Re: My definition of force!!!

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/07/05 

Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:22:59 -0500

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1110182209.260085.192780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > No, PD,
> > > > I believe like DonJuan that "The exertion of any force requires
> the
> > > > expenditure of energy!" Now, let me see if I read you right:
> You
> > > > believe that the force of gravity does not expend energy,
right?
> > > It's
> > > > a force, but unlike the other forces, it expends no energy in
its
> > > > application, right? It just does what it does without the use
of
> > any
> > > > energy, right?
> > >
> > > No, not what I said. If the force of gravity acts on an object
over
> a
> > > displacement, where that displacement is in the direction of the
> > force,
> > > THEN there is energy expended.
> > >
> > >
> > Ok, so that means you believe gravity acts over a displacement, but
> > when there is none, i.e., no amount of movement in a particular
> > direction, gravity is not present or not working at that particular
> > time and no energy is being expended by the gravitational force
then?
>
> No, I did not say that, either. When there is no displacement, the
> force can very well be present and acting in full force, but there is
> no energy expended. It is only you who are wedded to the idea that
zero
> energy expended means zero force.
>
>
It is not only me, but most scientists agree with me, as shown below.

"Usually, several forces act on an object at once. If multiple forces
combine to give a net force that is zero, then the object will not
accelerate; the object will either remain motionless or continue moving
at a constant velocity. For example, if a person pushes a shopping cart
with a force equal in magnitude to the force of friction that opposes
the cart's motion, the forces will cancel, giving a net force of zero.
As a result, the cart will move down the aisle with a constant
velocity. If the person suddenly stops pushing the cart, the only force
acting on the cart is the frictional force. Since the net force is no
longer zero, the cart accelerates: its velocity drops to zero."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Note that the net force is non-zero whenever any force is acting on the
cart, and so that means that zero energy expended means zero force.
The net force left on the cart is the frictional force which is caused
by the gravitational force pulling the wheels to the ground.
> > >
> > >
> > > Look up the work-energy theorem.
> > >
> > > If the force of gravity is acting on an object, but there is NO
> > > displacement in the direction of the force of gravity, then there
> > will
> > > be NO energy expended by that force.
> > >
>
I show above where that is patently false.
>
>
> > I have already disposed of your coffee cup and cable examples, so I
> > will deal with your orbiting moon philosophy.
>
> You have not disposed of the coffee cup and cable examples. Both are
> cases where there is a force present and no energy expended. In the
> sign-on-a-cable example, you actually declare that the sign should
heat
> up due to the energy expended by gravity -- which is something that
is
> easily experimentally testable, and in fact common experience (that
is,
> everyday experiments) rule out.
>
>
No, I have said no such thing.
>
> >
> > Were you not taught in hs that the moon is caught in the pull of
the
> > Earth's gravitational field and that is what keeps it in orbit, but
> if
> > suddenly there were no attractive force then the moon would just
keep
> > on going into space away from Earth?
>
> I did not say that the force was zero. I said that the force was
> present but the energy expended was zero, because there is no
> displacement in the direction of the force. It is only you who is
> wedded to the mistaken idea that if the energy expended is zero, the
> force must be zero.
>
>
Again, see above where I point out your error.
> > >
> > >
> > > > You believe there is no attraction to gravitation and bodies
just
> > > > "look" to all observers like they're being pulled toward each
> other
> > > > because they simply follow the curved space produced by massive
> > > > objects, right?
> > >
> > > The force of gravity can be shown to be completely equivalent to
> this
> > > in most cases. Except that there are some notable cases where the
> > > curved space theory predicts behavior that the force theory does
> not.
> > > That behavior can be, and has been, tested. Son of a gun. The
> > behavior
> > > predicted by the curved space theory is seen. Therefore there
must
> be
> > > something wrong with the force theory of gravity, because it did
> not
> > > predict what the curved space theory did correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > So classical physics has something wrong with it because while in
> most
> > cases it jibes with GR, in one case it does not,
>
> Not one case, several cases. I just listed one.
>
> >even though in that
> > one case it is not a case of conflict or contradiction, but simply
a
> > case of not being able to follow a trail in a time when science was
> not
> > that far enough advanced.
>
> Sorry, even now, with sophisticated computers and the best our
> technology can apply, Newtonian gravity STILL does not predict some
> things correctly where general relativity does.
>
> > Einstein, OTOH, fudged his research and
> > fooled many people for a long time into thinking he could do no
> wrong,
> > but of course that's no reason to think that his ideas could be
wrong
> > again, is there?
>
> Of course his ideas could be wrong, especially if an experimental
> result is in disagreement with his theory's predictions.
>
> > >
Yes, as they were at least once before.
>
> > >
SNIP
>
> > > I don't know why you think it's simpler. Conceptually, general
> > > relativity is *very* simple. What's complicated about general
> > > relativity's explanation?
> > >
> > >
> > I just feel that if you cannot understand it, it cannot be as
simple
> as
> > you claim it to be.
>
> And what don't you understand? As I said, it's very simple. MUCH
> simpler than Newtonian gravity.
>
> > >
Oh, I was referring to you, not to me.
>
> > >
> > > > explanation than curved space and with no
> > > > conflict to Newton's gravity.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether your theory conflicts with Newton's gravity.
> I'm
> > > stuck on the fact that it conflicts with the work-energy theorem
> and
> > > the conservation of energy.
> > >
> > >
> > No, it does not. It conflicts with AE's ideas where people think
his
> > s-t continuum is supposed to be a real place with curved space in
it.
> > He fudged in that too by not saying specifically he referred to our
> 4d
> > universe. Unfortunately, that has resulted in many people thinking
> > those ideas apply to reality and so they argue that such a place
and
> > curved space both exist. Classical physics is soundly based on
> > empirical research while GR is grounded in Theoretical Physics and
> > rarely makes incursions into the real universe.
>
> That is entirely a mistaken impression. It makes very real and
testable
> predictions about our universe, which are confirmed in experiment.
>
> >
>
>
No, it is not a mistaken impression. It's true.
>
>
> > My model is just a series of alternative explanations of observed
> > phenomena which begins with time and progresses through the
creation
> of
> > light. It resolves some current explanations of issues which have
> led
> > us all into dead-end alleyways from which we cannot get out.
>
> Name one dead-end.
> Name your theory's explanation that is successful where the current
> model has no consistent explanation.
>
> > Plus it
> > provides fresh looks at the issues and a chance for readers to get
> > ideas on their own and perhaps come up with even better ideas than
> > mine.
>
> Ideas are worthless until they have shown some bearing on reality --
> that is, that they extend our predictive powers.
>
> > >
No, not so. New ideas can be worth their weight in platinum, else
corporations would not spend resources to hold brain-storming sessions
where participants are encouraged to submit anything that comes into
their minds during the sessions, no matter how imaginative they may be.
 Ideas are all that Theoretical Physics holds dear since they disdain
experimental research. So, again, you are wrong.
> > >
> > >
SNIP
>
> > Um, what empirical evidence is that?
>
>

+Precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
-Rather noisy data and other explanations have been offered.

+synchrotron design operation,
-Oh! you mean REAL relativity, not Einstein's.

+GPS satellite corrections required by SR and GR and not
 predicted by classical physics,

Low clocks tick slow. Newton Predicts that.
What happened to the in-flight redshifting corpuscles
of P-R, and Vessot ?

+predictions of black holes and the
-Oh? Can you confirm a mechanism beyond
 Chandrasekhar limit ?

[evidence by which we would see evidence of them, ]

+curvature of light in
a gravitational field and gravitational lensing of distant galaxies,
-Plasma and dust accounts for this.
the expansion of the universe....

Shall I go on? There's a rather long list.

Please do.

Lensing might just pan out but wouldn't
Weber predict that also ?
Sue...

>
> > >
No. I asked for the one you claim overthrows classical physics, which
is the one you failed to list.
>
> > >
> Has it ever crossed your mind that "honest research, theoretical or
> empirical" and "consistent with the way I view our world" are
mutually
> incompatible?
>
> > >
Yes, of course.
> > >
> > >
SNIP
> >
> > ...I have never
> heard
> > of a real physicist ever arguing that an encyclopedia was wrong,
>
>
> I don't think you've ever asked the question directly.
>
>
Wrong again. You're running out of bullets.
>
>
> Why don't you
> post a link to an Encarta definition, or quote it directly, and ask
the
> physicists here think it is correct? Note there is a similar approach
> by someone named Paulps in these newsgroups who is receiving exactly
> that criticism from the physicists in the group.
>
>
I have done that very same thing.
>
>
> > but
> > plenty of them argue about many authors works and their ideas.
Your
> > argument on this subject has failed each time you have tried it.
You
> > should abandon it.
>
> How has my argument failed? What constitutes success to you?
>
> >
Your argument that encyclopedias are less worthy references than those
in FAQs and physics books failed because the facts in Encarta and
Wikkipedia are supported by authorities in the field, even if not by
you.

TomGee

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... gravity is not present or not working at that particular ... > energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... Classical physics is soundly based on ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... gravity is not present or not working at that particular ... > energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... Classical physics is soundly based on ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... gravity is not present or not working at that particular ... > energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... Classical physics is soundly based on ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ... the Encarta blurb is NOT in contradiction with what I said. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ... the Encarta blurb is NOT in contradiction with what I said. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)