Physicists are people, and therefore there is always the risk of groupthink. However (and I am biased, as a physicist myself) I think they are better at avoiding this than some other scientific disciplines, and much better than other social groups. Just try upsetting the boat in medicine, business or politics and you will find much harder resistance to genuine evidence of group error. Those doing fundamental physics research are actively trying to break/extend the existing theories. Take the current search for the Higgs at Cern and LEP(?) - physicists will be excited to find it, but even more excited if they prove it's not there!
Most external criticism of physics comes from people who don't understand it, but think they do. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who know a little physics - just enough to misunderstand it. This whole thread is based on a misperception of what work and energy are.
Most external criticism of physics comes from people who don't understand it, but think they do. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who know a little physics - just enough to misunderstand it. This whole thread is based on a misperception of what work and energy are.
Sure, I know that physicists have an open mind more than other categories of people, otherwise relativity and quantum mechanics are not born yet.
What I mean is simply this: if I take your hand and pull my arm to left while you do the same by pulling your arm to right with the same force, there will be no movement, so no work, so no energy but only two opposing forces. But I'm sure that after two hours that we pull our arms we feel very tired. Fatigue is not evidence that has been done for a job?
My lawyer would say one of two
a) there was no movement, then we not have given any power
b) it's energy that we have provided that has been lost.
What I mean is simply this: if I take your hand and pull my arm to left while you do the same by pulling your arm to right with the same force, there will be no movement, so no work, so no energy but only two opposing forces. But I'm sure that after two hours that we pull our arms we feel very tired. Fatigue is not evidence that has been done for a job?
My lawyer would say one of two
a) there was no movement, then we not have given any power
b) it's energy that we have provided that has been lost.
Unfortunately, your lawyer also doesn't understand the difference between force, work, energy, and power.
Energy has been lost in heating up our muscles. As neither of us moved, neither of us did any work on the other. It is important to realise that many mechanisms are quite inefficient, so much of their input energy is simply wasted as heat.
Are you serious? Of course work was done, energy used to move the muscles in exact opposite position to cancel out movement of the arms. The movement was the muscle contraction, and the energy needed set in motion biochemical pathways of the whole bloody Krebs cycle. Not to forget the whole process of exciting the muscle cells by again biochemical/physical processes along nerve cells and across the synaptic spaces. What you present is sloppy thinking based on ignorance.
Last edited:
Well! I see that you admit how systems are excited and how much energy is used by a man to maintain position against the force of gravity.
Too bad you do not have the same sensitivity to the pole. You think that the latter does not need energy to maintain position.
This arrogance of thinking seems to be similar to religious when they assert that only humans have souls while animals and plants do not have.
The pole goes the same force and the visible effect is its decline. Similarly to humans, pole reacts with its atomic and molecular forces to resist the applied force until it can.
The problem is another: when we worked more, then we eat more because we spent more energy, but where the pole takes this energy always?
I was going to ask you where the pole gets its energy from, according to your theory. Does it have a hidden power source, or are you going to jettison conservation of energy?
No, you are simply exposing your ignorance of physics. This thread will inevitably go round in circles until either you learn some genuine science, or we get bored and start ignoring you.
I am bored. I am out!
No, you are simply exposing your ignorance of physics. This thread will inevitably go round in circles until either you learn some genuine science, or we get bored and start ignoring you.
I am bored. I am out!
But when I am lying down on the floor I do not need energy, but if stand on my hands I use lots of energy.
How come?
Do not get angry. You, SY, and NAT.D.BERG, I recognize that you gave the best answer according to current concepts of physics there, and I am grateful.
On another occasion, perhaps I would have been on your side, but here I decided to risk some guesses.
It 'difficult start to exhibit a thought especially when you have not yet able to manage it in a logically consistent and complete frame, including from a mathematical point of view.
What I can say is that personally i am a bit poor satisfied with the definition we have given to the concept of energy. Currently it seems to have a too close relationship with the movement or that the movement is often a necessity because you can talk about energy. But we know by some time a body in quite has its energy E = mc2.
Now we take a body that has a field (field = force, I hope you agree) this clearly is not for you a source of energy.
Now we take a second body that is sensitive to the same type of field and keep it locked in spatial position respect the first body.
Between the two bodies carries the force of the field and nothing more.
But hold rigidly stuck the bodies is a very not-natural process and if we then let them free, the field action will tend to approach or to remove the bodies according to the case of attraction or repulsion.
We now see a movement in space and say that there was a source of energy. But, the movement was only the expression of the strength of the fields.
The movement or displacement is a merely consequence for any free body (not bound), which is subject to the field.
So I see the field itself primarily as the seat of energy. And the difference between the concepts of force and energy is that we speak about pure force if the bodies are subject to the field, but for other reasons they are rigidly stuck in their positions, while we talk about energy when the bodies are not bound and are free to feel these forces.
Hello people!
Today I want to describe another example of my doubts about the conservation law of energy, given by physicists.
It is not a tought experiment but a reality that happens every day right before our eyes. Readers will not would be angry because this is not an attempt to change the subject. This is my other question applies to the law of conservation of energy, so I continue to be on topic.
Okay, now I expose the facts:
In the attached photos you can see the schematic profile of two hydroelectric power plants in cascade, as many are in your country.
Referring to the figure posted the first plant is called Albi, the second lowest plant receiving water from first is called Magisano.
As you can see the water released from Albi after about 4 km of tunnel comes in a modulation tank. From this pool party then the penstock that feeds the Magisano central . The tank has a capacity of 15000 cubic meters and a height of 5 meters useful. The maximum capacity of the gallery and the duct is 12 m/s.
Suppose here that Albi at the max power of 36 MW release 12 cubic meters and that the modulating tank is almost empty.
Attention now: we have 2 ways to generate energy in the below Magisano central
1) just reaches the water in the modulating tank the plant is started with 12 mc/s, allowing here to generate 39 MW.
2) Here comes the water in the tunnel, but before starting the plant is expected that water accumulates in the mod. tank.
Then when the water in the tank was reached a height of 5 meters, Magisano central is started, that this time will produce around 400 KW more than 39 MW.
For 10 hours of operation per day corresponds to 4 MWh, that is just under 1500 MWh/year
In the second example the central part with a delay of about 20 minutes and stopped 20 minutes later than in the first case.
This increased energy can not be justified as a case of greater efficiency or higher yield. This is due to pressure and gravity.
The question is: where does this extra energy?
Or in the first case, part of the energy is lost along the way mainly in the gallery?
But I have my doubts that all this energy is lost in heat and noise as usually.
Today I want to describe another example of my doubts about the conservation law of energy, given by physicists.
It is not a tought experiment but a reality that happens every day right before our eyes. Readers will not would be angry because this is not an attempt to change the subject. This is my other question applies to the law of conservation of energy, so I continue to be on topic.
Okay, now I expose the facts:
In the attached photos you can see the schematic profile of two hydroelectric power plants in cascade, as many are in your country.
Referring to the figure posted the first plant is called Albi, the second lowest plant receiving water from first is called Magisano.
As you can see the water released from Albi after about 4 km of tunnel comes in a modulation tank. From this pool party then the penstock that feeds the Magisano central . The tank has a capacity of 15000 cubic meters and a height of 5 meters useful. The maximum capacity of the gallery and the duct is 12 m/s.
Suppose here that Albi at the max power of 36 MW release 12 cubic meters and that the modulating tank is almost empty.
Attention now: we have 2 ways to generate energy in the below Magisano central
1) just reaches the water in the modulating tank the plant is started with 12 mc/s, allowing here to generate 39 MW.
2) Here comes the water in the tunnel, but before starting the plant is expected that water accumulates in the mod. tank.
Then when the water in the tank was reached a height of 5 meters, Magisano central is started, that this time will produce around 400 KW more than 39 MW.
For 10 hours of operation per day corresponds to 4 MWh, that is just under 1500 MWh/year
In the second example the central part with a delay of about 20 minutes and stopped 20 minutes later than in the first case.
This increased energy can not be justified as a case of greater efficiency or higher yield. This is due to pressure and gravity.
The question is: where does this extra energy?
Or in the first case, part of the energy is lost along the way mainly in the gallery?
But I have my doubts that all this energy is lost in heat and noise as usually.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.