Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

[urtalkinstupid]

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.

 

[Entropy]

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?

 

[Entropy]

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]

Oh, Entropy, I love your comical sense of humor. I have more than one link. Hope you people don't get too mad.

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]

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.

 

[Entropy]

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]

Sorry, not all of them base their decisions on what is presented before them.

 

[Alkatran]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Entropy]

Whatever. Back to those sites. I'll start by examining the first site: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm]The[/PLAIN] 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]

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]

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...?

 

[Entropy]

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 argument and more on trying to solve the problem.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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]

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 argument and more on trying to solve the problem.

u got to 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..

 

[Entropy]

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 got to 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.

 

[JoeWade]

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]

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?

 

[JoeWade]

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]

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 ) 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]

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]

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.

 

[JoeWade]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JoeWade]

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 :|

 

[Chronos]

...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]

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...

 

[Chronos]

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]

I don't know, yet. I'm still thinking. Does the relationship seem right though?

 

[chroot]

W=a\frac{E}{c^2}dcos\theta

And how is this useful?

- Warren

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I'm trying to say that it takes an input energy to exert a force. You accelerate the object you apply energy to, so a[/tex] should be average acceleration. The rest should be known. Like I said...I don't think that relation is even right.

 

[chroot]

You've done nothing but rearrange terms. You haven't changed the fundamental relationships between any of the quantities.

- Warren

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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?

 

[Chronos]

Where do you think it is coming from?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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?

 

[chroot]

"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]

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?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Chronos]

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]

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.

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Chronos]

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]

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 into 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]

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.

 

[JoeWade]

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...