Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

[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...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

you can and will have such a force if there is no change in distance

Are you serious? I think that is known. I've already said that there is a force if distance isn't changing. There is a force; no work is done.

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...

Actually, I'm trying to get you people to explain this stuff better to me.

You people previously told me there is no need for an energy source to apply a force to something, but through substitution of two Standard-Model equations, I and the equations say otherwise. So, in conclusion, in order for a force to be applied in a system or to an object, there must be an energy source for that force to take place.

 

[Alkatran]

Let me put this as simply as I possibly can:
FORCE DOES NOT EQUAL ENERGY. Yes, I KNOW you know that, but you're obviusly confused over it.

Consider the magnet-on-fridge argument. What's keeping it there? The force of friction of course! This means that the magnet is transferring the force of gravity into the fridge, which is pushing on the ground. Since the fridge is pushing on the ground the ground is pushing back on the fridge. Next to no movement happens (I'm sure at the sub-atomic level the magnet is doing some kind of compeltely ignorable movement), energy is conserved, net force is 0, and everyone is happy.

But the point is: If net force is 0 in the magnet analogy, no energy will be produced. Since the force of friction is equal and opposite to the force of gravity, net force is 0. Thus energy change is 0.

Oh, by the way, if a magnet can't stay on a fridge without using energy, then all objects would need constant input of energy to stay together.


WAIT! I think I see where you're being confused. You think that energy can only be used once or twice! You're stuck on the idea of a car driving up a fridge, slowly losing gasoling, the fall is coming... But you need to realize that once taken, energy doesn't disappear, it continues to do it's "job" forever.

The reason a car loses gasoline is that it's CONVERTING energy. It's making movement out of atomic bonds.

 

[Nereid]

If you're not interested in science, why are you here?

At least their babbling is interesting. Books and journals written by scientists are insipid. The same thing everytime you read them. First, they give you a jist of what they are explaining (abstract I guess). Then, they go into experimental evidence. Then, you have observations. Finally, you have a linking between observations and experiments. BORING!

urtalkinstupid, I've read many of your posts, both in this thread and others. I have slowly formed the opinion that you are posting to the wrong forum; it seems you have a great disdain for how science is done, and no real interest in either showing that it's an inappropriate approach to learning about the universe (in which case I expect that you'd be a frequent contributor to the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics section), or debating its weaknesses within the framework of science itself.

If my observation is at least partly correct, why do you post to PF at all?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Yes, you are right; I do know that force does not equal energy, but force is related to energy. In order for a force to be applied, there is a needed energy source.

Has my question been answered? No.

This means that the magnet is transferring the force of gravity into the fridge, which is pushing on the ground. Since the fridge is pushing on the ground the ground is pushing back on the fridge.

Since when did you refer to gravity making things push? I think it should be the ground is pulling the fridge, and the fridge is pulling the ground. Yea, doesn't make much sense putting it in the pull form. So, you are saying that magnets are conductors for gravitational fields? One problem I see in this. If gravity is lending this force, it's basically unlimited, because that magnet sits there until a force is pulling it away. This "unlimited" amount of force this gravity is providing in order ot keep the net force 0 requires an energy source of unlimited energy, seeing that force is related to energy. This energy seems as though it is created on the spot as a constant supply to the magnet.

Give me your argument on this so I can improvise mine. I'm not able to make a direct argument based on what you have wrote, yet. So, I'm waiting. I have to go somewhere right now, so if I don't reply, don't think it's because I don't have a plausible answer.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong.

 

[Alkatran]

Yes, you are right; I do know that force does not equal energy, but force is related to energy. In order for a force to be applied, there is a needed energy source.

You don't need a change in energy for a force, because two forces can cancel each other out (so no energy change). Perhaps an energy source, I don't really know, above my level.


Has my question been answered? No.

Since when did you refer to gravity making things push? I think it should be the ground is pulling the fridge, and the fridge is pulling the ground. Yea, doesn't make much sense putting it in the pull form. So, you are saying that magnets are conductors for gravitational fields? One problem I see in this. If gravity is lending this force, it's basically unlimited, because that magnet sits there until a force is pulling it away. This "unlimited" amount of force this gravity is providing in order ot keep the net force 0 requires an energy source of unlimited energy, seeing that force is related to energy. This energy seems as though it is created on the spot as a constant supply to the magnet.

Gravity is pulling the fridge into the ground, so the fridge is pushed/pulled against the ground, and the ground is pushing back. THEY'RE JUST WORDS.

Give me your argument on this so I can improvise mine. I'm not able to make a direct argument based on what you have wrote, yet. So, I'm waiting. I have to go somewhere right now, so if I don't reply, don't think it's because I don't have a plausible answer.

AKA I can't come up with something to argue about.

 

[quantumdude]

Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong.

Yes, but there is no entitlement to waste bandwidth at this (privately owned) website. When I locked that other thread and advised you all that PF is not a chatroom for children, I was specifically thinking of both yourself and beatrix kiddo.

 

[chroot]

This force needs a soucre. That source is energy

Let's do a thought experiment. Say you have two walls facing each other on opposite sides of your room. You put a hook on each wall. You then take a piece of rope and tie the two hooks together. You exert some energy making the rope as taut as you possibly can. You crank it down and tie a strong knot in it. The rope now has tension; it is pulling the two walls together. The walls are strong, however, and don't move. The tension in the rope will be the same tomorrow or in the year 3000 as it is today, as will the forces on the walls. It certainly took energy to tighten the rope in the first place, but it doesn't require any energy to keep it taut.

If you assert that the rope requires energy to stay taut, where does this energy come from? Why does the rope use energy when it's taut, but not when it's just laying on the floor?

If the rope uses an exhaustible source of energy to stay taut, what happens when that energy source runs out? Does the rope somehow untie itself and fall off the hooks? Does it stay the same length but magically just stop pulling on the walls? Does it turn into soup and drip onto the ground?

(according to the Standard-Model equations)... $$F=a\frac{E}{c^2}$$

This equation does not say what you think it says. You think it says that force requires a source of energy, presumably just because F appears on the left and E on the right. This is not sound reasoning. It's like saying that voltage requires a "source of current" because V = IR has voltage on the left and current on the right.

What you're doing is simply expressing a relationship between these quantities. Of course, E/c^2 is just the mass, so your equation is really just F=ma, or Newton's second law of motion. Forces and accelerations are related by mass. Mass and energy are related through c. Thus you can say that "force and energy are related through acceleration and c," but you're not saying anything new or novel. You're certainly not saying forces require sources of energy.

So, go out, pull something, and tell me if you get tired or not. You act the same way as gravity does.

No, you don't. We've already explained to you that the human body is a complex machine, with individual muscle fibers contracting and then relaxing. You already wowed us with your high-school biology curriculum. We've already been over this. If your muscle fibers could contract and then simply stay locked in that position, you'd never get tired. They don't do that, though.

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?

You can keep saying it, but it's still wrong.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong.

And indeed they are (I don't think I said otherwise, did I?).

Since you did not answer my question, let me try to ask it in another way (perhaps you didn't understand my question):

PF is a forum for the discussion of physics, and other sciences. One of the cornerstones of science today is, in simple terms, the scientific method (please let me know if you are unfamiliar with what this is).

Since PF is about science, I personally expect that everyone who posts to the science threads in PF - and that includes Theory Development - has at least the intention of respecting the scientific method.

If a person has issues with the scientific method, then PF has a section where folk may discuss and debate that very topic.

When I read your posts, you appear (to me) to disparage the scientific method, and to consider it unworthy of your time to learn about it (which may explain why you don't appear to be interested to discuss the nature of science, in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics section for example). A good example of what I mean is your apparent unwillingness to accept or consider scientific method-based questions and critiques of your own ideas.

To ask again: why are you here?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Perhaps an energy source, I don't really know, above my level.

That's what I'm trying to say.

This equation does not say what you think it says. You think it says that force requires a source of energy, presumably just because F appears on the left and E on the right. This is not sound reasoning. It's like saying that voltage requires a "source of current" because V = IR has voltage on the left and current on the right.

What you're doing is simply expressing a relationship between these quantities. Of course, E/c^2 is just the mass, so your equation is really just F=ma, or Newton's second law of motion. Forces and accelerations are related by mass. Mass and energy are related through c. Thus you can say that "force and energy are related through acceleration and c," but you're not saying anything new or novel. You're certainly not saying forces require sources of energy.

That equation relates energy and mass to force. There are two types of forces: those that arise from mass and those that arise from energy. Energy forces are the kinds that work at a distance. I.E. Earth-Moon system, because that is a lot of force (energy) to keep moon in orbit. The space in between them is said to be the force of attraction. This has to be energy, there is no mass to constitute the force in between them. Ok, so it does not require an energy source, but an energy source would better explain how the attraction works. New or novel, nice job on being redundant. It takes energy to push or pull for anything. This energy is directed through a force. Mass is just a compact form of energy; I'm sure you all know that.

Ok, new analogy.

You weigh a certain amount of Newtons. Gravity pulls on you that exact force, thus cancelling it, right? You go up to a box. The box weighs 20N and, you push with 20N. The forces cancel out, thus making you unable to push the box. Now, you pull on the box with 30N. Not only are you moving the box, but you are also doing work. You are the only thing that is losing energy, not the box. How can the box not lose energy? You go and wrestle with a friend. You both pull each other with 20N of force; you two don't move. One pulls the other with 30N while the other with 20. You both get tired in this situation. It requires an energy for BOTH sources to keep on doing it. Yes, the human body is copmlicated, but the overall outcome is that your body takes a mass and converts it to energy to be used as the force applier. Everything needs some type of source, whether it be mass or energy, to apply a continuous source. If they apply a continuous force forever, this requires an unlimited source.

chroot, AP is college-level classes. So, get it right.

 

[chroot]

urtalkinstupid,

I asked you some specific questions. So did Nereid. Why are you not answering them?

There are two types of forces: those that arise from mass and those that arise from energy.

And once again, this is nothing but abject speculation.

Ok, so it does not require an energy source

And thus falls this new theory of yours, just like the last one.

- Warren

 

[Doc Al]

You weigh a certain amount of Newtons.

So far, so good.

Gravity pulls on you that exact force, thus cancelling it, right?

Huh? The pull of gravity is your weight. Are you saying gravity cancels itself?

You go up to a box. The box weighs 20N and, you push with 20N.

I assume you mean lift with 20N?

The forces cancel out, thus making you unable to push the box.

It would require a slight bit of extra force to accelerate the box from rest.

Now, you pull on the box with 30N. Not only are you moving the box, but you are also doing work.

I assume you mean that you exert an upward force of 30N on the box. It will accelerate. And yes you are doing work on the box.

You are the only thing that is losing energy, not the box.

You are converting chemical energy into heat and mechanical energy, some of which you are transfering to the box.

How can the box not lose energy?

Huh? The box gains energy.

You go and wrestle with a friend. You both pull each other with 20N of force; you two don't move.

I hope you realize that you always exert the same force on each other (assuming an ideal rope): that's Newton's 3rd law.
Whether you accelerate or not depends on the net force on you. The rope pulling on you is just one force. The ground also exerts a force on you.

One pulls the other with 30N while the other with 20.

LOL... can't happen.

You both get tired in this situation. It requires an energy for BOTH sources to keep on doing it. Yes, the human body is copmlicated, but the overall outcome is that your body takes a mass and converts it to energy to be used as the force applier.

The reason why it takes energy for you to exert a force is not because "forces require energy", but because exerting a force involves your muscles in continual movement, contracting and relaxing. You are a biological system, not an inanimate object.

Everything needs some type of source, whether it be mass or energy, to apply a continuous source. If they apply a continuous force forever, this requires an unlimited source.

Nonsense.

chroot, AP is college-level classes. So, get it right.

I trust you're not taking AP physics!

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Sorry, I didn't see your questions chroot.

If you assert that the rope requires energy to stay taut, where does this energy come from? Why does the rope use energy when it's taut, but not when it's just laying on the floor?

Ok, so [itex]F=ma[/tex], and we all know mass is related to energy. Mass is a compact form of energy, thus giving energy the greater quantity. It takes an emmence amount of energy to compose mass, it takes much more energy to make a suitable force between two objects. (or in this case three). Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with? A loosely fit rope between two walls. It is no longer taut. No longer is energy acting through force on the objects. This energy arises between the forces that are applied. It's source?...I don't know. It's not my case to state that. That's simply my question that I'm asking you people. The rope uses energy when it is on the floor. It is held down by gravity, this is a force, and it is in the form of energy.

If the rope uses an exhaustible source of energy to stay taut, what happens when that energy source runs out? Does the rope somehow untie itself and fall off the hooks? Does it stay the same length but magically just stop pulling on the walls? Does it turn into soup and drip onto the ground?

I stated above, "Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with?" You take away forces, and the energy that keeps the rope taut is gone. It doesn't untie itself, it simply gets loose, allowing the walls to move in or accelerate in one directionas a system of the two walls and rope. Wall and rope soup...Sounds like the soup of the day.

And indeed they are (I don't think I said otherwise, did I?).

No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.

To ask again: why are you here?

I'm here for the heck of it. I like this site, though I'm liked by very few...none. You people have actually inspired me to make a website based on the Standard odel. Isn't that exciting. A site made by me with no absurd theories! Perhaps, I will understand the Standard Model more?? Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Huh? The pull of gravity is your weight. Are you saying gravity cancels itself?

Sorry, poorly worded. What I meant was gravity is what holds you down to the Earth's surface. Not what I said. Told you guys I'm bad at wording, heh.

I assume you mean lift with 20N?

No, I actually meant what I said, this time. Lift makes a better scenario though. Doc Al, you are cool unlike others.

It would require a slight bit of extra force to accelerate the box from rest.

I'm aware of that; I added that in there for clarity. As you noted in the progression of this scenario.

Huh? The box gains energy

You said it yourself:

You are converting chemical energy into heat and mechanical energy, some of which you are transfering to the box.

LOL... can't happen.

It can. If one is more powerful than the other, one pulls with more force. Just like lifting a box. If you lift with more force than the box has, you overcome its force.

Heh, I'm taking AP Physics B.

Doc Al, at least you aren't mean like the others.

 

[chroot]

The rope uses energy when it is on the floor. It is held down by gravity, this is a force, and it is in the form of energy.

Then you're saying the rope uses energy in being acted upon gravitationally, and it also uses energy in being held taut. This means that the taut rope is actually using more energy than the rope on the ground, since the taut rope is having to expend energy both in having weight and in being taut. If the rope is using more energy, shouldn't it run out of that energy more quickly? If so, you have a clear experiment that can be done to test your theory.

It doesn't untie itself, it simply gets loose

The tension in the rope is maintained via intermolecular bonds. The atoms in the rope are bound together chemically. If this rope is to just suddenly run out of energy, give up and go limp, it must actually break chemical bonds to do so. This means that the rope, after giving up, will be fundamentally different from the original rope. Since it ran out of energy, you should now be able to do all sorts of paradoxical things with it. For example, tie that piece of rope between two tractors and have them pull against it. If the rope is no longer capable of supporting tension (it ran out of energy to do so) then it will simply stretch and stretch forever -- it can't exert any more forces, but it can't untie itself from the tractors either. It must just keep getting longer. This is the "rope soup" I was getting at.

Now, people have been using ropes and building materials for a very long time. The Earth itself has been around for almost 5 billion years, and its crust still seems to have the energy required to exert a force on me to keep me from falling through it. If this phenomenon (materials running out of energy to exert forces) really happens, why have we never seen it anywhere in the entire universe?

Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?

We do not welcome such people here.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.

There you go again, making unwarranted assumptions

I'm here for the heck of it. I like this site, though I'm liked by very few...none. You people have actually inspired me to make a website based on the Standard odel. Isn't that exciting. A site made by me with no absurd theories! Perhaps, I will understand the Standard Model more?? Maybe, I'm here to play as the devil's advocate. Just to spur up debates. Who knows?

Thank you for your answer.

Do you consider PF to be a site where physics (and other sciences) is discussed, as science?

Do you recognise that discussion of physics, as a science, should be conducted on its own terms? In case this isn't clear, let me give you an analogy: if we are having a discussion on apple pie in the context of cooking, recipes and so forth, I personally would not consider it appropriate to talk about sexual fantasies concerning apple pies in that discussion, or whether the Sun is powered by a giant apple pie.

urtalkinstudid, just so that you don't make any further unwarranted assumptions, let me be clear as to my intention: I think the evidence is overwhelming that you are a troll, and so feel that you should be immediately banned from PF. However, I first want to make sure that you really do understand what PF is and what it's trying to do.

(for the avoidance of doubt, I personally have no power to ban anyone)

 

[Doc Al]

It can. If one is more powerful than the other, one pulls with more force. Just like lifting a box. If you lift with more force than the box has, you overcome its force.

Two very different situations:
(1) Two guys yanking on a rope: the force they exert is always the same. Or: You and superman are arm-wrestling: I don't care how strong he is, whatever force he exerts on you will exactly equal the force that you exert on him. Note that these forces are on different objects, so they don't "cancel". This is Newton's 3rd law: learn it.

(2) Lifting a box. The acceleration of the box depends on the total force on the box. You lift with 30N, gravity pulls with 20N, so the box accelerates. This is Newton's 2nd law: learn it.

Heh, I'm taking AP Physics B.

Then you'd better learn about Newton's laws before that class starts!

Doc Al, at least you aren't mean like the others.

Give it time.

 

[Alkatran]

Ok, so [itex]F=ma[/tex], and we all know mass is related to energy. Mass is a compact form of energy, thus giving energy the greater quantity. It takes an emmence amount of energy to compose mass, it takes much more energy to make a suitable force between two objects.

It doesn't take energy to make a force, we've already told you this. A force isn't energy either, unless it's over a distance. It's like using a charge to make a distance, makes no sense.

Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with? A loosely fit rope between two walls. It is no longer taut. No longer is energy acting through force on the objects. This energy arises between the forces that are applied. It's source?...I don't know. It's not my case to state that. That's simply my question that I'm asking you people. The rope uses energy when it is on the floor. It is held down by gravity, this is a force, and it is in the form of energy.

Same argument as above. Your posts are so full of BS it's scary.

I stated above, "Take away gravity and frictional forces, what are you left with?" You take away forces, and the energy that keeps the rope taut is gone. It doesn't untie itself, it simply gets loose, allowing the walls to move in or accelerate in one directionas a system of the two walls and rope. Wall and rope soup...Sounds like the soup of the day.

Stop trying to argue by being clever (soup of the day), it won't work here and should only be done when you're actually making a valid point. I refer you to Chroot's post about the rope stretching forever.

No, but I implied that you took it into assumption that your opinion was right. Otherwise you wouldn't question my presence on this forum.

If you have an opinion you MUST think it's right. That's what an opinion is.


I'm more for the ban every post.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

this is so ridiculous..
if anyone should be banned, its people who aren't questioning the current model. stupid is just pointing out what he thinks provides evidence for his case. just because u don't agree with it doesn't mean u have the right to ban him. this is TD and criticism is welcome, but to the point where someone gets banned, especially if they aren't saying anything vulgar, is crossing the line. are u afraid this is going to be another neutrino debate, soon? i was actually hoping for it, with the exclusion of another whack ultimatum...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

It doesn't take energy to make a force

but mass is energy and it takes mass to make force...

Your posts are so full of BS it's scary.

well help to eliminate the bull-**** and answer the question...

If you have an opinion you MUST think it's right.

duh.. but doesn't mean it is right...

 

[chroot]

beatrix,

The general consensus is that both you and urtalkinstupid are trolls. This means we don't feel that you guys actually believe the things you say. It also means that you're not here to learn (and you're obviously not capable of teaching anyone). We feel that you're just here to provoke people. We feel that you guys go home after school and laugh at all the crap you stir up here by making up and posting some garbage physics that you know is garbage. You would be thrown out of a classroom for doing such things, because you'd be wasting everyone's time. The good people of this forum are generally here because they like to learn, like to teach, or both. This forum does not intend to support trolls.

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

lord of the rings?
i never laugh at this crap.. I'm really being serious! why would we do that? it's certainly NOT to make fun of anyone... and i have only been thrown out of a classroom twice or 5 times.. last year.. so i think it's safe to say that i am not trying to waste anyone's precious time.

 

[chroot]

Your actions speak louder than your words, beatrix.

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

i was being sarcastic warren.. maybe i shouldn't because i guess it's not just stupid on the verge of being banned...

 

[Entropy]

Here is a good example of how a force doesn't require energy: electron orbits a nucleus.

Heh, I'm taking AP Physics B.

Didn't beatrix say that your physics teacher illegally spanks you? I question how good the teacher really is.

this is so ridiculous..
if anyone should be banned, its people who aren't questioning the current model.

Nobody like that on these forums. We question the standard model all the time. Except we actually provide logical and informed reasons for doing so.

just because u don't agree with it doesn't mean u have the right to ban him.

He has the right to ban whoever he wants for whatever he wants. These are private forums!

this is TD and criticism is welcome, but to the point where someone gets banned, especially if they aren't saying anything vulgar, is crossing the line.

Excuse me? Not only do you have a very disrespectful tone but you also have said many vulgar, off-topic and ignorant comments in some of your posts. I can go and find lots of examples if you don't believe me. The fact alone that you are calling the admins considerations and the way inwhich they run the forum "ridiculous" is disrespectful and unwise. Commenting/suggesting on how the forum should be run isn't wrong, but blantly insulting the way the admins are doing their job is.

Just look at stupid's name "urtalkingstupid". Its obvious he made it that way to piss people off. Its like you want everyone to know that "if you disagree with me you're stupid!" without you even reading the details of their arguement.

are u afraid this is going to be another neutrino debate, soon? i was actually hoping for it, with the exclusion of another whack ultimatum...

Debate? Felt more like an endless circle of us giving you facts and you responding with verbal attacks and lame puns followed with misinformed garbage.