E=mc^2

[BroMikey]

Laws of Thermodynamics

Here is one of many examples where scientist keep finding contradictions in the math.

Like I said the endless list of contradictions show that the Laws of Thermodynamics are seriously flawed. This has become common knowledge.

The thing that Aaron has been busily engaged in doing is to discover how and where these flaws are.

That is the question, how is it flawed. Now the article I posted may be another wrong conclusion but for the last 25 years many branches of study have shown these contradictions.

Even with all of the conflict the leaders tell the students to just go ahead and sign up again and it is our responsibility to find the answers.

Go register and keep up to date til you are 60yrs old. Ever learning never able.

Mike


Nanoparticles found to violate second law of thermodynamics

[wayne.ct]

An appropriate quotation

This, supposedly, is a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

There are indeed multiple definitions for energy and work. Textbooks and popular references make mistakes and editors are notorious for goofing things up. Ernst did a good job of explaining the conventional view of standard physics. Aaron's view is supported by the references that he prefers. I may understand it or not, but a problem remains. Where can one find understandable instructions to build a convention-defying device that doesn't cost an arm and a leg? The closest thing that I have read, so far, in this forum is the Bedini SSG. It is inexpensive and "defies" conventional explanation. Still, there are plenty of other ideas floated here. The usual "parting shot" goes like this: You must be a troll ... why don't you build something and prove it for yourself ... Over unity is REAL! Sorry, folks. I believe it is possible but I have yet to see the proof.

[Ernst]

OK, a claim of dishonesty has been put forward to which I subscribe; one of us (Aaron and I) is being dishonest and in this post I would like to present irrefutable evidence that it is not me.

1

my definition doesn't cause a communication problem

You agree with the fact that your definition differs from the commonly accepted definition. By giving different meanings to well defined terms you obviously do cause communication problems. People will interpret your words with the common definition which is not your definition so they will get a different interpretation of your words than what you intended. Communication is only possible if both the speaker and the hearer use the same definition.

2

although you say you are answering the question, you still didn't answer it!

and

You still have NOT answered the question and your misdirection about what the actual topic is didn't answer it either. The definition of energy is obviously wrong and anyone with common sense should be able to see it. As I have stated before multiple times...

But I have. It is right here:

The primary way of determining how much work can be done is by having it done. Then using the definition of energy as given by the laws of thermodynamics you can derive new laws. For example we know E(kin) = mv^2 / 2 and by dropping a ball from a certain height in the Earth's gravitational field we learn that a location in this field comes with a potential of mgh. That is mass (Kg) times gravitational acceleration (m/s^2) times height (m).
By multiplying the first two you will get force (N) and this is multiplied by height giving Nm or J. This height is NOT "distance travelled" hence the answer is NOT "work done". It is "potential distance travelled", hence "potential energy". So potential energy is legitimately measured in Joules. Thus we have potential energy and kinetic energy (and there are many more, I am sure you are aware of). But a red colour is just as much a colour as a green colour, a high temperature is just as much a temperature as a low temperature is. If you separate the two, problems arise as you yourself demonstrate by your COP=2 examples.

Tell me this: "How do you suppose to measure the capacity to do work?"

3
Your comment on my answer:

What you state is a fact, but I never said potential energy is work done, nor have I implied it.

But you have:

The mass is at a distance from the ground (dipole) and mgh shows how much potential energy is there.

The basic formulas for potential energy in an object at a certain height (mgh or mass * gravity * height) will actually give an accurate representation of the potential energy for an object at a certain height.

If you have lifted a mass (m) to a height of h meters, how much work have you done?
m*g*h
which is the formula of potential energy as you said correctly.

Potential energy is only one form of energy as I told you here:

Thus we have potential energy and kinetic energy (and there are many more, I am sure you are aware of).

We also have heat-energy, radiation-energy and so on.
Potential energy = energy
Like I said here:

But a red colour is just as much a colour as a green colour, a high temperature is just as much a temperature as a low temperature is. If you separate the two, problems arise as you yourself demonstrate by your COP=2 examples.

To which you answer:

And you even go off into your color example as if you're trying to correct me?

(that is right, I am trying...)
Now you say "energy is work done", which is also true (see colour example).
This implies
potential energy = work done
which is also correct, because you will never have potential energy if there had never been any work done.

4

you can't just give a simple honest answer that you erroneously said that gravity is a force
Also, you ignore all the times I have SPELLED OUT that force = mass x gravity.
You are using an explanation of what gravity does to mass by accelerating it, but that has nothing to do with the indipsutable fact that in the equations, gravity IS acceleration all by itself....
In the gravity equations, acceleration is NOT caused by gravity, it IS gravity.

Gravity is one of the four fundamental [B]forces[B] of nature

Source: wikipedia - gravitation
My simple and honest answer is that I correctly thought that gravity is a force. And the fact that you "SPELLED OUT that force = mass x gravity" is the cause of my confusion, as I said:

When you wrote "g", I read gravitational force. I don't know why, I was probably confused by other things I read just before.

Again we see your different definitions causing communication problems.

5

The forklift example is not my example, it is a copy and paste from a Catholic University's website - I suppose this is the Catholic Church still being sore about Newton so they're messing with the facts?

You can take your argument up with the Catholic Church, I just posted the forklift as an example to show the basic formula for work, which is correct.

You are hiding behind the Catholic Churge. Talking about dishonesty...
(Shall I write the pope about this... erhm... nah!)
If you could see that the example was wrong you would not have copied it. I even warned you that this example was wrong, giving you a chance to correct yourself:

Now a child sneezes on this box causing a (small) force and thus acceleration on this box and some time (maybe hours) later the box has moved 34m. Did our childs sneeze do 34,782J of work?

Ps2: do you see the difference between the question of the forklift and the grocery buggy?

You did not, proving my point that you do not understand what you are talking about.

And that is where we run into the second type of problem, that of understanding.

6

The forklift is NOT applying a force against the load it is carrying. If it was, the forklift would have to contend with the friction against the box and the floor, which it it not.

Again...
If the forklift would not apply a force, the box would remain where it was.

7

If anyone wants to argue that A is correct and B is incorrect, well, common sense logic reveals that there is a reason why there is the term ENERGY and the term POTENTIAL ENERGY and they are not the same thing. You have potential energy and then you have ACTUALIZED energy measurable in joules. they're OPPOSITES!

That is like saying north = south or up = down.[/QUOTE]

north and south are both directions
so are up and down
potential energy, kinetic energy, radiation energy, electrical energy,... are all energy.

8

Joule is the measurement of energy = work. It is ENERGY EXPENDED.

Energy is defined as the CAPACITY to do work equating energy as POTENTIAL ENERGY.

Again, how would you measure potential energy and what unit should it have?



This is my final post here on this subject, I will leave it for the jury to decide.

Ernst.

[Aaron]

Conventional Science - Afraid To Answer Questions

There is no communication problem with what I said because I have clearly spelled out what I mean. I have clearly shown that the definition of energy is contradictory and the the definition of joule correctly shows that energy is work, not potential work.

If I use a definition that is different and don't explain myself, then yeah, I can see how you could get confused, but I left no room for confusion and don't buy that it causes communication problems.

Anyone that can read what I posted should be able to see very clearly that I am very thorough in showing the definitions of energy, the definition of joule and how they are contradictory.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it is full of misdirection.

I will answer your final sentence, which is as loaded as your other statements - the correct unit for potential energy is also joule.

You are intentionally trying to confuse matters because again, you still cannot answer the question. Again, you blow smoke to obscure the simple reality.

Joule by itself WITHOUT any qualifiers means that it is ENERGY, WORK or HEAT.

Joule with the qualifier of PE means potential energy that will not be energy, work or heat UNTIL a later time if ever.

You are again using very deceiving points to continue your argument and they are very dishonest. PE being measured in joules gives no credit to your belief that the definition of energy is correct and is only showing me the level that you are willing to go to in order to maintain your stance.

I think the real issue is that when someone has believed in something as silly as energy being defined as potential energy for over 50 years, which contradicts the very definition of the unit used to measure energy, it is simply a very difficult pill to swallow.

And blaming communication problems on me when I made it clear enough for a schoolchild to understand my point, well, that is just inauthentic. You have made multiple false arguments that don't address anything I said, you have constantly misdirected the points to something that has nothing do with what I said, you're asking what unit of measurement PE is in as if that backs your belief in the conventional definition of energy, etc...

There is a 100% FAILURE rate over the years of me asking for a SIMPLE STRAIGHT ANSWER from any conventional believer in being able to answer simply.

1. The definition of energy is the capacity to do work, which is the potential to do work, which defines energy as potential energy.

2. Joule is the unit to measure energy or work done, which is the opposite of the definition of energy.

Q - Why is energy defined as potential energy when the actual unit of energy is joule that is actual dissipated energy and not potential energy?

To date, not one single believer in the conventional definitions has the guts, integrity or intellectual honesty to simply answer the question without a bunch of dog and pony show tactics - such as the ones that have been clearly demonstrated here by physics teachers, rocket scientists, etc...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUESTION THAT CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS PROMOTERS ARE DEATHLY AFRAID TO ANSWER:

A - Energy is defined as the CAPACITY to do work. Capacity = Potential = Unrealized, etc... That means energy is the POTENTIAL to do work and therefore, the definition of energy says that Energy = Potential Energy (capacity to do work). As ridiculously stupid as this is, that is exactly what the standard definition of energy is.

B - Joule is defined as "The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. " - Joule IS the measurement of WORK DONE or ENERGY EXPENDED or ENERGY DISSIPATION. This is completely indisputable.

The definition in A is 180 degrees opposite from the definition of JOULE, which is the accurate measurement of ACTUAL WORK DONE...NOT the capacity to do work, but the ACTUAL expenditure of work.

[Aaron]

agree to disagree

Ernst,

We can agree to disagree.

------------------------------------------------

A - Energy is defined as the CAPACITY to do work. Capacity = Potential = Unrealized, etc... That means energy is the POTENTIAL to do work and therefore, the definition of energy says that Energy = Potential Energy (capacity to do work).

B - Joule is defined as "The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. " - Joule IS the measurement of WORK DONE or ENERGY EXPENDED or ENERGY DISSIPATION. This is completely indisputable.

The definition in A is 180 degrees opposite from the definition of B JOULE, which is the accurate measurement of ACTUAL WORK DONE...NOT the capacity to do work, but the ACTUAL expenditure of work.

-------------------------------------

You can continue to believe that A & B are both correct as they are both conventional definitions of energy and joule that contradict themselves.

I choose to believe B is correct for reasons stated and therefore any definition of energy that contradicts B is false at face value.

It has been clearly shown that you believe A & B and that I only believe in B and that is why the definition of energy is wrong according to what I've expressed.

[BroMikey]

What an answer.

OK, a claim of dishonesty has been put forward to which I subscribe; one of us (Aaron and I) is being dishonest and in this post I would like to present irrefutable evidence that it is not me.

because you will never have potential energy if there had never been any work done.







Again we see your different definitions causing communication problems.




You are hiding behind the Catholic Churge. Talking about dishonesty...
(Shall I write the pope about this... erhm... nah!)


If you could see that the example was wrong you would not have copied it. I even warned you that this example was wrong, giving you a chance to correct yourself:


You did not, proving my point that you do not understand what you are talking about.




That is like saying north = south or up = down.

north and south are both directions
so are up and down

potential energy, kinetic energy, radiation energy, electrical energy,... are all energy.




This is my final post here on this subject, I will leave it for the jury to decide.

Ernst.[/QUOTE]

Okay I will answer the question for you.

All energy expressions are not all the same as per conventional Science and the University teaching and to carry on in a way as if someone might get in trouble with the pope shows a level of unsurpassed foolishness.

I have judged as you wished for.

Very incoherent is all I can say about evaluating the new evidence. It is pure kindness to reach out to someone in blind stubbornness when we are not being paid to do this.

People who search for pure science seek the true nature of existence and finding a tiny portion beyond the normal is the payment.

On the other side of the coin conventional status and personality conflicts over who has the brightest biggest idea is a competition aside from finding more than this tiny little box that no one can go of.

The cat is already out of the bag and has been for years on the flaws in thermodynamics with it's definitions.

I am a great judge of continuity of thought when people speak and like has already been stated the side tracking tactics only enrage the thinking mind when false values are exchanged for what sound better to group thought.

Discussing as that is we still try to help those in blindness.

Where as in other settings such as in colleges where the leader has the floor

and tells the class mates to put a sock in it, we have freedom here.

The Pope smokes dope and is a man who promotes homosexual practices and is a dog, child abuse condoned by this man and I would say that to his face.

There is no fear or anger, just obvious truth.

Mike

[Ben2503]

Cop = -3

Ernst,

We can agree to disagree.

------------------------------------------------

A - Energy is defined as the CAPACITY to do work. Capacity = Potential = Unrealized, etc... That means energy is the POTENTIAL to do work and therefore, the definition of energy says that Energy = Potential Energy (capacity to do work).

B - Joule is defined as "The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. " - Joule IS the measurement of WORK DONE or ENERGY EXPENDED or ENERGY DISSIPATION. This is completely indisputable.

The definition in A is 180 degrees opposite from the definition of B JOULE, which is the accurate measurement of ACTUAL WORK DONE...NOT the capacity to do work, but the ACTUAL expenditure of work.

-------------------------------------

You can continue to believe that A & B are both correct as they are both conventional definitions of energy and joule that contradict themselves.

I choose to believe B is correct for reasons stated and therefore any definition of energy that contradicts B is false at face value.

It has been clearly shown that you believe A & B and that I only believe in B and that is why the definition of energy is wrong according to what I've expressed.

Hi Aaron.
Analog to your model:
Money in the bank is different then money in the pocket. work=money spend.
I take $100 from the bank and put it in my pocket. Next I go to a shop and buy something that cost $25. I pay with $100 and get $75 returned.
So work done = $100 or $175?
next I buy something of $50, I pay $75 and get$25 returned.
work done $100+$50= $150 or $300?

Next I buy something worth $25.
total work done $200 or $325 or $100??

[Aaron]

not same analogy

Hi Aaron.
Analog to your model:
Money in the bank is different then money in the pocket. work=money spend.
I take $100 from the bank and put it in my pocket. Next I go to a shop and buy something that cost $25. I pay with $100 and get $75 returned.
So work done = $100 or $175?
next I buy something of $50, I pay $75 and get$25 returned.
work done $100+$50= $150 or $300?

Next I buy something worth $25.
total work done $200 or $325 or $100??

Can you use an example that would more apply to the definitions given using some mechanical, electrical or heat system?

That isn't an analogy. You can spend $100 and receive $100 in merchandise - that merchandise can actually have a value of anything in the eye of the beholder. Every person that receives the $100 can spend it on something else and that can theoretically go on forever until that $100 has purchased $1 million products or services throughout its life. The $100 in purchasing power goes on to each person/cycle without diminishing its face value.

Obviously in the real work our dollar is worth between 2-4 cents because of inflation since 1913, but the money example is not a real analogy to the examples we've been talking about.

Money systems are normally non-equilibrium systems, but it still isn't a direct analogy.

[Ben2503]

F = a vector

This is completely dishonest.

Negative mass? Like I said, magic wands and minus signs.

I've already spelled it out and you're playing games.

Why you have such a problem with being intellectually honest with yourself is beyond me.

Good luck to you - you're obviously jaded and it obviously has nothing to do what I have said or what Dollard, Lindemann, etc... have said either.

Hi Aaron
please check Work (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The work done by a constant force of magnitude F on a point that moves a displacement (not distance) s in the direction of the force is the product,

W = Fs.



I just want to determine the force F.
Is this Force F, the gravity, the force I need to apply to lift the ball or the sum of these 2??

seems to me a simple and honest question that could easily be answered by anybody with high school physics.

[Ben2503]

cop= -4

Can you use an example that would more apply to the definitions given using some mechanical, electrical or heat system?

That isn't an analogy. You can spend $100 and receive $100 in merchandise - that merchandise can actually have a value of anything in the eye of the beholder. Every person that receives the $100 can spend it on something else and that can theoretically go on forever until that $100 has purchased $1 million products or services throughout its life. The $100 in purchasing power goes on to each person/cycle without diminishing its face value.

Obviously in the real work our dollar is worth between 2-4 cents because of inflation since 1913, but the money example is not a real analogy to the examples we've been talking about.

Money systems are normally non-equilibrium systems, but it still isn't a direct analogy.

It's a 100% analogy, what you call merchandise are the 'loses' in the other situation. you can give the merchandise away, if you want.
You converted potential spendings (capital) in actual spendings. Like you convert potential energy in work.

[BroMikey]

contradictions

definite terms in use today conflict with English


The work of forces generated by a potential function is known as potential energy and the forces are said to be conservative. Therefore work on an object that is merely displaced in a conservative force field, without change in velocity or rotation, is equal to minus the change of potential energy of the object,

[Ben2503]

This, supposedly, is a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

I fully agree with this.
I think the most confusing part of physics are the parts that deals with units and time.
Force= Mass* acceleration doesn't make any sense to me. I have a mass, then I use a force F to move, then I get an acceleration, then I get a speed and then distance.

if I drag a mass of 100 KG over concrete I have to use a force F to keep a constant speed. The unit kg*m/sec^2 doesn't make sense to me.

If you put the 100 KG on a stand, the stand has to counter the gravity with a force of 981 N to become static.Then there seems to be 2 accelerations in 2 opposite directions.

Why not simply call the unit of Force Newtons? That makes it easier in all kinds of situations??

[Ben2503]

honest answer please

There is no communication problem with what I said because I have clearly spelled out what I mean. I have clearly shown that the definition of energy is contradictory and the the definition of joule correctly shows that energy is work, not potential work.

If I use a definition that is different and don't explain myself, then yeah, I can see how you could get confused, but I left no room for confusion and don't buy that it causes communication problems.

Anyone that can read what I posted should be able to see very clearly that I am very thorough in showing the definitions of energy, the definition of joule and how they are contradictory.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it is full of misdirection.

I will answer your final sentence, which is as loaded as your other statements - the correct unit for potential energy is also joule.

You are intentionally trying to confuse matters because again, you still cannot answer the question. Again, you blow smoke to obscure the simple reality.

Joule by itself WITHOUT any qualifiers means that it is ENERGY, WORK or HEAT.

Joule with the qualifier of PE means potential energy that will not be energy, work or heat UNTIL a later time if ever.

You are again using very deceiving points to continue your argument and they are very dishonest. PE being measured in joules gives no credit to your belief that the definition of energy is correct and is only showing me the level that you are willing to go to in order to maintain your stance.

I think the real issue is that when someone has believed in something as silly as energy being defined as potential energy for over 50 years, which contradicts the very definition of the unit used to measure energy, it is simply a very difficult pill to swallow.

And blaming communication problems on me when I made it clear enough for a schoolchild to understand my point, well, that is just inauthentic. You have made multiple false arguments that don't address anything I said, you have constantly misdirected the points to something that has nothing do with what I said, you're asking what unit of measurement PE is in as if that backs your belief in the conventional definition of energy, etc...

There is a 100% FAILURE rate over the years of me asking for a SIMPLE STRAIGHT ANSWER from any conventional believer in being able to answer simply.

1. The definition of energy is the capacity to do work, which is the potential to do work, which defines energy as potential energy.

2. Joule is the unit to measure energy or work done, which is the opposite of the definition of energy.

Q - Why is energy defined as potential energy when the actual unit of energy is joule that is actual dissipated energy and not potential energy?

To date, not one single believer in the conventional definitions has the guts, integrity or intellectual honesty to simply answer the question without a bunch of dog and pony show tactics - such as the ones that have been clearly demonstrated here by physics teachers, rocket scientists, etc...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUESTION THAT CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS PROMOTERS ARE DEATHLY AFRAID TO ANSWER:

A - Energy is defined as the CAPACITY to do work. Capacity = Potential = Unrealized, etc... That means energy is the POTENTIAL to do work and therefore, the definition of energy says that Energy = Potential Energy (capacity to do work). As ridiculously stupid as this is, that is exactly what the standard definition of energy is.

B - Joule is defined as "The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. " - Joule IS the measurement of WORK DONE or ENERGY EXPENDED or ENERGY DISSIPATION. This is completely indisputable.

The definition in A is 180 degrees opposite from the definition of JOULE, which is the accurate measurement of ACTUAL WORK DONE...NOT the capacity to do work, but the ACTUAL expenditure of work.

Hi Aaron.
Let me give another example:
Let's say you want to help the hungry people in Africa, so you load 100 KG of rice on your truck.

You drive 100 KM to the first village,unload your rice and tell the people they can take 10 KG. The remaining you load on your truck again.
and you drive 90 KM to the next village. Here again you unload the 90 KG tell the people they can take 10 KG and you upload the remaining 80 KG, and be on on your way to the next village 70 KM away.
etc..
At the end of the day you have travelled about 550 KM and visited 10 villages;

So what is your claim:

a. You gave 100 kg of rice to the people
b. You gave 550 KG of rice to the people. (what you offloaded)
c. You gave 1100 KG to the people. (total of what you up- and offloaded).
d. Work done is 38,500 KJ and COP=10.
e. People who claim they only received 10 KG are liers?
f. None of the above.
g. all of the above.

Please state your answers.

[Ben2503]

cop=-5

definite terms in use today conflict with English


The work of forces generated by a potential function is known as potential energy and the forces are said to be conservative. Therefore work on an object that is merely displaced in a conservative force field, without change in velocity or rotation, is equal to minus the change of potential energy of the object,

Hi Mike
Please check Work: the transfer of mechanical energy

Clear definitions in plain English even I can understand. Please tell me which parts to believe and which are lies and deceptions.
Perhaps that will help us all to move forward.
Thanks,
Ben

[Ernst]

Thanks Bro!

It is pure kindness to reach out to someone in blind stubbornness when we are not being paid to do this.

I am flattered!

The Pope smokes dope and is a man who promotes homosexual practices and is a dog, child abuse condoned by this man and I would say that to his face.

That is a brilliant conversation starter!

Cheers bro!

Ernst.