Re: Sub-atomic forces- where does the energy come from?

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:20:29 -0800, Jim Black
<fmlast3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:51:51 GMT, Martha's Ghost wrote:

Here's a question that puzzles me...

Their are several forces at work at the sub-atomic level; Strong
Force, Weak Force, and possibly Gravity. We know that these forces
exist, because we can measure them, and observe their effects.

But what system Drives, Produces or Creates these forces? We know a
fair bit what produces light(photons), electro-magnetic forces, but do
we know what is the source for these other forces?

As I understand the Laws of Physics (see below!), it would seem that
you need energy- and a source for this energy- in order to produce
these forces. So far, I have not come across any texts that address
this.

This is where you're mistaken; you don't have to use energy to produce a
force on an object, unless the object is moving in the direction of the
force. In Newtonian mechanics, the minimum power (energy per time)
required is F*v*cos(theta), where F is the force, v the velocity, and theta
the angle between the two. This power goes into the kinetic energy of the
object. If the object isn't moving, no power is required at all. While
Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply at the atomic scale, this idea that if
nothing is moving, you don't have to use any energy still works.

Well, Newton's laws do not explain what powers the force. It only
explains how much work is done to move a body over a given distance.
Deny at your own detriment.

It is true that some devices, including your own limbs, use energy when
exerting a force on a stationary object, but that's just because they
aren't perfectly efficient. The extra energy winds up as heat. While you
or I would get tired after holding a heavy box for a long time, a table can
do it for years without any energy input.

You don't know this.

The electrostatic force between charged particles is due to photons
being emitted by the particles. Physicists "solve" the obvious energy
conservation problem by decreeing that the photons are virtual. But
that sounds more like voodoo physics than anything else.
Astonishingly, physicists are satisfied with this non-explanation, as
if science by decree (invent a label to sweep a nasty problem under
the rug) was somehow an acceptable way of doing science. How does a
photon know how to be virtual as opposed to being real? In other
words, what is the physical difference between a virtual photon and a
real one? This sort of nonsense is why I've maintained that what
physicists practice is chicken-*** science.

As Paul Feyerabend once wrote, "the most stupid procedures and the
most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of
excellence."

The truth of the matter is that physicists do not have a clue as to
what is really going on. They're guessing and their guesses are closer
to superstition than actual science. It is obvious to me that there is
a political agenda somewhere whose goal is to deny that we are
immersed in a sea of energy. It is forbidden to postulate the
existence of this sea but it is OK to come up with voodoo nonsense
like virtual particles. Too bad the vast majority of physicists are
gutless ass kissers (like Sam Wormley in this thread) who are too
scared to rock the boat by asking pertinent questions like Martha.

Bravo, Martha. Science is 99% guts and 1% inspiration. It's about time
that a new generation of courageous thinkers replace the spineless
group-think generation that currently dominates the field of physics.

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

Quantcast