Michael, how is energy transfer handled in an FTL entanglement situation?? No collisions there.
And you still have said what happens while the weight lifter is holding up the weight against gravity. What is the energy mechanism there...
Work- What is it really??
Re: Work- What is it really??
by upriver » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:52 am
- upriver
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Michael V » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:02 am
upriver,
Faster-than-light entanglement: Can you explain this in detail please?
The weightlifter is doing exactly the same as the floor, what additional complication are you seeking?
Michael
Faster-than-light entanglement: Can you explain this in detail please?
The weightlifter is doing exactly the same as the floor, what additional complication are you seeking?
Michael
- Michael V
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Solar » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:46 am
Well, Upriver I think you are correct. Let’s have a look at something here concerning the concept of “work” from “All about Circuits” (Link): Question #1 ask to define Energy, Power, and Work. When you click on “Reveal Answer” the answer provided is:
Note that in the definition no accrediting of “work” is given to your point regarding gravity. Instead it is defined as “…work equals force times distance only if the force and distance vectors are precisely parallel to each other…” and the work against gravity is considered to be zero. You are correct when saying “F * d = W implies that he is transferring no energy when the weight is not moving. This is incorrect.”
The definition makes it seem that only during the lifting phase while one is moving upwards with the weight is “work” actually being done. Upon reaching full extension and holding … no further “work” against gravity seems to be considered as being done to hold the weight aloft. Maybe one should give the author 300lbs to hold aloft indefinitely to experience this supposed ‘zero work against gravity’? I’d like to take a different approach with your question though.
We need to examine the work of Tesla and his use of “impulse currents” in order to understand the concept and functionality of “work without distance’ being involved. Particularly as relates the purpose of Wardenclyfe after his discovery of “standing waves” during the reception of distant thunderstorms while experimenting at Colorado Springs. This was where Tesla produced so much electricity locally in his lab that it back-fed into the power station for that city causing much damage for which he was subsequently made responsible to repair.
Tesla argued in court against Marconi that his system was non-electromagnetic and did not use Hertzian waves. He summarized the system via the simplest of analogies thus:
1st drawing (Figure 9): - “Electromagnetic Hertzian waves radiated horizontally from the conductor … energy unrecoverable” with the velocity of these waves occurring at the speed of light (whatever that means, it’s an assumption that I don’t subscribe to). Within the same depiction (Figure 9) just below the Hertizian antenna Tesla shows his oscillating currents ‘bouncing’ in resonance within the Earth’s cavity and along its surface through the ground with infinite propagation. These waves only slow down to “light speed” at right angles to the Earth’s surface then speed up with infinite velocity. Notice the small captions on the right hand side of his globe in Figure 9 with cosecant and infinity:
The “oscillatory currents” set up “standing waves” the energy of which (despite “distance”) is “recoverable”; on demand, via properly tuned apparatus by way of which “work” can then be performed. This is how Tesla was able to light those light bulbs up to 25 miles away with little to no losses! Thus it was that once implemented Tesla could place ‘tuned’ light bulbs in the ground at any location and they would light owing to the nature of the oscillatory currents performing work on demand. See the following:
The above photo is an actual photo of a few of bulbs being lit via the Tesla System in action during experimental verification. This is Earth-ground system based and owing to establishing resonant “standing waves” via oscillating impulse currents tuned to the Earth’s natural frequencies energy was able to be utilized punctually on demand rendering the concept of’ transmitting’ over a spatially separated “distance” as absolutely useless, null, and void. The concept, and problem, of “distance” was completely circumvented. Only transverse waves are prone to the limitation of spatial “distance” as explained by Tesla with the losses of the Hertzian system; not longitudinal standing waves. Now let’s consider the implications of the second portion of Tesla’s analogous graphical summary:
(I tried to shrink the above image to no avail. Right-click on it and select "Open in new window" to see it in its entirety or just save it.)
The panel labeled “Analogy” and “Realization” shows two graphical representations of the Tesla principle (read the captions). The first “Analogy of Tesla’s Earth Wave Vibration Theory” shows a “Hand Pump”. This was to be a Magnifying Transmitter. It states that for an “envelope filled with liquid or gas” then “Each pulse of the pump is felt with equal force at all points of the sphere”. The analogy is that of a balloon dotted with pressure gages. If you press the “Hand Pump” all of the gages will respond almost instantly regardless of their location on the spherical envelope.
The “pulse” mentioned would correlate to the variable oscillations of the impulse currents but please recall that they are established as resonant standing waves within the entirety of the Earth. Proper ‘tuning’ of an apparatus to the appropriate transmission frequency can then ‘draw’ from the Earth-bound standing waves with the apparatus then functioning as a ‘load’. The unused portion of the energy is then transmitted back to the receiver, thus the pulsations continue establishing said standing waves.
Therefore it is that the second panel labeled “Realization” shows “Wireless light… a wire in the ground is all” - that is needed as shown with an individual standing with a lit bulb with one wire attached to the ground. The caption reads “Tesla’s wireless Transmission Theory. The oscillating energy surges thru the Earth to every point on the globe. Thus electric light, heat, and power can be drawn at any point of the Earth from a universal central station.” The lights that were lit up to 25 miles away are proof of concept. This isn’t fiction but fact; the system works. I say that in the present tense because it's basic functionality has been experimentally duplicated.
Again, the operating principle is that of setting up resonant standing waves via oscillating impulse currents through a relatively uniform sphere. As such there would be no ‘place’ on said sphere that would be ‘distant’ from any other location on said sphere since the resonant standing waves would necessarily permeate the entire sphere. Likewise, if one were to establish some frequency within some large metal plate and placed numerous probes scattered about on its surface to pick-up said frequency - relative to said frequency, the “distance” between probes would be irrelevant and meaningless. The whole of the structure becomes unified at that frequency.
Tesla sought the input of Helmholtz who agreed with the validity of the system and although, to Tesla’s dismay, Lord Kelvin initially disagreed referring to the idea as “an illusion and a snare” Kelvin changed his mind upon further reflection. Tesla writes:
Tesla continues:
After explaining the inefficient losses of the Hertzian (transverse wave) system Tesla then explains the value of his wireless approach in conjunction with Figure 9 above:
Obviously all of this is a matter of the public record. A brief explanation of how the system works by Tesla himself, and from which the above quotes were obtained is recorded in the February 1919 issue of the Electrical Experimenter (Link to .pdf). The bulbs lit up to 25 miles away were validation of the “work” regardless of “distance”. I don’t see how overcoming “distance” is a question in light of the historical record and experimental evidence validating the concept.
Then again, once relativist thinking came onto the scene the waters concerning the nature of electricity were significantly muddled and the proposition of any waves superseding the self imposed assumptive “speed of light” were bound to conflict. Even O. Heaviside ran into the wall of business interest which sought the easy and quick route to profitability with the implementation of apparatus developed by way of his approach to electromagnetic theory while ignoring those aspects of his theory that were related to the longitudinal (Aetheric) save for his telegraph equations. This too is a matter of the public record, extended research for those interested, through a series of articles in the old British publication The Electrician (Link).
Therefore, the work supporting and exemplifying member Upriver’s contentions has already been done over one-hundred years ago. To that end “… dielectric induction through the interior of the Earth … bouncing from transmitter to receiver” forms energy reciprocation via reflection (standing waves) “… operating the transmitter and receiver at the natural period and wave shape of the Earth’s own energy pulsation rate greatly overcomes the effect of distance… Thus a standing wave of inductive energy exists between the transmitter and receiver … all pulsating at one of the earth’s natural harmonics.” - Dollard
Now, what’s even further interesting along these principles and lines of reasoning (the longitudinal aspects of electricity) is that Tesla also sought to somehow harness the energy of the Sun. The inference might well be that these aspects of the electrical forces are also operative in the cosmos.
Obviously I jest; it’s not an inference at all.
Work is the exertion of a force over a distance. Energy is the capacity to perform work. Power is the rate of work performed per unit time.
Notes:
Students may find a basic physics text helpful in obtaining these definitions. "Work" is a difficult concept to precisely define, especially for students unfamiliar with basic physics. Technically, it is the vector dot-product of force and displacement, meaning that work equals force times distance only if the force and distance vectors are precisely parallel to each other. In other words, if I carry a 10 kg mass (lifting up against the tug of gravity) while walking parallel to the ground (not going up or down), the force and displacement vectors are perpendicular to each other, and the work I do in carrying the mass is zero. It is only if my force is directed precisely the same direction as my motion that all of my effort is translated into work.
Note that in the definition no accrediting of “work” is given to your point regarding gravity. Instead it is defined as “…work equals force times distance only if the force and distance vectors are precisely parallel to each other…” and the work against gravity is considered to be zero. You are correct when saying “F * d = W implies that he is transferring no energy when the weight is not moving. This is incorrect.”
The definition makes it seem that only during the lifting phase while one is moving upwards with the weight is “work” actually being done. Upon reaching full extension and holding … no further “work” against gravity seems to be considered as being done to hold the weight aloft. Maybe one should give the author 300lbs to hold aloft indefinitely to experience this supposed ‘zero work against gravity’? I’d like to take a different approach with your question though.
We need to examine the work of Tesla and his use of “impulse currents” in order to understand the concept and functionality of “work without distance’ being involved. Particularly as relates the purpose of Wardenclyfe after his discovery of “standing waves” during the reception of distant thunderstorms while experimenting at Colorado Springs. This was where Tesla produced so much electricity locally in his lab that it back-fed into the power station for that city causing much damage for which he was subsequently made responsible to repair.
Tesla argued in court against Marconi that his system was non-electromagnetic and did not use Hertzian waves. He summarized the system via the simplest of analogies thus:
1st drawing (Figure 9): - “Electromagnetic Hertzian waves radiated horizontally from the conductor … energy unrecoverable” with the velocity of these waves occurring at the speed of light (whatever that means, it’s an assumption that I don’t subscribe to). Within the same depiction (Figure 9) just below the Hertizian antenna Tesla shows his oscillating currents ‘bouncing’ in resonance within the Earth’s cavity and along its surface through the ground with infinite propagation. These waves only slow down to “light speed” at right angles to the Earth’s surface then speed up with infinite velocity. Notice the small captions on the right hand side of his globe in Figure 9 with cosecant and infinity:
The “oscillatory currents” set up “standing waves” the energy of which (despite “distance”) is “recoverable”; on demand, via properly tuned apparatus by way of which “work” can then be performed. This is how Tesla was able to light those light bulbs up to 25 miles away with little to no losses! Thus it was that once implemented Tesla could place ‘tuned’ light bulbs in the ground at any location and they would light owing to the nature of the oscillatory currents performing work on demand. See the following:
On July 3, 1899, Tesla discovered terrestrial stationary waves within the earth. He demonstrated that the Earth behaves as a smooth polished conductor and possesses electrical vibrations. He experimented with waves characterized by a lack of vibration at points, between which areas of maximum vibration occur periodically. These standing waves were produced by confining waves within constructed conductive boundaries. Tesla demonstrated that the Earth could respond at predescribed frequencies of electrical vibrations. At this time, Tesla realized that it was possible to transceive power around the globe.
The investigations of atmospheric electricity involved observing lightning signals via his receivers. Tesla stated that he observed stationary waves during this time. Tesla conducted experiments contributing to the understanding of electromagnetic propagation and the Earth's resonance. It is well documented (from various photos from the time) that he lit hundreds of lamps wirelessly at a distance of up to twenty-five miles (40 km). He transmitted signals several kilometres and lit neon tubes conducting through the ground. He researched ways to transmit energy wirelessly over long distances (utilizing the ionosphere and the ground's telluric currents via transverse waves, to a lesser extent, and, more readily, longitudinal waves). – PesWiki
The above photo is an actual photo of a few of bulbs being lit via the Tesla System in action during experimental verification. This is Earth-ground system based and owing to establishing resonant “standing waves” via oscillating impulse currents tuned to the Earth’s natural frequencies energy was able to be utilized punctually on demand rendering the concept of’ transmitting’ over a spatially separated “distance” as absolutely useless, null, and void. The concept, and problem, of “distance” was completely circumvented. Only transverse waves are prone to the limitation of spatial “distance” as explained by Tesla with the losses of the Hertzian system; not longitudinal standing waves. Now let’s consider the implications of the second portion of Tesla’s analogous graphical summary:
(I tried to shrink the above image to no avail. Right-click on it and select "Open in new window" to see it in its entirety or just save it.)
The panel labeled “Analogy” and “Realization” shows two graphical representations of the Tesla principle (read the captions). The first “Analogy of Tesla’s Earth Wave Vibration Theory” shows a “Hand Pump”. This was to be a Magnifying Transmitter. It states that for an “envelope filled with liquid or gas” then “Each pulse of the pump is felt with equal force at all points of the sphere”. The analogy is that of a balloon dotted with pressure gages. If you press the “Hand Pump” all of the gages will respond almost instantly regardless of their location on the spherical envelope.
The “pulse” mentioned would correlate to the variable oscillations of the impulse currents but please recall that they are established as resonant standing waves within the entirety of the Earth. Proper ‘tuning’ of an apparatus to the appropriate transmission frequency can then ‘draw’ from the Earth-bound standing waves with the apparatus then functioning as a ‘load’. The unused portion of the energy is then transmitted back to the receiver, thus the pulsations continue establishing said standing waves.
Therefore it is that the second panel labeled “Realization” shows “Wireless light… a wire in the ground is all” - that is needed as shown with an individual standing with a lit bulb with one wire attached to the ground. The caption reads “Tesla’s wireless Transmission Theory. The oscillating energy surges thru the Earth to every point on the globe. Thus electric light, heat, and power can be drawn at any point of the Earth from a universal central station.” The lights that were lit up to 25 miles away are proof of concept. This isn’t fiction but fact; the system works. I say that in the present tense because it's basic functionality has been experimentally duplicated.
Again, the operating principle is that of setting up resonant standing waves via oscillating impulse currents through a relatively uniform sphere. As such there would be no ‘place’ on said sphere that would be ‘distant’ from any other location on said sphere since the resonant standing waves would necessarily permeate the entire sphere. Likewise, if one were to establish some frequency within some large metal plate and placed numerous probes scattered about on its surface to pick-up said frequency - relative to said frequency, the “distance” between probes would be irrelevant and meaningless. The whole of the structure becomes unified at that frequency.
Tesla sought the input of Helmholtz who agreed with the validity of the system and although, to Tesla’s dismay, Lord Kelvin initially disagreed referring to the idea as “an illusion and a snare” Kelvin changed his mind upon further reflection. Tesla writes:
“I had expected his approval and was pained and surprised. But the next day he returned and gave me a better opportunity for explanation of the advances I had made and of the true principles underlying the system I had evolved. Suddenly he remarked with evident astonishment: “Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?”
“Certainly not,” I replied, “these are radiations. No energy could be economically transmitted to a distance by any such agency. In my system the process is one of true conduction which, theoretically, can be effected at the greatest distance without appreciable loss.”
Tesla continues:
The Hertz wave system is in many respect the very opposite of this. To explain it by analogy, the piston of the pump is assumed to vibrate to and fro at a terrific rate and the orifice thru which the fluid passes in and out of the cylinder is reduced to a small hole. There is scarcely any movement of the fluid and almost the whole work performed results in the production of radiant heat, of which an infinitesimal part is recovered in a remote locality. However incredible, it is true that the minds of some of the ablest experts have been from the beginning, and still are, odsest by this monstrous idea, and so it comes that the true wireless art, to which I laid the foundation in 1893, has been retarded in it development for twenty years. This is the reason why the “statistics” have proved unconquerable, why the warless shares are of little value and why the Government has been compelled to interfere.
After explaining the inefficient losses of the Hertzian (transverse wave) system Tesla then explains the value of his wireless approach in conjunction with Figure 9 above:
The exact law will be readily understood by reference to Fig 9, in which a transmitting circuit is shown connected to earth and to an antenna. The transmitter being in action, two effects are produced: Hertz waves pass thru the air, and current traverses the earth. The former propagate with the speed of light and their energy is unrecoverable in the circuit. The later precedes with the speed varying as the cosecant of the angle which a radius drawn from any point under consideration forms with the axis of symmetry of the waves. At the origin the speed is infinite but gradually diminishes until a quadrant is traversed, when the velocity is that of light. From there on it again increases, becoming infinite at the antipole. Theoretically the energy of this current is recoverable in its entirety, in properly attuned receivers.
Obviously all of this is a matter of the public record. A brief explanation of how the system works by Tesla himself, and from which the above quotes were obtained is recorded in the February 1919 issue of the Electrical Experimenter (Link to .pdf). The bulbs lit up to 25 miles away were validation of the “work” regardless of “distance”. I don’t see how overcoming “distance” is a question in light of the historical record and experimental evidence validating the concept.
Then again, once relativist thinking came onto the scene the waters concerning the nature of electricity were significantly muddled and the proposition of any waves superseding the self imposed assumptive “speed of light” were bound to conflict. Even O. Heaviside ran into the wall of business interest which sought the easy and quick route to profitability with the implementation of apparatus developed by way of his approach to electromagnetic theory while ignoring those aspects of his theory that were related to the longitudinal (Aetheric) save for his telegraph equations. This too is a matter of the public record, extended research for those interested, through a series of articles in the old British publication The Electrician (Link).
Therefore, the work supporting and exemplifying member Upriver’s contentions has already been done over one-hundred years ago. To that end “… dielectric induction through the interior of the Earth … bouncing from transmitter to receiver” forms energy reciprocation via reflection (standing waves) “… operating the transmitter and receiver at the natural period and wave shape of the Earth’s own energy pulsation rate greatly overcomes the effect of distance… Thus a standing wave of inductive energy exists between the transmitter and receiver … all pulsating at one of the earth’s natural harmonics.” - Dollard
Now, what’s even further interesting along these principles and lines of reasoning (the longitudinal aspects of electricity) is that Tesla also sought to somehow harness the energy of the Sun. The inference might well be that these aspects of the electrical forces are also operative in the cosmos.
Obviously I jest; it’s not an inference at all.
"Once physicist grabbed hold of electricity all knowledge of it ceased. Electrons have nothing to do with the flow of electricity. Electrons are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. Electrons are the resistance." - Eric Dollard
-
Solar - Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am
Re: Work- What is it really??
by upriver » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:56 pm
Michael V wrote:upriver,
Faster-than-light entanglement: Can you explain this in detail please?
The weightlifter is doing exactly the same as the floor, what additional complication are you seeking?
Michael
No additional complications... I was tired when I wrote that..
"Experimental results have demonstrated that effects due to entanglement travel at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light.[23][24] In another experiment, the measurements of the entangled particles were made in moving, relativistic reference frames in which each respective measurement occurred before the other, and the measurement results remained correlated.[25][26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
^ D. Salart, et. al. (2008). "Testing the speed of 'spooky action at a distance'". Nature 454 (7206): 861–864. doi:10.1038/nature07121. PMID 18704081.
Faster-than-light speeds in tunneling experiments: an annotated bibliography
http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/ ... ngftl.html
- upriver
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Goldminer » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:15 am
upriver wrote:Michael V wrote:upriver,
Faster-than-light entanglement: Can you explain this in detail please?
The weightlifter is doing exactly the same as the floor, what additional complication are you seeking?
Michael
No additional complications... I was tired when I wrote that..
"Experimental results have demonstrated that effects due to entanglement travel at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light.[23][24] In another experiment, the measurements of the entangled particles were made in moving, relativistic reference frames in which each respective measurement occurred before the other, and the measurement results remained correlated.[25][26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
^ D. Salart, et. al. (2008). "Testing the speed of 'spooky action at a distance'". Nature 454 (7206): 861–864. doi:10.1038/nature07121. PMID 18704081.
Faster-than-light speeds in tunneling experiments: an annotated bibliography
http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/ ... ngftl.html
I am bothered by all the descriptions of entanglement that I have read. Every explanation mentions "real experiments" that have taken place, and then the commentary proceeds off into an imaginary discussion! Not a good sign.
Next, is the discussion of "photons" becoming "entangled" and then investigated in different places. How can one know of "entanglement" when the "photons" being entangled would be absorbed in the investigation of the "entanglement," and therefore no longer in existence?
Further, how can one photon be distinguished from another "over great distances" and "in different directions?" One cannot paint them with some code, or possibly know the history of any single "photon." The environment is filled with light waves, some direct from various sources, and some diffuse (reflected off of particles in the atmosphere and so forth.)
The whole topic seems to be a bunch of unicorn poo to me.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 984
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Michael V » Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:47 am
Goldminer,
Definitely.
I have a red ball and a white ball and I put them in a bag. I then reach in a remove one without looking. I then measure the colour of the extracted ball by looking at it - it is white. By the magic of quantum entanglement the other one immediately turns red. How marvellously spooky the quantum world is.
Michael
The whole topic seems to be a bunch of unicorn poo to me.
Definitely.
I have a red ball and a white ball and I put them in a bag. I then reach in a remove one without looking. I then measure the colour of the extracted ball by looking at it - it is white. By the magic of quantum entanglement the other one immediately turns red. How marvellously spooky the quantum world is.
Michael
- Michael V
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Lloyd » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:45 am
* If the material that Solar discussed is correct, what is presently preventing Tesla's method of wireless transmission of energy from being utilized? What needs to be done to accomplish wireless transmission of energy?
- Lloyd
- Posts: 2829
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by upriver » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:14 pm
Why is this in the Future of Science when clearly it has to do with basic science that everyone should learn in our electric universe..
This is stuff that Tesla(The Correas, Baron VR, Reich, Dollard etc.) have already said so it is the past.
Photons are massless(unless EU is saying that photons have mass). And they have, hold or are made of energy. Massless energy?
FTL entanglement. Energy(information) is transferred from photon to photon faster than light. Wheres the mass involved?
So it cant be mass since it(the energy, information etc) goes faster than light. And it can be separated from matter so it cant be a property of matter. If anything it is a property of a photon...
EU claims than energy is a property of matter.
I disagree and I think this perception of there only being massive objects in the universe will lead to a detrimental dead end for EU. Information exists without mass.
I also feel as though I see some of the traits of mainstream science creeping into EU in that you may not question the leaders in public. Tell me I'm wrong and show me why.
This is stuff that Tesla(The Correas, Baron VR, Reich, Dollard etc.) have already said so it is the past.
Photons are massless(unless EU is saying that photons have mass). And they have, hold or are made of energy. Massless energy?
FTL entanglement. Energy(information) is transferred from photon to photon faster than light. Wheres the mass involved?
So it cant be mass since it(the energy, information etc) goes faster than light. And it can be separated from matter so it cant be a property of matter. If anything it is a property of a photon...
EU claims than energy is a property of matter.
I disagree and I think this perception of there only being massive objects in the universe will lead to a detrimental dead end for EU. Information exists without mass.
I also feel as though I see some of the traits of mainstream science creeping into EU in that you may not question the leaders in public. Tell me I'm wrong and show me why.
- upriver
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Michael V » Tue May 01, 2012 2:20 am
upriver,
So you have entirely abandoned science and logic?. From here the answers are easy, they are anything you wish them to be.
"Energy" started to become included into the "ideas" of some theorists in the second half of the 19th century. Prior to this it was clearly understood that "energy" was a unit of work. Your massless non-material energy substance has other names: magic, fairy dust, god, etc., In short it is the essence and basis of all superstition. Your acceptance that light, or that anything, may be massless is a further indication that you are searching for spiritual answers to questions of physical reality. Acceptance of the concept of "massless" demonstrates a willingness to replace science with spiritualism and ends with a belief in back holes, big bangs, electromagnetic light and electromagnetic gravity. Mass is the property of interaction. It is, or at least it is directly proportional to, and therefore equivalent to. the amount of matter that an object contains.
What evidence or theory do you have that leads you to this conclusion? By what process can or does matter decompose? Protons are estimated to be stable for at least 21,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, "The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime is 46,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, at a 90% confidence level", the Earth is likely no older than 5,000,000,000 years old. I am guessing that you are younger than the Earth, so your opportunity to establish evidence of decomposing matter, is surely limited.
Attempts, such as Wal Thornhill's, to make "electrical" the basis of all force and existence are nothing more than religious agenda. Acceptance of the concepts of "energy substance" and "massless" is a withdrawal from scientific enquiry in order to hide in the comfort of superstition that has so beset the scientific endeavour for more than the past 100 years.
Work is Force x Distance. The definition is clear and unambiguous. I will grant you, the nature and operation of the universe is not so clear.
Michael
upriver wrote:Photons are massless(unless EU is saying that photons have mass). And they have, hold or are made of energy. Massless energy?
So you have entirely abandoned science and logic?. From here the answers are easy, they are anything you wish them to be.
"Energy" started to become included into the "ideas" of some theorists in the second half of the 19th century. Prior to this it was clearly understood that "energy" was a unit of work. Your massless non-material energy substance has other names: magic, fairy dust, god, etc., In short it is the essence and basis of all superstition. Your acceptance that light, or that anything, may be massless is a further indication that you are searching for spiritual answers to questions of physical reality. Acceptance of the concept of "massless" demonstrates a willingness to replace science with spiritualism and ends with a belief in back holes, big bangs, electromagnetic light and electromagnetic gravity. Mass is the property of interaction. It is, or at least it is directly proportional to, and therefore equivalent to. the amount of matter that an object contains.
upriver wrote:.... because matter is a process... Matter is not static, it will eventually decompose......
What evidence or theory do you have that leads you to this conclusion? By what process can or does matter decompose? Protons are estimated to be stable for at least 21,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, "The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime is 46,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, at a 90% confidence level", the Earth is likely no older than 5,000,000,000 years old. I am guessing that you are younger than the Earth, so your opportunity to establish evidence of decomposing matter, is surely limited.
Attempts, such as Wal Thornhill's, to make "electrical" the basis of all force and existence are nothing more than religious agenda. Acceptance of the concepts of "energy substance" and "massless" is a withdrawal from scientific enquiry in order to hide in the comfort of superstition that has so beset the scientific endeavour for more than the past 100 years.
Work is Force x Distance. The definition is clear and unambiguous. I will grant you, the nature and operation of the universe is not so clear.
Michael
- Michael V
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: Work- What is it really??
by Michael V » Tue May 01, 2012 3:11 am
Entanglement - are there two possibilities?
1) Two objects are brought together and then separated in such a way that certain physically measurably properties of the two objects are opposite.
2) Two objects are brought together and then separated and upon measurement of a physically measurable property of one object, it chooses to communicate to the other object, instantaneously and over great distance, the value of the measurement such that the second object chooses to instantaneously alter its corresponding physically measurable property so that it is the opposite of that value measured from the first object.
The received wisdom is that the value measured from the second object is dictated by the value measured from the first object. Perhaps we may make the measurement before the objects are joined and then again before they are separated, but oh dear the process of measurement of any given physically measurably property can affect the object to such a degree that anyphysically measurable property, including the property just measured, can be altered. In other words, there is no way of knowing at what point and by what process the "entanglement" of physically measurable properties became enforced. Unfortunately, when considering the two possibilities given above, Mr Occam was not consulted, neither was sense and reason. All hail, lunacy and funding, the central pillars of physical science.
Michael
1) Two objects are brought together and then separated in such a way that certain physically measurably properties of the two objects are opposite.
2) Two objects are brought together and then separated and upon measurement of a physically measurable property of one object, it chooses to communicate to the other object, instantaneously and over great distance, the value of the measurement such that the second object chooses to instantaneously alter its corresponding physically measurable property so that it is the opposite of that value measured from the first object.
The received wisdom is that the value measured from the second object is dictated by the value measured from the first object. Perhaps we may make the measurement before the objects are joined and then again before they are separated, but oh dear the process of measurement of any given physically measurably property can affect the object to such a degree that anyphysically measurable property, including the property just measured, can be altered. In other words, there is no way of knowing at what point and by what process the "entanglement" of physically measurable properties became enforced. Unfortunately, when considering the two possibilities given above, Mr Occam was not consulted, neither was sense and reason. All hail, lunacy and funding, the central pillars of physical science.
Michael
- Michael V
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: Work- What is it really??
by upriver » Fri May 11, 2012 9:39 pm
Michael V wrote:upriver,upriver wrote:Photons are massless(unless EU is saying that photons have mass). And they have, hold or are made of energy. Massless energy?
So you have entirely abandoned science and logic?. From here the answers are easy, they are anything you wish them to be.
"Energy" started to become included into the "ideas" of some theorists in the second half of the 19th century. Prior to this it was clearly understood that "energy" was a unit of work. Your massless non-material energy substance has other names: magic, fairy dust, god, etc., In short it is the essence and basis of all superstition. Your acceptance that light, or that anything, may be massless is a further indication that you are searching for spiritual answers to questions of physical reality. Acceptance of the concept of "massless" demonstrates a willingness to replace science with spiritualism and ends with a belief in back holes, big bangs, electromagnetic light and electromagnetic gravity. Mass is the property of interaction. It is, or at least it is directly proportional to, and therefore equivalent to. the amount of matter that an object contains.
Back to the beginning again. You seem to have lost sight of what the discussion is... When the weight lifter stops lifting the weight he is still expending energy. He is doing work against gravity. he is transferring energy or what ever you want to call it to the bar so the it resists the force of gravity. "Kinetic energy."
So what mass does kinetic energy have? Kinetic energy is massless and is not a property of mass. It is used by massless photons. It is used by photons to communicate during entanglement. Oh dear!!
So how do you explain the transfer of information at faster than light speeds between to photons?
Entangled electrons. Mass entanglement. I wager that it will be found they communicate at FTL speeds. How does this information travel?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... the-splits
Why is there zero time in tunneling?
upriver wrote:.... because matter is a process... Matter is not static, it will eventually decompose......
What evidence or theory do you have that leads you to this conclusion? By what process can or does matter decompose? Protons are estimated to be stable for at least 21,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, "The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime is 46,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, at a 90% confidence level", the Earth is likely no older than 5,000,000,000 years old. I am guessing that you are younger than the Earth, so your opportunity to establish evidence of decomposing matter, is surely limited.
Attempts, such as Wal Thornhill's, to make "electrical" the basis of all force and existence are nothing more than religious agenda. Acceptance of the concepts of "energy substance" and "massless" is a withdrawal from scientific enquiry in order to hide in the comfort of superstition that has so beset the scientific endeavour for more than the past 100 years.
Work is Force x Distance. The definition is clear and unambiguous. I will grant you, the nature and operation of the universe is not so clear.
Michael
I know what the definition is. Thats what the thread is about!!!!!!!!!!! The definition should be changed because it does not describe the interaction correctly. Otherwise as you say its a "religious agenda".
- upriver
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by upriver » Fri May 11, 2012 9:42 pm
Michael V wrote:Entanglement - are there two possibilities?
1) Two objects are brought together and then separated in such a way that certain physically measurably properties of the two objects are opposite.
2) Two objects are brought together and then separated and upon measurement of a physically measurable property of one object, it chooses to communicate to the other object, instantaneously and over great distance, the value of the measurement such that the second object chooses to instantaneously alter its corresponding physically measurable property so that it is the opposite of that value measured from the first object.
The received wisdom is that the value measured from the second object is dictated by the value measured from the first object. Perhaps we may make the measurement before the objects are joined and then again before they are separated, but oh dear the process of measurement of any given physically measurably property can affect the object to such a degree that anyphysically measurable property, including the property just measured, can be altered. In other words, there is no way of knowing at what point and by what process the "entanglement" of physically measurable properties became enforced. Unfortunately, when considering the two possibilities given above, Mr Occam was not consulted, neither was sense and reason. All hail, lunacy and funding, the central pillars of physical science.
Michael
Does entanglement occur? And can you measure that it takes place at FTL speeds? And what is the mechanism that allows FTL information transfer?
- upriver
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by upriver » Mon May 14, 2012 8:56 pm
If you imagine you have a device that removes inertia, is that the same thing as removing mass?
You can go faster than light with no inertia and you would still have the "form" previously termed mass...
So that begs the question what gives form to matter without mass? Mass is a property of what?
You can go faster than light with no inertia and you would still have the "form" previously termed mass...
So that begs the question what gives form to matter without mass? Mass is a property of what?
- upriver
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Re: Work- What is it really??
by seasmith » Fri May 18, 2012 6:26 pm
Mass is a property of what?
Charge
(an artifact of its attempted measurement, more specifically)
- seasmith
- Posts: 1597
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
47 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to The Future of Science
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest