Re: Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree


"malibu" <vegan16@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183204281.639670.87890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Jun 30, 1:06 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1183184052.395051.85130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : On Jun 29, 12:41 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1183138662.062407.48000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : > : On Jun 28, 9:20 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > : > "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > : > : >
: > : > : >news:1183041604.793657.10400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley:
: > : > : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to
matter;
: > pray
: > : > : > : do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is
what
: > I do
: > : > : > : not pretend to know, & therefore would take more time to
consider
: > of
: > : > : > : it... Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should
: > (without
: > : > ye
: > : > : > : mediation of something else wch is not material) operate upon
&
: > affect
: > : > : > : other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation
in
: > the
: > : > : > : sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is
one
: > : > : > : reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to
me.
: > That
: > : > : > : gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so yt
one
: > body
: > : > : > : may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the
: > : > : > : mediation of any thing else by & through wch their action or
: > force
: > : > : > : may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an
absurdity
: > : > : > : that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any
: > competent
: > : > : > : faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be
caused
: > by
: > : > : > : an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but
whether
: > this
: > : > : > : agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to
ye
: > : > : > : consideration of my readers.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : John
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Had Newton studied electromagnetics he might have had different
: > : > : > views, although he cannot be blamed for requesting that gravity
not
: > : > : > be laid at his door, he has openly stated he frames no
hypotheses
: > and
: > : > : > honestly stated he doesn't know what gravity is. Nor do any of
us.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Whether Newton liked it or not, action-at-a-distance is an
empirical
: > : > : > fact and we cannot measure the amount of matter (whatever that
may
: > be)
: > : > : > without it. It seems to me that action-at-a-distance is no less
: > : > mysterious
: > : > : > than matter itself, for who can say what the flubber is that an
: > electron
: > : > : > or proton is made of? No known element, that's for sure, because
the
: > : > : > elements are made of (supposedly) protons, neutrons and
electrons
: > : > : > and it is action-at-a-distance (electrostatic) that is an
essential
: > : > : > ingredient
: > : > : > of the Bohr atom.
: > : > : > Action-at-a-distance has three macroscopic forms,
electrostatic,
: > : > magnetic
: > : > : > and gravitational, and we also have the weak and strong nuclear
: > forces,
: > : > : > but those are theoretical and based on our models, not on direct
: > : > : > observation.
: > : > : > I would propose that we accept action-at-a-distance as fact,
however
: > : > absurd
: > : > : > it may seem to Newton, and inquire into how that produces
inanimate
: > : > brute
: > : > : > matter.
: > : > : > The way to do so is of course a paradigm shift, and such shifts
are
: > : > : > extremely
: > : > : > difficult to bring about, giving the inertia of human thought.
We
: > : > "educate"
: > : > : > each other, but do not encourage individuals to think for
: > : > themselves.snip
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : What Newton was saying is that matter can't be
: > : > : acting on its own. Like a kite doesn't fly without wind.
: > : > : Like a waterwheel doesn't turn without flow.
: > : >
: > : > Of course a waterwheel turns without flow.
: > : > Have you not heard of angular momentum?
: > : > A waterwheel turns unless something stops it.
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : Matter doesn't produce gravity actively.
: > : > : It produces it passively.
: > : >
: > : > Gravity produces matter actively. Without gravity there would be no
: > matter.
: > : >
: > : > : Put a huge rock in a river flowing at speed
: > : > : and a whirlpool forms behind it.
: > : > :
: > : > : Put the same rock in a river flowing twice as fast,
: > : > : aand a larger whirlpool forms behind it. Same rock,
: > : > : different whirlpools.
: > : > :
: > : > : Similarly, the gravity produced
: > : > : by matter is not dependent on the matter,
: > : > : but on the flow.
: > : >
: > : > In that case you should easily detect turbulence in the wake
: > : > of the planets, notably as their moons fly off or fall into the
planet.
: > : > Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute rocks in rivers should
(without
: > ye
: > : > mediation of whirlpool wch is not material ) operate upon & affect
: > : > other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the
: > : > sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it.
: > : > What are you proposing, turbulence in aether?
: > :
: > :
: > : An incoming energy flow from many sides
: > : at once of the same magnitude- read a density
: > : of space making itself known by having energy flow in all
: > : directions.
: > : One just then has only to identify
: > : the mediator of that flow and what fuels the flow.
: > :
: > : Presumably this flow is attenuated by matter.
: > :
: > : Candidate: (suggestion- previously undetected
: > : emanations from each and every electron as it accelerates around
: > : its nucleus- these rays travel at 30c and are ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-
: > : high-frequency)
: > :
: > : John
: >
: > Oh, ok...
: > Like all crackpot charlatans you are babbling words you do not
understand,
: > and now you want others to believe in "previously undetected
emanations",
: > "incoming energy flow", "fuels the flow" and "density of space".
: > Why not use words like "ectoplasm", "celestial plane" and read the
future
: > from your crystal ball to us so that we all understand we have to cross
: > your palm with silver to have our horoscopes read?
: >
: > Gravity is a force, boy. It has units of newtons, but it isn't energy.
: > Energy is the ability to do work. Forces cannot do work. Ergo
: > gravity is not energy, an incoming flow of energy, a previously
undetected
: > emanation or an ultra ^4-high-frequency.
: > Let me know when you want to discuss physics, I'm not interested
: > in palmistry.
:
:
: Hmm. So a dam cannot do work?

Sunlight evaporates water, water falls as rain, rain fills streams and
rivers,
rivers fill lakes behind dams, kinetic energy of falling water drives
turbines
which drive generators which do useful work. The work eventually comes
heat which radiates back into space.

The dam did no work, the energy came from the sun.
Dams cannot do work because dams do not pump water uphill.

Force is not energy. You can compress a spring, and the spring
will then exert a force which allows work to be done, but only until
the spring is once again relaxed. Then you must apply more energy to
compress it again. Whilst the spring is compressed and not allowed
to relax, it exerts a force but does no work. Force is not energy.

All energy we use on Earth (saving minute amounts of starlight
and more recently tidal energy) comes or came directly from the sun.

Energy can be stored and it can be converted from one form to another,
that's what technology is all about.
Sunlight -> photo-chemical reaction with CO2 releasing oxygen -> tree growth
building carbon molecules -> wood -> coal/vegetable oil->
petroleum/plastics-> cars/car fuel -> chemical reaction with oxygen
(burning) -> heat -> radiate to space.

Efficiency is a measure of how much energy is converted. Power stations
run at about 34% efficient, the remaining 66% of heat from the coal/oil
is converted to steam and radiated into space, leaving 34% electricity.
Cars and trucks run at around 18% efficiency, electrical transformers
and motors at around 99% efficient, transferring electrical energy to
motive power with very little heat loss.

Gravity is a force and doesn't relax. You lift a brick onto a shelf, you've
given it sufficient energy to fall and break your toe. Stand above the shelf
and the brick no longer has energy to break your toe but you've given
yourself sufficient energy to fall and crack your skull. Thus energy is
relative. Gravity does no work, the work was done when you lifted
the brick. We say the raised brick has "potential" energy, PE, and we
say the falling brick has "kinetic" (motion) energy, KE. It was first lifted
against gravity in order for it to have energy.
No work is done by the falling brick until it suddenly decelerates upon
collision with your toe, when the energy is converted in breaking the
electrical bonds between the molecules of your toe bones and tearing
the flesh apart as you get a laceration at the same time.
****** FORCE IS NOT ENERGY. ********

Power.
One horsepower was a useful measure to compare how well
a steam engine could perform against a horse. It is 550 ft
lbs per second, meaning that a horse can lift 550 lbs to a height
of 1 foot or 1 lb to a height of 550 feet in one second and
keep it up all day long. A man can generate one horsepower
but he cannot maintain it all day, he will collapse with the exertion.
You can prove this by running upstairs and timing yourself
with a stopwatch. It is your own weight you are lifting.
A horse can easily generate 10 horsepower, it can run faster than
a man but will not maintain it all day.
Thus a man is not as powerful as a horse which is not as powerful
as a steam engine. As a rough guide, a domestic vacuum cleaner
or washing machine has about a horsepower (746 watts).
The watt was named after James Watt who did much theoretical
work on steam engines.
This is basic schoolboy physics which you should have been
taught in your early teenage years.
We are now a heck of a long way from trying to discover the
nature of action-at-a-distance which I cannot debate with you
because you haven't understood the basics and do not know
the language of physics.
No! A dam cannot do work.


.

Relevant Pages

  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.math)
  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.physics)
  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Cosmological Constant and Flying Saucers?
    ... Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it ... I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are! ... the self-electrical force at the surface of the typical EVO assumed ... Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e at the ...
    (sci.physics)