Work- What is it really??

[upriver]

Daniel & upriver,

F x d, Force x Distance, is a description of work being done. Though we may not be able to immediately identify the physical motions occurring, such that we can assign values to F and d via measurement, it does not change the reality of the process.

E= 1/2mv2, is not a measure of the energy an object possesses. It is a calculation of the work that object is potentially capable of applying, upon collision. There is no work done, no energy possessed or transferred without collision - work is the process of applying force through distance - energy is simply a calculation of an object's potential to do work based on its mass and velocity. An object with mass and motion could legitimately be said to possess momentum. Energy is a vastly misunderstood and misused concept, in that it is ONLY a CALCULATION of an objects potential for work.

Michael

Work is the transfer of energy...

From Wiki...
The first law of thermodynamics states that when work is done to a system (and no other energy is subtracted in other ways), the system's energy state changes by the same amount of the work input. This equates work and energy. In the case of rigid bodies, Newton's laws can be used to derive a similar relationship called the work-energy theorem.

Again. My point is that you can transfer energy without distance.. Heat??

Work needs to be redefined to include cases where there is no distance but energy is still transferred!!

[Lloyd]

Upriver said: From Wiki...
"The first law of thermodynamics states that when work is done to a system (and no other energy is subtracted in other ways), the system's energy state changes by the same amount of the work input. This equates work and energy. In the case of rigid bodies, Newton's laws can be used to derive a similar relationship called the work-energy theorem."
- Again. My point is that you can transfer energy without distance.. Heat??
- Work needs to be redefined to include cases where there is no distance but energy is still transferred!!

* It seems to me that there has to be some distance between any two objects that energy is transferred between. Heat is the movement of energy via infrared photons, isn't it? I mentioned elsewhere before (in Charles' The Sun's Density Gradient thread on NIAMI) that your theory of how charge is transferred from the galactic center to the Sun and other bodies is very similar to Mathis' theory. You say it's transferred by aether, I think, while he says the aether is photons. Have you read "THE KINETIC ENERGY EQUATION - another hole in your physics book" at http://milesmathis.com/kinetic.html? Mathis says:

- Here’s a question not many ask: why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv^2. Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc^2. Einstein was nice enough to provide us with this simple equation, but not nice enough to tell us why the energy depends on the square of the speed of light.
- To find out, let us look at how the first equation is derived in textbooks. We start with the constant acceleration equation, 2ad = vf^2 - vi^2. Then substitute a = F/m into that: 2Fd/m = vf^2 - vi^2.
If we let the initial velocity equal zero, and define work as force through a distance, we get: W = E = Fd = ½ mvf^2.
- Work is then defined as the change in kinetic energy, in the famous work-energy theorem.
- ... You can plug any particle with any constant velocity into it, and achieve a kinetic energy. So this derivation is misdirection. It implies that we need an acceleration in order to have a force or kinetic energy, but we don’t. Any object with any velocity will have a force. A car hitting you will apply a force, whether or not it is accelerating. - But can we derive the kinetic energy equation without a force? Can we achieve a square velocity without assuming an acceleration?
- ... In another paper, I showed that we can develop the equation E = ½mv^2 from the equation E = mc^2, by reworking Einstein’s equations and making a few corrections. But this brings us back to explaining E = mc^2. Einstein develops this equation mainly by assuming that E/c is the momentum of the photon. Then, by the equation E/c = mv, and substituting c for v, he gets his new equation. But E/c was found by experiment, not by theory, so the theory becomes circular at this point. We keep returning to the question, why c^2? Einstein gives us the number but not the mechanical explanation. Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c^2? Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving particle, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?
- ... In my paper on photon motion, I showed that the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c^2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c^2.
- ... The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple: we are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact. I have shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

* Michael V seems to be possibly correct in how he corrects some of Mathis' ideas, such as at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5763#p63480, so I'd like to study his ideas further too. Michael, what's your website URL? If you'd show corrections of some of Mathis' basic info on charge etc at your site, that might be helpful for reference here.

[Michael V]

upriver,

Oh dear, the sky is falling because someone thought for them self...

Are you sure? It's not falling here. Check again, perhaps it was just raining.

Insults will win you friends.

Wrong again my friend. Generally speaking, I believe you will find the opposite to be true and I have experimented extensively.

Take 2 waves. The phase difference between the 2 waves carries information and energy yet has no mass...

Not a good example since waves do not exist. A wave is merely a shape, albeit a shape in motion. You have distracted yourself. Look more carefully, it is the medium that has the shape, has the mass, has the motion and transfers the momentum.

That is the biggest fallacy of science, that everything has to have mass.

It is perhaps the biggest fallacy of superstition to suggest that there is anything that exists does not have mass.
Everything that exists has mass. Mass is the unit or property of interaction. It has been suggested that perhaps it is a measure of resistance to acceleration and in some respects this is a fair description. Interaction is afterall another term for collision or contact. But further, interaction involves either a mutual change of direction or/and an asymmetric change of velocity - that is a change/exchange of momentum and/or momentum vector. Momentum is mass times velocity, simply put, Momentum is mass in motion. Interaction is mass in motion and collision.

This goes back to how does an electron stay in "orbit" around an atom when it should have radiated its energy away.

Why is the electron required to radiate away this "energy"?

(Also, you're still thinking in terms of energy. Energy is just a number, it is not some wispy mysterious magic. I'm telling you, it will lead you astray. Think momentum, then upon collision, think force and transfer of momentum. )

.. Because it draws energy from the aether to maintain its form.

Steady now, think what you are saying.

One thing that I think is clear and upon which we can agree is the existence of an aethereal field. In the first part of the 20th century mainstream physics entirely rejected the concept of an aethereal field and so was forced down a path of convoluted mathematics and particle invention, only to end up trying to sneak it in through the back door in the form of a virtual quantum vacuum or Higgs field or a hundred other fudge factor fields to replace the actual single field that was rejected originally. Unfortunately, even for those that recognise the necessity of an aether field, there are plenty of models available from which to choose - one of them is right, but which one?

Michael

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

You can plug any particle with any constant velocity into it, and achieve a kinetic energy. So this derivation is misdirection. It implies that we need an acceleration in order to have a force or kinetic energy, but we don’t. Any object with any velocity will have a force. A car hitting you will apply a force, whether or not it is accelerating.

Misdirection indeed, or just plain sloppy thinking. The acceleration in the equation F=ma, in no way refers to the state of acceleration of an object prior to collision. It refers to the deceleration and acceleration of objects as a result of collision - in this example, the car decelerates and you accelerate. A quite unbelievable error from Mr Mathis - one presumes he preconceived his "proof", and armed with an agenda, did his best to make the facts fit - big boo-boo Miles.

This also hints at his reasoning for attempting to make gravity an acceleration, rather than a force which causes an acceleration - is it really possible that his doesn't understand the basic concepts of force and acceleration? My mind boggles at such a possibility.

Sorry Lloyd, I have no website as yet - it is on my "to do list" for this year. I am however, writing papers which are a significant advancement on my previous arguments, and also thinking about other directions of information dissemination. Lots of thinking and not much doing - flaw or virtue?, only time will tell.

Michael

[Lloyd]

Michael's Theory
* Michael, I thought you had one or two papers linked somewhere on the internet, one of which papers I read through a bit hastily myself. It was probably a couple months ago and I don't remember it well, just the general drift.
* I doubt if Mathis was trying to misdirect. What you said about acceleration and deceleration upon collision seems sensible after hearing it, but physics is fairly hard to grasp for me in general. I think Mathis is better at math than physics, and he tries to understand physics by seeing how the math may apply to reality. I think he's much closer to understanding it than I am.
* You may have a better understanding than he does, but it's harder to follow your thinking, since it's not as accessible.
* Would you like to organize some of your material on a free website, like http://webs.com or http://lefora.com?
Is Gravity Photonic?
* By the way, Michael, do you think it could be possible that gravity is slow photon pressure from outside? I think Mathis said photons can have any velocity from 0 to c, so I thought maybe the electrons and protons can collect slow photons near 0 and shoot them out equatorially at c, as he says, which would reduce the local density of slow photons. So there'd be a higher density in the surroundings, which I thought might explain gravity. Does this seem at all plausible? Do you know of a better explanation of gravity?

[Sparky]

our calculations became mambo-jumbo or mathematical voodoo.

Well said!..Now you're talking my language!

[seasmith]

(Also, you're still thinking in terms of energy. Energy is just a number, it is not some wispy mysterious magic. I'm telling you, it will lead you astray. Think momentum, then upon collision, think force and transfer of momentum. )

Michael,

Since you insist, yes "energy" is a scalar and derived figure, but i would submit that that the only relevant 'definition' of energy on this totally enlightened forum is the Electron Volt:

In physics, the electron volt (symbol eV; also written electronvolt[1][2]) is a unit of energy equal to approximately 1.602×10−19 joule (symbol J). By definition, it is the amount of energy gained by the charge of a single electron moved across an electric potential difference of one volt.

-wiki

By whatever definition however, and whichever equivalency of mass / charge chosen,
e is dependent upon a (relative-to-observer) Motion. ie: higher rate=higher mass/charge (and there even the entrained Querious has a valid point).

e a very energetic jet

The point here ineptly made is that "potential" precedes "work", so even 'momentum & force' are derived concepts.

But imo, you are doing ~original work, goahead and e-publish .

s

[upriver]

upriver,

Take 2 waves. The phase difference between the 2 waves carries information and energy yet has no mass...

Not a good example since waves do not exist. A wave is merely a shape, albeit a shape in motion. You have distracted yourself. Look more carefully, it is the medium that has the shape, has the mass, has the motion and transfers the momentum.

Michael

Is the shape of the wave caused by the matter or the energy added to the collection of matter? The kinetic energy by itself, that which makes the matter move. The stuff that fields impart to solid particles. Does an electric field have mass? Yet it can accelerate a particle... Does a magnetic field have mass?

A wave is merely a shape yet we can derive information from comparing it to another one or the same to itself. Now think about how much information is in the universe in the phase relationships between waves.
Is this energy?? I maintain it is. Is information the same as energy??

If kinetic energy can be transferred then it is not a property of a specific piece of matter...... It changes where as electric field is one size per quantum particle.

You could use a bucket brigade analogy. Which makes the energy that animates something separate and its own from matter.

You dont need a distance to apply a force... Why cant you talk about the transfer of energy without distance??

Brant

[upriver]

A spring has "potential" energy but gravity does not.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Is Gravity Photonic?
By the way, Michael, do you think it could be possible that gravity is slow photon pressure from outside? I think Mathis said photons can have any velocity from 0 to c, so I thought maybe the electrons and protons can collect slow photons near 0 and shoot them out equatorially at c, as he says, which would reduce the local density of slow photons. So there'd be a higher density in the surroundings, which I thought might explain gravity. Does this seem at all plausible? Do you know of a better explanation of gravity?

No Lloyd, not a hope. There is only one possible option and that is aethereal. A universal field of randomly moving particles. See Fatio for a guide on the basic operation of a material particle field gravity.

Michael

[Michael V]

upriver Brant,

I will make one more appeal to your logical sanity.

Do you believe is fairy dust or pixie magic? No, of course you do not. Why the do you believe in this magic entity called "energy". Energy is not a thing, it is not some wispy magic that empowers and drives the universe. It is ONLY a number, the result of a calculation. It is a numerical description of an objects potential to do work. Work cannot be done except by collision. The process of collision produces force, which is the transfer of momentum, all of which in turn is referred to as "work". The energy was simply a calculation of the possibility for work, based on an objects mass and velocity prior to collision.

I suspect that in many people's minds there is too close a link between mass and weight. Weight is force. The origin of the force is of course the aethereal field that is the cause of gravity -> the mass belongs to the object that are accelerated by gravity. Objects interact with the quantum aether field and the measure of interaction is called mass. This inability to separate mass and weight leads people to reject the concept of mass as an innate property of matter.
Gravity is provided by the aether field, which is mass in motion. Collision of the aether field with an object produces a force on the object that causes an acceleration. The object is now mass in motion and is able to provide force upon collision with other matter -> the object has weight. We may describe the object of "having" kinetic energy, but all that means is that it has the potential to do work upon collision.

Does an electric field have mass? ..... Does a magnetic field have mass?

Yes and Yes. Your failure to measure this mass via a gravitational balance scale (which measures weight and only infers mass by comparison) should direct your thoughts toward the nature of gravity and charge. It should not lead you to reject the self-evident basics of mechanical motion in favour of magic energy.

You may reply immediately, but I urge you to reject the notion of "energy" as a thing or substance. Motion is self-evident and mass is a measure of interaction. Together they provide momentum and upon collision, motion may be transferred. Whether the collision is direct physical contact or mediated is of no consequence to the premise.

Michael

[Drethon]

http://milesmathis.com/kinetic.html? Mathis says:

- ... The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple: we are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact. I have shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

* Michael V seems to be possibly correct in how he corrects some of Mathis' ideas, such as at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5763#p63480, so I'd like to study his ideas further too. Michael, what's your website URL? If you'd show corrections of some of Mathis' basic info on charge etc at your site, that might be helpful for reference here.

I have minor arguments against the 1/2 in the kinetic energy equation. Energy is force (m x a) integrated with respect to distance. The 1/2 comes from basic integral math, I believe due to averaging the derivative effect over time. So what e=mc^2 can be considered is the energy when a mass is accelerated to the speed of light, for example an antimatter reaction where mass is converted directly into energy. This is useful in nuclear equations because a portion of the mass is converted into pure energy, if a very small portion.

Not saying the integral math doesn't have a deeper meaning than it is typically used to represent but the same 1/2 represents acceleration over time being converted into velocity. Occam's razor some times points to the simpler answer, though to be honest I still wonder about velocity only being valid relative to something else but acceleration being valid within the perception of a single point... maybe integral math does have some deeper meaning.

[Michael V]

Drethon,

because a portion of the mass is converted into pure energy

"pure energy" you say, is that the same as, or similar to, pure pixie dust or pure fairy magic?

Michael

[Lloyd]

Michael said: See Fatio for a guide on the basic operation of a material particle field gravity.

* I believe I looked through a link you provided some months ago and was not impressed, since it didn't seem to make sense. Unfortunately, I don't recall any details right now. As for photons, I don't know why you consider them not to be the aether.
* You also speak of electrons orbiting nuclei. I suppose that's possible, but Kanarev's claim that they hover over protons, due to electrical repulsion and magnetic attraction, seems more plausible to me, as the electron goes to where the two forces balance. Have you checked out Kanarev? I put links to his material and gave some samples on the second page of the NPA Conference thread on the EU board.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Looks like we are going off topic here, but look at the LeSage portion of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

Fatio's work is more commonly credited to LeSage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
At this stage all you need to understand is the basic "shadowing" mechanism that results in objects being pushed together by the field.

You should understand that I did not research, and then settle on the Fatio/LeSage theory as the most satisfactory. I started with a blank sheet of paper and my only agenda was that gravity should have a physical cause. I independently concluded that a randomly moving aethereal particle field is the only physical possibility. Gravitational force, and thence acceleration, at any given point between two objects is therefore dependent on the mass density and size of the objects and the distance between them. Having satisfied myself that my model was an accurate representation of Newtonian gravity, I then discovered via google that Mr Fatio had come to an almost identical conclusion 350 years previously.

Despite the social, political and financial success of the 120 year cult of energy substance, a non-agenda led analysis shows that mass is a measure of interaction. Two masses in the field interact with the field such that the field produces a net pushing force that pushes the two masses toward each other. This force is the result of the combined effects of interaction of both masses with the field, hence GMM/r2. The inverse square is rather obvious, but the important points are the "mass times mass" and the gravitational coefficient G. Without going into too much detail here, G defines the mass density and also includes the effect of repulsive "charge". As I have pointed out many times, charge, and thereby electromagnetism in general, is of course not "electric". That is to say it is simply another kinetic mechanism within the field; another type of interaction between matter and the field. I realise such comments fly in the face of religious fervour that yearns for an innate "electric" property, but long after the inaccuracies of analyses past have been forgotten, physics and logic will remain satisfied.

Anyway, as you can see gravity, a force caused by one physical medium acting upon another, is doing work, so our digression is not as entirely off topic as it may have first seemed. Further study has led me to uncover the inadequacies of Newton's otherwise accurate and most excellent equations.

(Note: in the above, "the field", is interchangeable with and may be freely replaced by "the aethereal field", "the aether", "the quantum aether",.... In short, "the field" is "the aether". As a field that conveys forces and mediates interactions between matter it is a direct physical replacement for action at a distance. Also, as a field that conveys forces, it presents extremely important consequences for considering the nature and operation of light.)

Michael