This manages to get into my reason suddenly from this whole one:
Laurie Anderson Kokoku.
The slimy creatures particularly I like it.
Laurie Anderson Kokoku.
The slimy creatures particularly I like it.
No, there's no such thing. We select a point of view (and hence reference) for which each galaxy is equidistant and for which the three points are colinear.
I accept your idea to define "system" a living man and/or a car, which, as such, are different from a piece of iron.
Now, what I'm saying is that I distinguish two different levels:
We define basic energy, the energy used to supply a man to be declared alive, such as the energy needed for the car's engine to run at minimum.
Now when the car is on flat floorl, its energy is only this minimum (we indicate this as level 1)
But when the same car is on an incline floor, for remains firm, it must expend more energy, if not it scroll down. Similarly, this happens to a living animal. (Denote this as level 2)
This is the underlying reason why I insist to say that in a gravitational field to stand quite we have to spend energy.
OTOH what i remenber from relativity: in a gravitational field, an inertial bodys is destined to fall toward the center of gravity itself.
Ref gravity at the center of the earth:-
Gravity is the force due to the mass of an object.
To simplify the problem think of the earth split in two with you in the middle.
One half of the earth is pulling on the other half of the earth.
You are between these two gravitational pulls
You will be crushed.
You may experiemce no net pull on you towards any paticular part of the planet (you could consider this 0 gravity). In fact the earth is not a perfect sphere and does not have even density so there will be some pull.
However I suspect you will care much more about the two halves of the earth crushing you! In fact this crushing forces acts from all directions as it acts radially.
Regards,
Andrew
Gravity is the force due to the mass of an object.
To simplify the problem think of the earth split in two with you in the middle.
One half of the earth is pulling on the other half of the earth.
You are between these two gravitational pulls
You will be crushed.
You may experiemce no net pull on you towards any paticular part of the planet (you could consider this 0 gravity). In fact the earth is not a perfect sphere and does not have even density so there will be some pull.
However I suspect you will care much more about the two halves of the earth crushing you! In fact this crushing forces acts from all directions as it acts radially.
Regards,
Andrew
I think that at the center of the earth my body would be crushed due to the strong pressure, not for gravity, about that my point of view is that should be zero (for simplicity) or even negative.
I think this because gravity is always attractive. Now if you are outside the earth it is directed toward the center of the earth itself, but if you're in the center then the force is directed outward with the appearance of a negative force.
A week seems a reasonable time to give all people a fair reflection.
After this time I expect someone to raise his beliefs or his concerns.
Or else I have to believe that I convinced you? 😀😀😀
I know that my chances are as Planck's constant 10*e-43.
Who will give me the more convincing answer is not win 2 bottles but rather 4.
And who does not drink wine, this being a forum audio, I yield 4 ultra rare and very linear SIT (static induction transistor) TOKIN 2SK180 (used) from my private collection. 🙂🙂🙂
Francesco.
P.S.: transistor BUX48 is for comparison only.
After this time I expect someone to raise his beliefs or his concerns.
Or else I have to believe that I convinced you? 😀😀😀
I know that my chances are as Planck's constant 10*e-43.
Who will give me the more convincing answer is not win 2 bottles but rather 4.
And who does not drink wine, this being a forum audio, I yield 4 ultra rare and very linear SIT (static induction transistor) TOKIN 2SK180 (used) from my private collection. 🙂🙂🙂
Francesco.
P.S.: transistor BUX48 is for comparison only.
Attachments
You have convinced us that you don't understand energy, and we have failed to convince you that you don't understand energy. There seems little point in continuing the conversation.
Why does holding something off the ground take so much more energy than resting it on a table?
Well the force is the same. Exactly the same.
But one uses no energy, but the other uses lots.
It just depends upon how you choose to generate the force, that's all. Arms are great at moving but not efficient at holding something still. Like a helicopter for instance, or a rocket motor.
Your arm is not actually doing any work at all, despite you feeling it ache and tire, so why do you feel tired? It's because with an arm (like a helicopter) you have to use energy to create a constant force. With a table or a jack, you don't.
It's a question of 'the right tool for the job' rather than one of physics.
My take:
Gravity is a force that defies the conservation laws. All the objects with mass have this weird capability to produce "work" to other objects. No matter how far those objects are. That "work" capability is virtually infinite, since no mass is consumed to produce that "work". A physician will say that "potential energy" is used to do that. Without telling what is the primary source of that mistical "potential" energy.
Seems like at the beggining of the Universe, an (almost ?) unlimited quantity of energy was "given" from outside to the Universe in form of gravity. That energy is spend now every time that an object "falls" to another.
Actually mass has no clear definition in physics. It is just the propriety of the matter to "oppose" a force applied to it. Seems clear but it's not...
Now, another part is why some objects are solid and support forces with no work. At atomic scale, that is because the electrons on the last shells of an atom repulse the electrons of another atom and therefore they cannot come closer. Good. But electrons, in order no to "fall" in the nucleus shoud spin fast on some orbits. That is, per our physics lawas, an electric current. That should create "work" when another current (the other atom) moves closer. And that work should be taken from the electrons.
But, that's the WEIRD thing. Electrons cannot occupy any position in the atom, so as long as the energy spent is less than that "energy step" to the lower orbit... electron will rotate happily and can generate infinite ammount of work. That's why the pole can hold the lamp.
Because electrons in the pole atoms (solid matter) can generate infinite ammounts of energy to compensate for the infinite ammount of gravitational energy that mass or the lamp and Earth produce.
Our muscles are not solid mater, there are MADE to move, the arm is build to cancel that atomic repulsion force, by having joints connected with elastic muscles.
If you lay the lamp on the top of a dead man skull, it will hold it forever, since bone is solid matter.
The "orbitals" model of the atom is what is wrong, but none of the physicist will admit it, since is the ONLY way to explain the "match" Universe Gravity versus Solid Matter without intervention of an external Energy/Force/God (external of this Universe). Some people tried to call the source of potential energy (gravitational energy) Big Bang. The problem is just sweept under the rug using a fancy name. It is still about CREATING "something" from "nothing".
Where's my wine 🙂 ?
Gravity is a force that defies the conservation laws. All the objects with mass have this weird capability to produce "work" to other objects. No matter how far those objects are. That "work" capability is virtually infinite, since no mass is consumed to produce that "work". A physician will say that "potential energy" is used to do that. Without telling what is the primary source of that mistical "potential" energy.
Seems like at the beggining of the Universe, an (almost ?) unlimited quantity of energy was "given" from outside to the Universe in form of gravity. That energy is spend now every time that an object "falls" to another.
Actually mass has no clear definition in physics. It is just the propriety of the matter to "oppose" a force applied to it. Seems clear but it's not...
Now, another part is why some objects are solid and support forces with no work. At atomic scale, that is because the electrons on the last shells of an atom repulse the electrons of another atom and therefore they cannot come closer. Good. But electrons, in order no to "fall" in the nucleus shoud spin fast on some orbits. That is, per our physics lawas, an electric current. That should create "work" when another current (the other atom) moves closer. And that work should be taken from the electrons.
But, that's the WEIRD thing. Electrons cannot occupy any position in the atom, so as long as the energy spent is less than that "energy step" to the lower orbit... electron will rotate happily and can generate infinite ammount of work. That's why the pole can hold the lamp.
Because electrons in the pole atoms (solid matter) can generate infinite ammounts of energy to compensate for the infinite ammount of gravitational energy that mass or the lamp and Earth produce.
Our muscles are not solid mater, there are MADE to move, the arm is build to cancel that atomic repulsion force, by having joints connected with elastic muscles.
If you lay the lamp on the top of a dead man skull, it will hold it forever, since bone is solid matter.
The "orbitals" model of the atom is what is wrong, but none of the physicist will admit it, since is the ONLY way to explain the "match" Universe Gravity versus Solid Matter without intervention of an external Energy/Force/God (external of this Universe). Some people tried to call the source of potential energy (gravitational energy) Big Bang. The problem is just sweept under the rug using a fancy name. It is still about CREATING "something" from "nothing".
Where's my wine 🙂 ?
Last edited:
If you are going to take it upon yourself to criticise modern physics you ought to at least take the trouble to understand it first. You talk about orbits and spinning. That is the old Bohr model of the atom which may still be taught to schoolchildren but was dropped by real physicists and chemists many decades ago. An electron at a particular energy level in an atom is not generating infinite amounts of work, it is generating no work at all - that is why it is stable and atoms don't collapse.
Gravity does not violate conservation laws, even "mistical" potential energy. The potential energy of objects subject to a gravitational field was given to them by whatever person/force placed them there. He/it had to do work to put them there or bring them into being, with one exception. Creation ex nihilo is not a problem for God. The time translation symmetry underlying energy conservation could not be true at the beginning, so maybe energy conservation did not start until the seventh day.
Gravity does not violate conservation laws, even "mistical" potential energy. The potential energy of objects subject to a gravitational field was given to them by whatever person/force placed them there. He/it had to do work to put them there or bring them into being, with one exception. Creation ex nihilo is not a problem for God. The time translation symmetry underlying energy conservation could not be true at the beginning, so maybe energy conservation did not start until the seventh day.
@ sonic
.......magnetism - isn' t it a bit similar to gravity?
don't mix newton's laws (macroscopic world) with quantum laws (quantum world,heisenberg's law sets the limit).
greetings
.......magnetism - isn' t it a bit similar to gravity?
don't mix newton's laws (macroscopic world) with quantum laws (quantum world,heisenberg's law sets the limit).
greetings
Well the electrons spinning into orbits are different than an electric current? Not...
And if there are not, why the rules of electromagnetic fields don't apply to them? Why the force created while getting close two atoms (force and distance) is not using any energy/work from inside those atoms?
Why the need of discrete "levels" of energy in the atom space? Except for hiding the fact that conservation of energy fails at atomic level and trasfers all the way to macroscopic level.
And if there are not, why the rules of electromagnetic fields don't apply to them? Why the force created while getting close two atoms (force and distance) is not using any energy/work from inside those atoms?
Why the need of discrete "levels" of energy in the atom space? Except for hiding the fact that conservation of energy fails at atomic level and trasfers all the way to macroscopic level.
They don't spin in orbits. You need to understand some basic high school physics.
Incorrect. Ditto my above comment.
If you're talking about molecular bonding, of course conservation of energy applies. Ditto the above comment.
And the inconvenient matter of a very accurate, consistent, and comprehensive theory that is experimentally tested every time you use your computer, play a CD, make a phone call, drive your car, light your house, watch your TV...
<rant>When I read stuff like this, I'm still astonished at how badly our educational systems have failed. We not only turn out people with no understanding of the basics of science and math, we teach them that their opinion is nevertheless worthwhile and should be expressed. Self-esteem education in the place of actual learning. Can this continue? How can we make science education better?</rant>
<edit> Unless, of course, SRO was being satirical, in which case, Well Done! </edit>
In real science there is always the inconvenience of having to explain experimental results - in this case it is atomic spectra. The old classical physics predicted unstable atoms and continuous spectra. Fortunately for us, atoms are stable (and spectra come in sets of lines) so physics had to be extended. Quantum mechanics raises some puzzling philosophical issues but it is completely successful in explaining atoms, and hence chemistry (and transistors, lasers etc.).
My suspicion is that today's scientists are anxious to finish the physics at higher and sophisticated levels and they no longer looks to its foundations, to the seemingly obvious.
For comparison, I think the physics community as a meeting place for many women who wear from long time all the same beautiful and sensual fragrance. They, accustomed to the fragrance, will not notice that the aroma filled the room.
So there is so much perfume in the room but none of them realizes it.
But let that another man enters the room and he will be able to figure out what perfume is available in that environment.
Similarly, I suspect that the physical escape something very obvious, something that has always been with us, under our eyes, which paradoxically is not noticed, just because being part of us always, no more questions.
Compared to a rigid structure that holds the lamp we have arms and hands that give us an extra degree of freedom, and, of course, as already mentioned a few posts earlier, in a gravitational field they tend to go down (minimum energy). But even a metal structure can clearly be constructed to have the same degree of freedom and even hits arms will go down.
But our luck is that we have a sensitive system and we are thinking beings who have the knowledge of self.
And 'this difference that makes us notice that we are making an effort, (which we are fighting against another force and to do this we need more energy), otherwise if we were made of iron would not have awareness of it.
Do not throw away this opportunity that nature gives us to investigate further.
Sometimes I think the paradox of Olbers and I'm thinking that maybe this could be a Olbers paradox not only for astronomy but for all of physics.
Francesco.
For comparison, I think the physics community as a meeting place for many women who wear from long time all the same beautiful and sensual fragrance. They, accustomed to the fragrance, will not notice that the aroma filled the room.
So there is so much perfume in the room but none of them realizes it.
But let that another man enters the room and he will be able to figure out what perfume is available in that environment.
Similarly, I suspect that the physical escape something very obvious, something that has always been with us, under our eyes, which paradoxically is not noticed, just because being part of us always, no more questions.
Compared to a rigid structure that holds the lamp we have arms and hands that give us an extra degree of freedom, and, of course, as already mentioned a few posts earlier, in a gravitational field they tend to go down (minimum energy). But even a metal structure can clearly be constructed to have the same degree of freedom and even hits arms will go down.
But our luck is that we have a sensitive system and we are thinking beings who have the knowledge of self.
And 'this difference that makes us notice that we are making an effort, (which we are fighting against another force and to do this we need more energy), otherwise if we were made of iron would not have awareness of it.
Do not throw away this opportunity that nature gives us to investigate further.
Sometimes I think the paradox of Olbers and I'm thinking that maybe this could be a Olbers paradox not only for astronomy but for all of physics.
Francesco.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.