Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

[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...