters
Aug5-04, 10:39 PM
No, I'm saying a mass at rest is being pulled by gravity. This leads it to constantly accelerate to the ground, even though this acceleration isn't noticeable and is known as weight. With this constant acceleration, there is a velocity within, although this isn't noticeable either until there is a noticeable displacement. So there is a velocity, but it isn't "noticeable" - I guess you're also saying that there is an energy, but it isn't "noticeable?" Uh huh... Do you honestly wonder why we think you guys are trolls?
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 10:46 PM
Ok, "noticeable" was not a good term to describe it. Scientists look for the force, rather than what actually composes this source. If they do not seek this energy, of course is is going to go unoticeable. russ_watters, I'm not even looking for trouble. See, you people go and say stuff when not provoked. You people have problems keeping your thoughts that are not related to physics to yourselves.
Let me repeat my example: an electron orbiting a nucleus.
The electron is being accelerated by the positively charged nucleus and doesn't fall into the nucleus unless acted upon by an outside force. The electron stays in the same potential energy level forever (unless acted on), therefore its not emitting any energy.
Math Is Hard
Aug5-04, 11:12 PM
Ok, "noticeable" was not a good term to describe it. Scientists look for the force, rather than what actually composes this source.
But I think scientists do look at this (before noticable displacement occurs) and they call it potential.
(I am thinking of the classic "bowling ball perched on the edge of a cliff*" example.)
* note: I am in the equivalent of "physics kindergarten". :biggrin:
urtalkinstupid
Aug5-04, 11:42 PM
The bowling ball on the edge of the cliff does not have PE. When it is copmletely off the cliff in the air, it has PE. It then has a distance between it and another object.
The electron is not static, it is dynamic. It's position from the nucleus varies. The orbital is not a definite distanct from the nucleus. It is the probability area of finding an electron in the vicinity. The electron is not able to go outside of the orbital unless acted upon by an outside source, but the electron is liable ti "fall" into the nucleus when it is receeding from an outside distant. The electron's mass and charge is spread throughout the orbital.
Ok, I'm sure you guys have been waiting to hear this. You're right. Are you people happy? Are your egos satisfied? Though I say this with the least of sincerity.
Just because I propose an opposition to what is currently accepted, I am assumed to contain little knowledge of a whole subject. I know that isn't true. I have no problem with anyone here, but I'm sure a lot of you have a problem with me. So, chroot, if you can tell me how I can take my account off this forum MYSELF, I'll be glad to relieve you of doing the honor. This forum is obviously not a place to discuss ideas. You people have made that apprehensible. I did not sign up for this forum to harm others. I did not sign up for this forum to make a mockery of anyone, but you people seem to think otherwise.
Your cryptic judgements and inability to seek further than what you have been taught has lead me to the conclusion that you are just a bunch of mindless dummies being controled by a ventriloquist (Standard Model). When the ventriloquist is provoked you are ordered to defend it, in fear of the Standard Model being replaced by something that provides a better model of what is really happening. Just because my ideas do not tie in the current model, does not mean they are blemished. Maybe the ideas I propose have no connection what so ever to the current model. Whatever be the reason for you judging it so crudely, I don't know. A lot of times when someone propose a new idea in a situtation, it has nothing to do with previous proposals.
If you people want me to delete my account, I'll feel free to rid myself of this abhorrent site they associate with physics. chroot, if I am unable to do it, would you delete my account for me, if you really want to?
When scientist are baffled to the point where current science will never be able to explain anything, be sure to notice what type of new ideas arise to explain what underlies everything. So, this has been my valediction, unless you people can tolerate me. If not, later. I'll continue to persue my ideas.
Janna, have fun if you continue to be a memeber. Amman told me that these people are not worth arguing over. He's seen their arguements, and is at dismay. I know you can't resist what amman thinks. :wink:If you're leaving, I wish you well as you travel on your onward journey.
If you're not, would you please answer my earlier questions?
In case you've forgotten them, here they are again:
1) Do you consider PF to be a site where physics (and other sciences) is discussed, as science?
2) Do you recognise that discussion of physics, as a science, should be conducted on its own terms?
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 09:24 AM
The bowling ball on the edge of the cliff does not have PE. When it is copmletely off the cliff in the air, it has PE. It then has a distance between it and another object.
That is wrong. The bowling ball has a PE on the edge of the cliff precisely because it does have a distance between itself and another object. That object is the ground.
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 01:28 PM
Tom Mattson, what kind of cliff are we talking about? Cliff come in all varieties.
Nereid, why don't you answer my questions first?
1) Why are you so nosey?
2) Why are you so nosey?
Nereid, why don't you answer my questions first?
1) Why are you so nosey?
2) Why are you so nosey?
Nereid is a member of our staff. She has every right to ask you questions about your purpose here.
- Warren
The electron is not static, it is dynamic. It's position from the nucleus varies. The orbital is not a definite distanct from the nucleus. It is the probability area of finding an electron in the vicinity. The electron is not able to go outside of the orbital unless acted upon by an outside source, but the electron is liable ti "fall" into the nucleus when it is receeding from an outside distant. The electron's mass and charge is spread throughout the orbital.
It doesn't matter! The fact that it stays in a specific area while orbiting is my point. If it was spending energy to keep it's orbit then the electron would lose mass very quickly and eventually disapear. But since this obviously doesn't happen, it must be possible to exert a force without needing a constant supply of energy.
Tom Mattson, what kind of cliff are we talking about? Cliff come in all varieties.
Nereid, why don't you answer my questions first?
1) Why are you so nosey?
2) Why are you so nosey?I'm afraid I don't understand your questions. Perhaps that's because you have not read or understood my earlier posts. An alternative explanation is that you are a troll.
To repeat what I said earlier: "urtalkinstupid, I've read many of your posts, both in this thread and others. I have slowly formed the opinion that you are posting to the wrong forum; it seems you have a great disdain for how science is done, and no real interest in either showing that it's an inappropriate approach to learning about the universe (in which case I expect that you'd be a frequent contributor to the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics section), or debating its weaknesses within the framework of science itself.
If my observation is at least partly correct, why do you post to PF at all?"
and
"And indeed they are (I don't think I said otherwise, did I?).
Since you did not answer my question, let me try to ask it in another way (perhaps you didn't understand my question):
PF is a forum for the discussion of physics, and other sciences. One of the cornerstones of science today is, in simple terms, the scientific method (please let me know if you are unfamiliar with what this is).
Since PF is about science, I personally expect that everyone who posts to the science threads in PF - and that includes Theory Development - has at least the intention of respecting the scientific method.
If a person has issues with the scientific method, then PF has a section where folk may discuss and debate that very topic.
When I read your posts, you appear (to me) to disparage the scientific method, and to consider it unworthy of your time to learn about it (which may explain why you don't appear to be interested to discuss the nature of science, in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics section for example). A good example of what I mean is your apparent unwillingness to accept or consider scientific method-based questions and critiques of your own ideas.
To ask again: why are you here?"
and
"Do you consider PF to be a site where physics (and other sciences) is discussed, as science?
Do you recognise that discussion of physics, as a science, should be conducted on its own terms? In case this isn't clear, let me give you an analogy: if we are having a discussion on apple pie in the context of cooking, recipes and so forth, I personally would not consider it appropriate to talk about sexual fantasies concerning apple pies in that discussion, or whether the Sun is powered by a giant apple pie.
urtalkinstudid, just so that you don't make any further unwarranted assumptions, let me be clear as to my intention: I think the evidence is overwhelming that you are a troll, and so feel that you should be immediately banned from PF. However, I first want to make sure that you really do understand what PF is and what it's trying to do.
(for the avoidance of doubt, I personally have no power to ban anyone)"
To my first asking, you replied: "Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong."
To my second post, you replied: "No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.
I'm here for the heck of it. I like this site, though I'm liked by very few...none. You people have actually inspired me to make a website based on the Standard odel. Isn't that exciting. A site made by me with no absurd theories! Perhaps, I will understand the Standard Model more?? Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?"
And to my last, "Ok, I'm sure you guys have been waiting to hear this. You're right. Are you people happy? Are your egos satisfied? Though I say this with the least of sincerity.
Just because I propose an opposition to what is currently accepted, I am assumed to contain little knowledge of a whole subject. I know that isn't true. I have no problem with anyone here, but I'm sure a lot of you have a problem with me. So, chroot, if you can tell me how I can take my account off this forum MYSELF, I'll be glad to relieve you of doing the honor. This forum is obviously not a place to discuss ideas. You people have made that apprehensible. I did not sign up for this forum to harm others. I did not sign up for this forum to make a mockery of anyone, but you people seem to think otherwise.
Your cryptic judgements and inability to seek further than what you have been taught has lead me to the conclusion that you are just a bunch of mindless dummies being controled by a ventriloquist (Standard Model). When the ventriloquist is provoked you are ordered to defend it, in fear of the Standard Model being replaced by something that provides a better model of what is really happening. Just because my ideas do not tie in the current model, does not mean they are blemished. Maybe the ideas I propose have no connection what so ever to the current model. Whatever be the reason for you judging it so crudely, I don't know. A lot of times when someone propose a new idea in a situtation, it has nothing to do with previous proposals.
If you people want me to delete my account, I'll feel free to rid myself of this abhorrent site they associate with physics. chroot, if I am unable to do it, would you delete my account for me, if you really want to?
When scientist are baffled to the point where current science will never be able to explain anything, be sure to notice what type of new ideas arise to explain what underlies everything. So, this has been my valediction, unless you people can tolerate me. If not, later. I'll continue to persue my ideas.
Janna, have fun if you continue to be a memeber. Amman told me that these people are not worth arguing over. He's seen their arguements, and is at dismay. I know you can't resist what amman thinks."
To me, this reply is, at best a clumsy attempt to avoid fessing up to your reasons for being here; at worst what I imagine is a section from a tome that might be called "Trolling, a Practical Guide to Implementation" Some might give your plea of innocence and persecution the benefit of the doubt; to me, the clear intelligence that you've shown in many posts is a sign of deliberate disingenuousness. And if anyone were in any doubt, your reply (quoted at the top of this post) must surely have been very revealing; the phrase 'adding insult to injury' comes to mind.
Note to Moderators: I feel urtalkinstupid has been given ample opportunity to post here in a manner consistent with what PF is all about, but has instead continued to behave like a troll. I would be glad to see him banned.
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 03:16 PM
Tom Mattson, what kind of cliff are we talking about? Cliff come in all varieties.
It doesn't matter what kind of cliff it is.
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 03:33 PM
If that be the case, then the earth is a huge spherical cliff. Since gravitational attraction relies on the distance away from the core.
Alkatran
Aug6-04, 03:43 PM
If that be the case, then the earth is a huge spherical cliff. Since gravitational attraction relies on the distance away from the core.
That's exactly right.
Consider this, your potential gravity from mars is MASSIVE. If you were to fall there (no other interaction, like the sun or earth) you would be moving pretty fast when you reached the planet. Depending on your "center" you have different potential energies. Really all you're calculating is the DIFFERENCE in potential energy. The potential energy on the ground is lower than that on a cliff.
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 07:01 PM
If that be the case, then the earth is a huge spherical cliff. Since gravitational attraction relies on the distance away from the core.
Right. And if you're on a cliff, you're farther away from the core than you are standing on the ground. Hence, your GPE is higher on the cliff. Simple.
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 07:09 PM
What I meant by my statement was that the bowling ball could be on the surface of the earth. It is said to have no PE there, but it really does. That's why I asked you to clarify what type of cliff you were talking about. The measure of potential is displacement from the earth's surface, and if earth is a huge cliff docked away from the center of gravity, the surface is 0 displacement ont he y-axis of space.
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 07:15 PM
What I meant by my statement was that the bowling ball could be on the surface of the earth. It is said to have no PE there, but it really does.
The bowling ball is said to have no GPE at the surface of the Earth, when the datum is set at the surface of the Earth. Set it at r=infinity (as is often done in central force problems), and the GPE of the same bowling ball in the same location is nonzero. The value of GPE is physically meangless, and you can set the datum whereever you like. It's the gradient of the GPE function that is physically meaningful, because that is what is related to the force exerted on the object via the gravitational field.
That's why I asked you to clarify what type of cliff you were talking about.
And the type of cliff is still irrelevant. Given a mass distribution and a datum, GPE is a function of position.
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 07:20 PM
Well, that all ties in with how much the bowling ball weighs and it's displacement from the SURFACE. So, the type of cliff is needed. According to the real definition of PE would give the bowling ball PE at the surface (this was already stated). Let's get into science intensley and take everything literally. Take the extra precautions as well.
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 07:22 PM
Well, that all ties in with how much the bowling ball weighs and it's displacement from the SURFACE. So, the type of cliff is needed.
No. GPE is a function of position, not the type of cliff.
According to the real definition of PE would give the bowling ball PE at the surface (this was already stated).
According to the real definition of PE, you would have to specify the datum before saying what the GPE of the bowling ball is.
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 07:24 PM
Type of cliff would include it's height from the ground (or core). I've already said that you would have to state the point at which y-position is 0.
"UrTalk" was saying that ON the cliff, the ball has no potential energy because it's still touching the ground, OFF the cliff it does have potential energy because it has a distance to reach ground
Tom is saying that you're always measuring potential energy to the bottom of the cliff, even if the ball is sitting on the GROUND at the Edge of said cliff.
just clearing up where people are arguing from (which really isn't part of an argument in the first place, i guess we need to re-focus)
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 07:29 PM
No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 07:33 PM
Type of cliff would include it's height from the ground (or core).
And as I keep telling you, the height from the ground is all you need to know. You do not need to know anything about the cliff at all. If you took a picture of the bowling ball with a long measuring stick in the background and told me the mass of the ball, and edited out the cliff, I could still tell you what the GPE is with the ground as the datum.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that that the cliff is purely incidental to the setup.
I've already said that you would have to state the point at which y-position is 0.
You're sending mixed signals then, because the "real definition of PE" by itself does not include the datum.
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 07:34 PM
No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.
That's exactly what you were saying.
urtalkinstupid
Aug6-04, 08:02 PM
So, is it the type of cliff that is 385m above ground or the type that is 386.3m above the ground?
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.
Okay, that's enough for me. Wave bye-bye.
- Warren
Tom Mattson
Aug6-04, 08:47 PM
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.
No, you said it because you had a serious misconception about gravitational potential energy, which is why I corrected you. But rather than admit the error and thank me (as I would do in the extremely unlikely event that the shoe is ever on the other foot), you backpeddaled like a know-it-all brat who couldn't possibly make a mistake.
russ_watters
Aug7-04, 06:37 PM
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious. Interesting catch-22 you put yourself in there: on the one hand you could admit being wrong, learn something and gain our respect, on the other hand you could admit being a troll and a menace to this forum. Interesting choice you made. But it does simplify our job somewhat...
i knew they were trolls from day one, but nooooo. no one listens to me...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.