Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!
Thanks for the info, some of the things you've corrected me on I agree with however there are some things where you really aren't understanding what I'm trying to say so I must not be saying it in a way that conveys it properly...
In some cases I can see it is totally my fault for using terms that have very specific scientific definitions. For my lackadaisical approach I do deserve some chastisement.
Also keep in mind that I am one of those people that argue to learn, don't think that I'm convinced of my own arguments. It's an odd and inefficient method of learning sometimes but it grants better understanding for me personally.
Additionally I really love the quote in Ivan’s Signature:
I would add to it that disparaging remarks and abusive language or tone towards those that do question the norm is extraordinarily counter-productive to the aim of science.
Though I understand frustration towards what seems to be inane, a true scientist, a true seeker of truth must always be mindful that something he believes to be absolute truth may in fact be a concept that is inane.
That is the critical difference between inventors and engineers. …between pioneers and conquerors.
Ivan Seeking:
Scientists know how to calculate the error in a measurement. You are assuming either that they don't know how, or that unknown errors are present that have skewed the results. If the latter you would need evidence to support your claim.
Yes, unpredictable and therefore unknown errors are present in the system. Environmental fluctuations cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be accurately calculated.
Link stickied elsewhere in this forum:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
Check the area about GPS, it's near the bottom and it's pretty comprehensive.
Sorry but that won't do. We have definitions that already work.
They do work but I don't know how to better express some of my ideas.
Ivan:
Conservation of energy and angular momentum.
I didn't ask what kept the planets going around. (angular momentum) I asked what kept them from flying away. It takes energy to make a body change its inertia.
Something traveling in a non-accelerating straight line is inertially the same as a body at rest. To move that body at rest (change its inertial state) energy must be transferred.
A planet traveling in a circle is constantly being moved off that straight path. Analogously, it is being moved from a rest state. Its inertial reference frame is changed. Energy is transferred.
I don't believe gravity to be some endless well of energy, I believe that it is produced in some way and similar to the radiant energy of the sun, it only
seems constant and unending to us. I think there may be a way to use some of that open system.
Russ:
-For the planets (or satellites) in orbit, kinetic energy is related to speed and potential is related to height. Since both are constant (for a circular orbit), there is no energy being used. Again, you used the word "work" in this context. Work has a specific mathematical definition: force times distance. Since the force is perpendicular to the velocity, no work is being done.
… In any case, in your example o the book orbiting the sun, the book still isn't moving perpendicular to the gravity field.
...from your (IMO erroneous) inertial frame of reference.
Both of you are basically saying that there is no net motion. I'm saying that to qualify those statements you have to infer a preferential frame of reference. If you don't, then there is a perspective where the force is parallel to the velocity.(force times distance) The planet is traveling with the sun in the same direction as it is being pulled by gravity.
(Though I think the travel of our system is not parallel to orbits, there does exist some reference point that can make this situation true)
I suppose the reference frame you are using is the sun, but why? Because it seems correct? I'll agree that it does
seem correct.
Distance is relative. Because everything is moving, we are incapable of picking a true single point in space that every frame of reference can agree upon as "still". Our version of a still point in space is just an arbitrary selection of a single preferential inertial reference frame.
If I am in a different preferred inertial frame than your preferred inertial frame and we both measure a distance through space that an object travels in a given period of time, we will come up with different answers.
An explanation of this concept is used when describing the Sagnac effect.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Unfortunately the author makes one slight error when he says there is no doppler shift in a sagnac device. There is...
To further explain where I’m coming from with the statement that distance is relative I’ll provide my own example in addition to the one given above.
Ex: Let’s observe two scenarios from an invisible preferential third perspective.
In the first scenario a scientist traveling left to right (+x) on a special science platform at an inertially stable 100 feet per second (from our perspective) fires a slingshot slug from point 0x 0y 0z in our third perspective coordinate system as he passes it by. (z going away from us) The slingshot is fired leftward (-x) to a target 50 feet away in his coordinate system at 50 feet per second. To him, the slug travels a distance of 50 feet, to us it did not travel at all.
A different scientist passes by moments later conducting the same experiment in almost the same way except that he is simply aiming the opposite direction. (+x) To him, the slug traveled 50 feet. To us 100.
Since distance is relative, the definition of work, as it applies to gravity, relies upon a single reference frame only.
Ex: I say that the book is moving up away from the table at 500 mph because the table's force is unbalanced in my frame of reference. I say that the table (or whatever behind it) is doing work. The book thinks that I'm just at a higher state of energy and I think the same of the book. So what? Neither is the “correct” choice.
So, my point is that since work is reference frame based, it is therefore not the perfect term for what I'm trying to relate but it's close.
My argument is that using a preferential reference frame outside of the object being studied is misleading because the possible answers are endless. Just because you've arbitrarily chosen the Earth or the sun as your frame to judge by does not validate that choice above any other...
You must instead measure only the inertial change of the object studied. If its inertial frame of reference is changed then it is being accelerated, if it is accelerated then it is in a state of inertial change regardless of tests from external inertial reference frames. Inertial change is analogous to movement and therefore the equivalent of work is done.(IMHO)
An object cannot deviate from a straight-line path (a stable inertial reference) without energy transferred.
The force of gravity causes a constant change of frames of reference. Even in freefall, there are changes to an objects inertial frame (acceleration)
What I'm saying is that our label "force", when it comes to gravity, is just when we remain in the same inertial reference frame as an item that has energy being transferred to it. Currently, “force” is only a useful concept within a specific reference frame when we use distance as the method to gauge acceleration
I think that the reason it is believed that gravity does no work may be because of the definition of work relying upon a single preferential reference frame.
I believe to encompass gravity and to more reliably define the transfer of energy, the definition of work should instead be described as Acceleration * Time. This would also keep someone from picking an erroneous reference frame to judge from.
Ex:
If there exists nothing else in the universe other than a rocket, it will have nothing to judge distance by. If when floating in space, it turned on the rockets, it would seem that it is not moving. Therefore no work is achieved and no energy is transferred.
If starting over you add a second rocket beside the first and the controls are linked such that when rocket one hits the gas, rocket two does as well. Both frames of reference are accelerated equally and therefore it seems to observers in the rockets that no work is being done and no energy is being transferred.
I postulate that as an observer acted upon by gravity judging other items likewise accelerated, you are simply the observer in the second ship without enough information to judge the energy transferred.
The reason why I said I believe that Force is more analogous to energy is only because of my thoughts about gravity and I can see how it doesn't really apply that way in regard to any other force so I agree with you that my terminology was off.
I guess my problem really lies in calling gravity or magnetism just a force.
-For the sun vs air conditioning, energy is conserved: the sun heats your house and the air conditioner takes the heat and moves it out of the house where it heats the environment. The energy removed by the air conditioner is exactly equal to the energy gained by the house from the sun.
I don’t know why it isn’t getting through to you that I do not believe that energy is being created or destroyed. I know that it’s just getting moved around. I was making an absurd statement to make the point that balanced energy can be achieved without having to believe that the energy never existed in the first place.
The example works fine (its just like every other lab experiment involving heat transfer): the columns are at room temperature plus whatever temperature they gain due to the energy created by the force they are under. What temperature are they at?
Not willing to give in on this one eh? Lol
Firstly, beams on a skyscraper would be in contact with the Earth as a heat sync and very likely be tied in deep. Room temperature would just be the temperature of the air so there would be a huge difference between them. Additionally sky scrapers are built to withstand earthquakes and high winds so a certain amount of flexibility is built as part of the design. Because of this they tend to list and sway throughout a normal day. I’m pretty sure that would convert into some non-trivial heat energy. Additionally, as a day goes by, a large enough building will have a large fluctuation of the number of people in it and therefore the building would tend to compress slightly and expand slightly during different parts of the day thereby causing more swings in temperature. … Night, day, Exposed to outside air… The list goes on but I think I’ll stop.
It doesn't matter which car is stationary (has zero energy), it only matters how much energy is transferred.
I’m saying that neither car can ever truly be called stationary. Yes you can, in that case gauge how much energy is transferred but that example just can’t be used for gravity. Though you may have just been talking about “force” and my bad communication screwed things up, sorry… Just really hadn’t put to words how my general concepts of things differed from the norm so while writing I was still in the midst of understanding the specifics.
If you remove gravity, the water wouldn't go up in the first place.
[paraphrasing]
… and more stuff about thermodynamics, closed systems etc.
Yes, I’m quite well aware of all that….
Have you thought that perhaps the casimir effect my have differing degrees of magnitude in different locations, perhaps casimir effect is inversely proportionate to gravity fields. In that case you could find some change. I thought I remember actually reading that the effect was measured to be different in space (though I could totally be thinking of something else)
Either way, even in a system that is stable and homogeneous you could still synthesize your own change.
Ex. If you were in the center of a giant circular tank of pressurized air in a weightless environment and you had a device that could rapidly take air in and pressurize the gas into a liquid to store in a tank, you would have a propulsion system. As the air was sucked in you would be propelled into the area being depressurized.
I use this strange example to make clear my earlier example of how ZP might be harnessed to provide propulsion etc
If ZP is a waveform energy that can cause a force on matter then a destructive waveform should cause an imbalance in “pressure” if directed like a laser. Though energy from some other system would have to be used and almost assuredly at a loss, most people would still consider levitation without the use of props, gas or other chemical propellants to be “anti-gravity”
Every pair of magnets in the world has a calulable potential energy associated with the pair.
Truthfully, I don’t know how solid that science is. Has anyone worn down permanent magnet successfully? If not then it is theory and subject to question. (though I believe that there is a certain amount of energy in a magnet just like all other matter)
F=MA can be used to calculate how much force an object of a certain mass would have (how much it would weigh), but not to measure it. To measure it, you use a spring of known spring constant and measure its deformation under the weight.
I’m just saying that it was an experiment, not a mathematical construct. Something real had to happen to prove a theory. For them to measure the force, something has to be accelerated. If it’s proven experimentally then something happened other than a guy with a math book and a chalkboard.
I just looked it up and the funny thing is that the original experiment was by using a “spring constant and measure its deformation under” the force itself.
The point is that it does work. It already has useful applications. ZP is alive and well and non-theoretical:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6
What we are trying to convey to you is the concept of energy itself. The reason you think ZPE might be harnessable is that you don't understand how energy works and thus how to harness it.
Sorry… just not true.
)
