Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

[beatrix kiddo]

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

i meant generally!

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.

everyone here hates me.. why don't u give us some of ur "logical" questions about the current model, so i know what to do...

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.

hahaha.. it's just a name...

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.

i may comment sometimes on the admins.. but i can find places where they personally attack me.. i can also go back and look where U have personally attacked me..

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.

nah... it was a debate..

 

[Entropy]

everyone here hates me.. why don't u give us some of ur "logical" questions about the current model, so i know what to do...

I don't hate you or stupid.

everyone here hates me.. why don't u give us some of ur "logical" questions about the current model, so i know what to do...

I question if the universe is expanding as fast or if it is at all expanding. I think that the apparent red-shift that other galaxies show may not be from doppler-shifts at all, but possibly the result of gravitational red-shift caused by a galaxies mass. I posted a topic on this in the astronomy Forum: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32590

i may comment sometimes on the admins.. but i can find places where they personally attack me.. i can also go back and look where U have personally attacked me..

Go and find those comments and let's see what you think attacks are. I'm sure if we did say anything "smart" or disrespectful it was a responce to you attacking us.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

I don't hate you or stupid.

u just really despise us...

question if the universe is expanding as fast or if it is at all expanding. I think that the apparent red-shift that other galaxies show may not be from doppler-shifts at all, but possibly the result of gravitational red-shift caused by a galaxies mass. I posted a topic on this in the astronomy Forum:

good! now, go a step further and question the really big stuff like gravity...

Go and find those comments and let's see what you think attacks are.

i will.. later.. right now I'm too lazy.

I'm sure if we did say anything "smart" or disrespectful it was a responce to you attacking us.

sometimes yes and sometimes no.

 

[Entropy]

good! now, go a step further and question the really big stuff like gravity...

I would if I had a logical reason to do so, until then I assume the current model to be true.

 

[JoeWade]

your energy equation derivative : $$F=ma~~~m=\frac{F}{a}~~~E=mc^2~~~E=\frac{F}{a}c^2~~ ~F=a\frac{E}{c^2}~~~W=a\frac{E}{c^2}dcos\theta$$ is a direct proportion to motion at the speed of light.

so once again, no distance is being covered in relation of the two objects exerting the force, so there's no SPEED factor.

what percentage of the speed of light is Zero Speed? Nothing. hence. no energy.

this has gone as far as it's going to go, Lock it down. thanks, to all the participants.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Ok, I'm sure you guys have been waiting to hear this. You're right. Are you people happy? Are your egos satisfied? Though I say this with the least of sincerity.

Just because I propose an opposition to what is currently accepted, I am assumed to contain little knowledge of a whole subject. I know that isn't true. I have no problem with anyone here, but I'm sure a lot of you have a problem with me. So, chroot, if you can tell me how I can take my account off this forum MYSELF, I'll be glad to relieve you of doing the honor. This forum is obviously not a place to discuss ideas. You people have made that apprehensible. I did not sign up for this forum to harm others. I did not sign up for this forum to make a mockery of anyone, but you people seem to think otherwise.

Your cryptic judgements and inability to seek further than what you have been taught has lead me to the conclusion that you are just a bunch of mindless dummies being controlled by a ventriloquist (Standard Model). When the ventriloquist is provoked you are ordered to defend it, in fear of the Standard Model being replaced by something that provides a better model of what is really happening. Just because my ideas do not tie in the current model, does not mean they are blemished. Maybe the ideas I propose have no connection what so ever to the current model. Whatever be the reason for you judging it so crudely, I don't know. A lot of times when someone propose a new idea in a situtation, it has nothing to do with previous proposals.

If you people want me to delete my account, I'll feel free to rid myself of this abhorrent site they associate with physics. chroot, if I am unable to do it, would you delete my account for me, if you really want to?

When scientist are baffled to the point where current science will never be able to explain anything, be sure to notice what type of new ideas arise to explain what underlies everything. So, this has been my valediction, unless you people can tolerate me. If not, later. I'll continue to pursue my ideas.

Janna, have fun if you continue to be a memeber. Amman told me that these people are not worth arguing over. He's seen their arguements, and is at dismay. I know you can't resist what amman thinks.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

JoeWade, whatever you think. I could care less what you think anymore. You probably have as much care for me as I have for you. Yea, i actually noticed that speed of light contradiction. KE is a more suitable way of substitution. Force can still be related to energy.

 

[JoeWade]

Force can still be related to energy

yes and the relationship is ZERO at Zero Velocity.

Truly, learn physics 1 before trying online crank sites and seeing if they "fit" your immature world-view.

i say immature because you're so young and have so much to learn, yet incessantly insist you know it all better than people who study their whole lives and work IN THE FIELD.

grow up, when you do I'm certain your welcome here will be warmer, and you'll have much better ideas to discuss. Good Luck to you (and i mean that with sincerity)

-Joe

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Something has force at 0 velocity.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Something has force at 0 velocity.

"has" force?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

The affect of gravity on mass is a force at zero velocity. Gravity makes this force dependent on the objects mass. Yes, the object does not have energy at rest, but gravity has a force on the rest object. Energy is in there, due to the velocity of gravity.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I guess it can be better said that as a system, gravity and mass constitute to a force. They both are accelerating. Gravity accelerates a mass towards Earth at a constant acceleration of $9.8m/s^2$. Relative to the force of gravity, the mass is moving. If a mass weren't increasing in velocity at all time, we would not be pulled down to the Earth constantly.

 

[Math Is Hard]

The affect of gravity on mass is a force at zero velocity. Gravity makes this force dependent on the objects mass. Yes, the object does not have energy at rest, but gravity has a force on the rest object. Energy is in there, due to the velocity of gravity.

Isn't that potential energy?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

No, displacement is 0. You are on the ground.

Doesn't $PE=mg\Delta y$?

 

[Math Is Hard]

ok, so you're saying the mass (at rest) is applying a downward force on the ground and the Earth is pushing back with an upward force... I think?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

No, I'm saying a mass at rest is being pulled by gravity. This leads it to constantly accelerate to the ground, even though this acceleration isn't noticeable and is known as weight. With this constant acceleration, there is a velocity within, although this isn't noticeable either until there is a noticeable displacement.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I'm saying a mass at rest is being pulled by gravity. This leads it to constantly accelerate to the ground, even though this acceleration isn't noticeable and is known as weight. With this constant acceleration, there is a velocity within, although this isn't noticeable either until there is a noticeable displacement.

So there is a velocity, but it isn't "noticeable" - I guess you're also saying that there is an energy, but it isn't "noticeable?" Uh huh... Do you honestly wonder why we think you guys are trolls?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Ok, "noticeable" was not a good term to describe it. Scientists look for the force, rather than what actually composes this source. If they do not seek this energy, of course is is going to go unoticeable. russ_watters, I'm not even looking for trouble. See, you people go and say stuff when not provoked. You people have problems keeping your thoughts that are not related to physics to yourselves.

 

[Entropy]

Let me repeat my example: an electron orbiting a nucleus.

The electron is being accelerated by the positively charged nucleus and doesn't fall into the nucleus unless acted upon by an outside force. The electron stays in the same potential energy level forever (unless acted on), therefore its not emitting any energy.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Ok, "noticeable" was not a good term to describe it. Scientists look for the force, rather than what actually composes this source.

But I think scientists do look at this (before noticable displacement occurs) and they call it potential.
(I am thinking of the classic "bowling ball perched on the edge of a cliff*" example.)

* note: I am in the equivalent of "physics kindergarten".

 

[urtalkinstupid]

The bowling ball on the edge of the cliff does not have PE. When it is copmletely off the cliff in the air, it has PE. It then has a distance between it and another object.

The electron is not static, it is dynamic. It's position from the nucleus varies. The orbital is not a definite distanct from the nucleus. It is the probability area of finding an electron in the vicinity. The electron is not able to go outside of the orbital unless acted upon by an outside source, but the electron is liable ti "fall" into the nucleus when it is receeding from an outside distant. The electron's mass and charge is spread throughout the orbital.

 

[Nereid]

Ok, I'm sure you guys have been waiting to hear this. You're right. Are you people happy? Are your egos satisfied? Though I say this with the least of sincerity.

Just because I propose an opposition to what is currently accepted, I am assumed to contain little knowledge of a whole subject. I know that isn't true. I have no problem with anyone here, but I'm sure a lot of you have a problem with me. So, chroot, if you can tell me how I can take my account off this forum MYSELF, I'll be glad to relieve you of doing the honor. This forum is obviously not a place to discuss ideas. You people have made that apprehensible. I did not sign up for this forum to harm others. I did not sign up for this forum to make a mockery of anyone, but you people seem to think otherwise.

Your cryptic judgements and inability to seek further than what you have been taught has lead me to the conclusion that you are just a bunch of mindless dummies being controlled by a ventriloquist (Standard Model). When the ventriloquist is provoked you are ordered to defend it, in fear of the Standard Model being replaced by something that provides a better model of what is really happening. Just because my ideas do not tie in the current model, does not mean they are blemished. Maybe the ideas I propose have no connection what so ever to the current model. Whatever be the reason for you judging it so crudely, I don't know. A lot of times when someone propose a new idea in a situtation, it has nothing to do with previous proposals.

If you people want me to delete my account, I'll feel free to rid myself of this abhorrent site they associate with physics. chroot, if I am unable to do it, would you delete my account for me, if you really want to?

When scientist are baffled to the point where current science will never be able to explain anything, be sure to notice what type of new ideas arise to explain what underlies everything. So, this has been my valediction, unless you people can tolerate me. If not, later. I'll continue to pursue my ideas.

Janna, have fun if you continue to be a memeber. Amman told me that these people are not worth arguing over. He's seen their arguements, and is at dismay. I know you can't resist what amman thinks.

If you're leaving, I wish you well as you travel on your onward journey.

If you're not, would you please answer my earlier questions?

In case you've forgotten them, here they are again:

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

2) Do you recognise that discussion of physics, as a science, should be conducted on its own terms?

 

[quantumdude]

The bowling ball on the edge of the cliff does not have PE. When it is copmletely off the cliff in the air, it has PE. It then has a distance between it and another object.

That is wrong. The bowling ball has a PE on the edge of the cliff precisely because it does have a distance between itself and another object. That object is the ground.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Tom Mattson, what kind of cliff are we talking about? Cliff come in all varieties.

Nereid, why don't you answer my questions first?

1) Why are you so nosey?
2) Why are you so nosey?

 

[chroot]

Nereid, why don't you answer my questions first?

1) Why are you so nosey?
2) Why are you so nosey?

Nereid is a member of our staff. She has every right to ask you questions about your purpose here.

- Warren

 

[Entropy]

The electron is not static, it is dynamic. It's position from the nucleus varies. The orbital is not a definite distanct from the nucleus. It is the probability area of finding an electron in the vicinity. The electron is not able to go outside of the orbital unless acted upon by an outside source, but the electron is liable ti "fall" into the nucleus when it is receeding from an outside distant. The electron's mass and charge is spread throughout the orbital.

It doesn't matter! The fact that it stays in a specific area while orbiting is my point. If it was spending energy to keep it's orbit then the electron would lose mass very quickly and eventually disapear. But since this obviously doesn't happen, it must be possible to exert a force without needing a constant supply of energy.

 

[Nereid]

Tom Mattson, what kind of cliff are we talking about? Cliff come in all varieties.

Nereid, why don't you answer my questions first?

1) Why are you so nosey?
2) Why are you so nosey?

I'm afraid I don't understand your questions. Perhaps that's because you have not read or understood my earlier posts. An alternative explanation is that you are a troll.

To repeat what I said earlier: "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?"

and

"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?"

and

"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)"

To my first asking, you replied: "Nereid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether it be right or wrong."

To my second post, you replied: "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.

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?"

And to my last, "Ok, I'm sure you guys have been waiting to hear this. You're right. Are you people happy? Are your egos satisfied? Though I say this with the least of sincerity.

Just because I propose an opposition to what is currently accepted, I am assumed to contain little knowledge of a whole subject. I know that isn't true. I have no problem with anyone here, but I'm sure a lot of you have a problem with me. So, chroot, if you can tell me how I can take my account off this forum MYSELF, I'll be glad to relieve you of doing the honor. This forum is obviously not a place to discuss ideas. You people have made that apprehensible. I did not sign up for this forum to harm others. I did not sign up for this forum to make a mockery of anyone, but you people seem to think otherwise.

Your cryptic judgements and inability to seek further than what you have been taught has lead me to the conclusion that you are just a bunch of mindless dummies being controlled by a ventriloquist (Standard Model). When the ventriloquist is provoked you are ordered to defend it, in fear of the Standard Model being replaced by something that provides a better model of what is really happening. Just because my ideas do not tie in the current model, does not mean they are blemished. Maybe the ideas I propose have no connection what so ever to the current model. Whatever be the reason for you judging it so crudely, I don't know. A lot of times when someone propose a new idea in a situtation, it has nothing to do with previous proposals.

If you people want me to delete my account, I'll feel free to rid myself of this abhorrent site they associate with physics. chroot, if I am unable to do it, would you delete my account for me, if you really want to?

When scientist are baffled to the point where current science will never be able to explain anything, be sure to notice what type of new ideas arise to explain what underlies everything. So, this has been my valediction, unless you people can tolerate me. If not, later. I'll continue to pursue my ideas.

Janna, have fun if you continue to be a memeber. Amman told me that these people are not worth arguing over. He's seen their arguements, and is at dismay. I know you can't resist what amman thinks."

To me, this reply is, at best a clumsy attempt to avoid fessing up to your reasons for being here; at worst what I imagine is a section from a tome that might be called "Trolling, a Practical Guide to Implementation" Some might give your plea of innocence and persecution the benefit of the doubt; to me, the clear intelligence that you've shown in many posts is a sign of deliberate disingenuousness. And if anyone were in any doubt, your reply (quoted at the top of this post) must surely have been very revealing; the phrase 'adding insult to injury' comes to mind.

Note to Moderators: I feel urtalkinstupid has been given ample opportunity to post here in a manner consistent with what PF is all about, but has instead continued to behave like a troll. I would be glad to see him banned.

 

[quantumdude]

Tom Mattson, what kind of cliff are we talking about? Cliff come in all varieties.

It doesn't matter what kind of cliff it is.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

If that be the case, then the Earth is a huge spherical cliff. Since gravitational attraction relies on the distance away from the core.

 

[Alkatran]

If that be the case, then the Earth is a huge spherical cliff. Since gravitational attraction relies on the distance away from the core.

That's exactly right.


Consider this, your potential gravity from Mars is MASSIVE. If you were to fall there (no other interaction, like the sun or earth) you would be moving pretty fast when you reached the planet. Depending on your "center" you have different potential energies. Really all you're calculating is the DIFFERENCE in potential energy. The potential energy on the ground is lower than that on a cliff.

 

[quantumdude]

If that be the case, then the Earth is a huge spherical cliff. Since gravitational attraction relies on the distance away from the core.

Right. And if you're on a cliff, you're farther away from the core than you are standing on the ground. Hence, your GPE is higher on the cliff. Simple.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

What I meant by my statement was that the bowling ball could be on the surface of the earth. It is said to have no PE there, but it really does. That's why I asked you to clarify what type of cliff you were talking about. The measure of potential is displacement from the Earth's surface, and if Earth is a huge cliff docked away from the center of gravity, the surface is 0 displacement ont he y-axis of space.

 

[quantumdude]

What I meant by my statement was that the bowling ball could be on the surface of the earth. It is said to have no PE there, but it really does.

The bowling ball is said to have no GPE at the surface of the Earth, when the datum is set at the surface of the Earth. Set it at r=infinity (as is often done in central force problems), and the GPE of the same bowling ball in the same location is nonzero. The value of GPE is physically meangless, and you can set the datum wherever you like. It's the gradient of the GPE function that is physically meaningful, because that is what is related to the force exerted on the object via the gravitational field.

That's why I asked you to clarify what type of cliff you were talking about.

And the type of cliff is still irrelevant. Given a mass distribution and a datum, GPE is a function of position.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Well, that all ties in with how much the bowling ball weighs and it's displacement from the SURFACE. So, the type of cliff is needed. According to the real definition of PE would give the bowling ball PE at the surface (this was already stated). Let's get into science intensley and take everything literally. Take the extra precautions as well.

 

[quantumdude]

Well, that all ties in with how much the bowling ball weighs and it's displacement from the SURFACE. So, the type of cliff is needed.

No. GPE is a function of position, not the type of cliff.

According to the real definition of PE would give the bowling ball PE at the surface (this was already stated).

According to the real definition of PE, you would have to specify the datum before saying what the GPE of the bowling ball is.