Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree7Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Apr 8th 2018, 10:25 PM   #31
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
I got some sleep so I'm a little less cranky now. I finally got around to reading the long document.

If I can wade through your 30 minute essay then I ask that you carefully read what I am writing here.
-Dan
Thank you for reading.
I indeed carefully read what you have written here.

Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
You aren't trying to discuss work, which is why we are having a problem. The concept you are referring to is called "impulse" and is defined as the average force applied to an object over a given time that the force acts. The impulse given to an object is equal to its change in momentum. If you change your discussion and replace the word work with the word impulse you pretty much have the base of a good argument. Conceptually this works.
If you would indeed carefully read my 30 minute essay (as you define it) then you would have read that is said there,

"It should be noted that the new formulas of Work and Energy are very similar to the Momentum formulas (p). or "impulse"

W(E)=F*t
W(E)=m*a*t
W(E)=m*v

and

p=F*t
p=m*a*t
p=m*v

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

But although these two groups of formulas look the same, in reality, the concepts of these formulas are totally different.

The Momentum of an object (p) has always been understood solely through the visible movement of the object, and therefore only through the visible velocity and the visible acceleration.
p=F*t
p=m*a*t
p=m*v
Therefore, scientists consider that if there is no visible movement of an object (i.e., the visible velocity and visible acceleration of this object are zero), then the Momentum of this object (p)is also zero.

While the new concept of Work and Energy
W(E)=F*t
W(E)=m*a*t
W(E)=m*v
works, even when there is no visible movement of the object, i.e. when the visible velocity and visible acceleration of the object are equal to zero."

In other word, the new concept of Work and Energy includes the momentum (impulse) concept, but the new concept is more than it.

Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
I would like to conclude this post with two comments.

1) We can define anything we want as long as it gives us something useful. We can always define work as Fd. We can always define kinetic energy as (1/2)mv^2. The Physics doesn't come in until we note that the work done by a force is equal to the change in kinetic energy of that object...which extends to the Law of Conservation of Energy. (At the current level of discussion. Work is a more general concept. See 2). ) What you are saying is that this principle is wrong. Okay, I'll play with it for a while, but you have to do me a favor and design an experiment that proves your statements about "colossal clean energy." If "standard" Physics doesn't meet expectations then you have some room for change. But it's getting to an equation for conservation of energy that is the whole goal. Though I would have thought if there was such a clean energy we would have found it long ago.

2) The definition for the work done is far more abstract than you seem to think. The definition of work being done is that the total energy of an object changes. For example if we have a weight lifter that is lifting and holding a barbel up into the air W = Fd just doesn't cut it. The lifter is obviously putting forth some kind of effort. But we know that work has to be done in holding it up... it's just the change in the chemical potential energy within the lifter that provides the force to keep the barbel up. Hence work is being done even if the weight isn't moving. Your discussion doesn't seem to be capable of deriving this result.
"We can define anything we want as long as it gives us something useful. "

Again if you would indeed carefully read my 30 minute essay (as you define it) then you would also have read that is said there,

"The practical benefit of the discovery of the Static Mechanical Work is that we can take away the Energy that objects can spend on the Static Mechanical Work.

And we can receive an unprecedentedly significant efficiency when we take out this Energy (which would be spent on the Static Mechanical Work) from Electromagnets. All this is presented in detail in the Discovery#2."
I proved it mathematically with numbers!



" But we know that work has to be done in holding it up... it's just the change in the chemical potential energy within the lifter that provides the force to keep the barbel up."

Again from the same text,

"Let’s consider other example:
you starts holding the 20kg object in the air moveless.

Now you have started doing at least 2 new Works: the Targeted mechanical Work (the Static mechanical Work) on the pushing up the 20kg object with your Force (F1) and the Non-Targeted (but unavoidable) Work on the additional heating of your body.

As already mentioned before, Energies that are spent on the Non-Targeted (but unavoidable) Works, we always regard as our losses."

These are the 2 different Works -- the pushing of the object and the heating of the body.

Just think about the following thing,
when a man is pushing upwards the 100 kg object with the 1000 Newton Force you consider that he does the 2 Works and spend his Energy on these 2 Works. (on the pushing of the object and on the heating of the body.)

but when the man is pushing upwards the 100 kg object with the 980 Newton Force you erroneously consider that he does just one Works and spend his Energy just on one this Work. (just on the heating of the body) since the 100kg object stays moveless in the air.

Get finally this point that
these are the TWO DIFFERENT WORKS! (to push upwards the object and to heat the body).
To push upwards the 100kg object with the 980 Newton Force (so that the 100kg object stays moveless in the air ) enormous Energy (enormous resources) are required. Almost the same Energy (and resources) are required as if to push upwards the 100kg object with the 1000 Newton Force.

Get finally this point that
these are the TWO DIFFERENT WORKS! (to push upwards the object with the 980(or 1000) Newton Force and to heat the body). Sorry for repeating.



But FOR NOW let us put out my new concepts
and let's focus only on the big logical error (which is in modern physics) I say about.

Let's go again step by step.

So
Do you admit that the 2nd seconds in these two processes are completely identical?

Do you admit that the Karlson and the gravitational Force are one and the same thing -- each one does the same thing with the stone (during the 2nd second)?

Do you admit that Karlson’s Energy (Resource) will not be spent on this Inertial Displacement of the stone (9.8m, during the 2nd second), since the stone moves this 9.8m displacement, during the 2nd second, also by inertia, as during the 1st second?

Last edited by OlegGor; Apr 10th 2018 at 06:28 AM.
OlegGor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
energy, physics, work, work and energy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Work and Energy NSB3 Advanced Mechanics 1 Nov 12th 2014 12:03 PM
Work and Energy FlexedCookie Kinematics and Dynamics 4 Mar 15th 2011 02:42 AM
Work-Energy reiward Energy and Work 1 Oct 12th 2010 09:01 AM
Work and energy Morgan82 Advanced Mechanics 1 Nov 10th 2008 02:52 AM
Work and Energy Inertialforce Energy and Work 1 Oct 31st 2008 07:51 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed