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

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

Like Tree9Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 18th 2018, 03:09 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
It's shooting fish in a barrel , benit ... not worth the effort , particularly since TS hasn't bothered to engage us ...

Have a look at the sonoluminescence thread ... much bigger fish , but they're swimming free , require skill to shoot!
I was doing it mostly for the OP's benefit if he/she does come back, but you're right.

I downloaded a review paper on sonoluminescence yesterday in the hopes of learning more about it. In case you're curious, it's this one:

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/brenner/Single_bubble.pdf
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 03:40 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
Thank you for your efforts.
But you did your job badly.

Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
You're also claiming that there's some form of perpetual motion machine. Note that humankind has tried to invent a perpetual motion machine for many hundreds of years and failed, so I hope that you have the evidence to back up your claims…
There has been said,


It’s important to note that in this work of Electromagnets there is no violation of the existing Law of Conservation of Energy.

Using Electromagnets this way we just again take the universe’s Energy just like we do it, using wind, hydro and sun stations.

So are you able to understand that it is not any form of perpetual motion machine, just like the solar panel is not either.

____________
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
You simply state that there is an error without providing evidence that it is erroneous. I also scrolled down and couldn't find any experiments or references where it is demonstrated to be false.
As I have already said before, you did your job badly. Indeed, too badly.
Everything is wrtitten there.

Go through the text word by word. Do not just "scroll down".
Each thing comes from previous thing. Do not skip through the text.
Read each word carefully!

So do your job again from scratch. And now a lot better.
OlegGor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 07:15 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Nobody is perfect, certainly not me. If someone misunderstands your work, then that's an indication that someone else can misread your work and make the same mistake. You should never depend on the reader making a "good job", it is your responsibility to make the paper as unambiguous, clear and precise as possible and if someone misunderstands your work, then you should make every effort to ensure that with the new feedback you can improve the paper to a point where such mistakes cannot be made.

For example, with this comment:

Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post

It’s important to note that in this work of Electromagnets there is no violation of the existing Law of Conservation of Energy.

Using Electromagnets this way we just again take the universe’s Energy just like we do it, using wind, hydro and sun stations.

So are you able to understand that it is not any form of perpetual motion machine, just like the solar panel is not either.
I got the impression you were talking about a perpetual motion machine because you wrote this:

The New Inexhaustible Energy Source.
You said that there is a new inexhaustible energy source. In my eyes, that means a perpetual motion machine because even renewable energy sources, like tidal power and solar power, are not inexhaustible; they're just so abundant that the time required to exhaust the energy supply is extremely long.

I'd suggest using the word "renewable" rather than "inexhaustible", if that is actually what you mean.

Note as well, that it is your responsibility to know the correct terminology for the phenomena you're talking about. If your paper has a lot of jargon that needs clarifying, you can write footnotes to clarify ambiguities or make a glossary at the beginning or end of your paper to detail specific sets of nomenclature.

And regarding this point:

Go through the text word by word. Do not just "scroll down".
Each thing comes from previous thing. Do not skip through the text.
Read each word carefully!
I make an effort to read things carefully.
I didn't skip through the text... I didn't even get past the introduction.
I didn't get past the introduction because I didn't want to read the rest of your paper.
I didn't want to read the rest of your paper because the introduction was so poor.

I did scroll down through the work because I was trying to find some kind of literature review or something that establishes context with references. Unfortunately, there wasn't any; you started directly making claims that there were errors to current physics with no references to existing work and no evidence. You just state that scientists are making mistakes and you expect the reader to believe you at face value?

I was trying to find some kind of references or experimental evidence that lays the foundation for your work, but there wasn't any.

All good research (science or not) starts with an introduction of some kind; some way of introducing the current thinking (by referencing existing work and putting the reference in a references section) and by discussing the current arguments and the latest work in your field.

So.. you can improve your paper considerably by making a literature review. Then, you should then be able to point out to the reader your experimental evidence or references to existing literature that show that

the Joule, in its turn, is an erroneous unit of measure for Work and Energy.
or that

Scientists, for now, mistakenly consider that the person on the right (holding the 20kg object motionless in the air) is NOT DOING Mechanical Work and is NOT SPENDING their Energy on it!
Note:
- If these are your findings (i.e. the conclusions of your work), they belong at the end of your paper, not the beginning. If you decide to write an abstract, you can also mention it there. Abstracts are a different beast.
- If these are your aims, then state that these are your aims and state why you have them.
- If this is someone else's findings, you must reference them.

Also... if you think I did a "bad job", then just you wait until you try putting that paper in front of a PhD supervisor... they'd probably just put your paper in the bin and send you out of the room and forced to start from scratch. At least I'm taking the time out of my day to give you my honest feeedback so you can do something about it.

We are much, much, much more forgiving on this forum!

Give me a shout if you need more help.

Last edited by benit13; Oct 18th 2018 at 07:31 AM.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 07:30 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Also, check out the structure of this paper which I'm reading at the moment:

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/brenner/Single_bubble.pdf

This is a typical, professional quality, research paper. In this case the paper is also a review paper, which is usually a very difficult and time consuming thing to write. It's a bit like the stage between a journal paper and a text book. This should give you an idea for the kind of quality of publication that every scientist is expected to perform when performing research (perhaps even more so).
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 07:35 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
Thank you again for your efforts.
I really appreciate it.
benit13 likes this.
OlegGor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 10:48 AM   #16
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,616
Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post
Thank you for your efforts.
But you did your job badly.
...
So do your job again from scratch. And now a lot better.
Our job here is to help others with their questions. If you want to show us how smart you are then feel free to publish your paper in an accredited journal.
These comments are insulting. Please check your ego at the door before you post again.

-Dan
Pmb likes this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Oct 18th 2018 at 11:09 AM.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 12:35 PM   #17
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
Okay Oleg. You want to air your mistakes in public then so be it. Your worst mistake so far was to ignore the correction about work and holding something. Why is that? All of your mistakes, which are numerous, merely shows your ignorance in physics.
I have made big discoveries about Energy.
No you haven’t. This post explains why

First of all
As a brief ANNOUNCEMENT — the 2 biggest mistakes of modern science that I found
The 1st biggest basic mistake
These formulas for Work and Energy

are erroneous and the Joule, in its turn, is an erroneous unit of measure for Work and Energy.
Your mistake here is (1) you’re wrong and (2) you make no effort to justify your claim. Work is defined as the integral of force <dot> displacement. The unit for energy is defined as the Joule. The unit of force times distance is defined as the Joule so it can hardly be called a mistake. The Joule is Newton*meter or equivalently [kg][(m*s)^2]. Let us see if you can prove that relationship.

The 2nd biggest basic mistake (the prime mistake)
In physics, the concept of Static Mechanical Work is mistakenly missing there.
The value is always zero. Work is defined as integral (F*dx) When dx = 0 then the work on the body which has a force exerted on it is always zero.

So, for example, scientists, for now, correctly consider that the person on the left (lifting and lowering the 2 kg object) is doing Mechanical Work and is spending their Energy on it; but scientists, for now, mistakenly consider that the person on the right (holding the 20kg object motionless in the air) is NOT DOING Mechanical Work and is NOT SPENDING their Energy on it!
You are amazingly wrong here. You are failing to take into account what object has the force exerted on and work is being done on. Since the body doesn’t move the work done on that body is zero. The scientist who is, say, holding the object up with their hands is doing so do to muscle contraction. That’s a chemical process and work is being done on a microscopic level to maintain the contraction. Simply replace the scientist with a like statue and it will become clear.

But your attitude is insulting.

Last edited by Pmb; Oct 19th 2018 at 09:23 AM.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19th 2018, 09:00 AM   #18
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
As a primer though, let's consider the following forum thread:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-is-being-done
I can see why you'd want to wait a moment. The OP has a poor grasp of transferring heat to kinetic energy.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19th 2018, 09:30 AM   #19
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
Re - Oleg makes the following claim
So, for example, scientists, for now, correctly consider that the person on the left (lifting and lowering the 2 kg object) is doing Mechanical Work and is spending their Energy on it; but scientists, for now, mistakenly consider that the person on the right (holding the 20kg object motionless in the air) is NOT DOING Mechanical Work and is NOT SPENDING their Energy on it!
If you try to prove a claim by merely stating what your claim is then you're argument is wrong. You claim that the person on the right is doing work and such an assertion is correct then again you're wrong because you make no effort to prove it.

I explained the errors in your claim but you ignored it. Why?
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20th 2018, 05:37 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
If you try to prove a claim by merely stating what your claim is then you're argument is wrong. You claim that the person on the right is doing work and such an assertion is correct then again you're wrong because you make no effort to prove it.

I explained the errors in your claim but you ignored it. Why?
Everything you have said only proves the thing you have said before
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
I refuse to read

Last edited by topsquark; Oct 20th 2018 at 05:55 PM.
OlegGor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
energy, work



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-Energy reiward Energy and Work 1 Oct 12th 2010 09:01 AM
Work and Energy sake Kinematics and Dynamics 14 May 14th 2009 09:47 PM
work and energy MSelowa Energy and Work 1 Mar 31st 2009 03:55 AM
Work and Energy Inertialforce Energy and Work 1 Oct 31st 2008 07:51 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed