Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Randy Poe on 21 Sep 2005 17:28 TomGee wrote: > Okay, Randy, but this first: > Work is a purposeful physical effort directed toward doing something. > It is a means for energy transfer. > Entropy is a measure of the energy in a system or process that is > unavailable to do work. > Perpetual Motion is a long-held concept of a system that could operate > indefinitely, once started, without any further expenditure of outside > energy. Such a system is not in accord with the fundamental laws of > physics. Any system will run down when left to itself, through various > forms of attrition. On the subatomic level, perpetual motion may be > said to be observed in the motion of electrons around a nucleus. Even > here, however, the concept of entropy (the second law of > thermodynamics) views the universe as a whole as incapable of perpetual > motion. > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft > Corporation. All rights reserved. Wow. More later. But just one comment on this: You need a better reference source. Everything you have posted from Encarta on this topic has been wrong. Not just subtly wrong, but wrong in huge ways, wrong on basic elementary stuff, wrong according to any introductory high-school level physics book. That Microsoft would put this trash out under their name is appalling, but not surprising. I'll read this in more detail later. - Randy
From: odin on 21 Sep 2005 17:30 On the quantum level, the laws of thermodynamics often break down.
From: TomGee on 21 Sep 2005 17:35 Herman Trivilino wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > > >> So perhaps your "internal force" is a different kind of thing > >> from what we call forces. It is always there, there is no such > >> thing as "absence of internal force", and therefore there is > >> no experiment which can determine the effect of your "internal > >> force". > > > Oh yes there is. > > What followed was NOT a description of an experiment. > > Correct. It was a description of many experiments which support any experiment to show the effects of my internal force. The body moving without any apparent force moving it is my experiment proving that it has an inherent force. Where's your experiment proving it has no inherent force? > > > > [...], then we can safely and simply assume > > that my internal force is nothing more than the kinetic energy of the > > body. > > Force and energy can't be the same. They are of different dimension! > > force and energy are not dimensions. > > > > My model contends that energy is a force. > > It's automatically rejected, out of hand. > > By you and those who cannot see the forest for the trees. > > > Force is a gradient of energy. > > A gradient is a slope. How is force a slope of energy? Gradient: physics measure of change: a measure of change in a physical quantity such as temperature or pressure over a specified distance Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Nothing in there about force being a measure of change in energy. > > > Put informally, force is a measure of how an energy (potential energy) > changes with position. > > You're just making that up, aren't you? Or else you're guessing. > > > Forces are interactions between objects. Internal forces exist only for > composite bodies -- they are forces between the objects that make up the > composite body. > > I just bet that with a little encouragement you could make up a whole new bunch of physical laws, no? > > > > A force is "power or strength: the power, strength, or energy that > > somebody or > > something possesses" > > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft > > Corporation. All rights reserved. > > That's a layman's definition from a layman's reference. It's contradicted > by even the most elementary of introductory physics references. Power is a > rate of energy (has dimensions of energy over time). Force is a gradient of > energy (has dimensions of energy over distance). > > More made up definitions. Contradictions of authoritative sources without support for the contradictions. Sneering at laypersons as to ability to discern reality. > > > It is perhaps the most fundamental facet of natural science that quantities > with different dimensions can't be compared. It's meaningless to say > they're the same, or equal. > > Yet we compare the dimensions of length, depth, height, and time everyday. More wild statements without support = more opinions.
From: TomGee on 21 Sep 2005 17:37 So I've heard, Odin. Do you know of any experiments to that effect?
From: mmeron on 21 Sep 2005 17:50
In article <JqGdnfPEWbiSTKzeRVn-oQ(a)whidbeytel.com>, "odin" <ragnarok(a)yahoo.com> writes: >On the quantum level, the laws of thermodynamics often break down. > Well, at the limit of small numbers the limit of large numbers doesn't exactly apply. No big surprise. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |