E=mc^2

[BroMikey]

Please examine Your words

I have been teaching high-school physics when I was young, and I was successful there judging from the grades of my students. Then when I was reading Aaron's posts here, I thought; let me try to explain this simple high school stuff again. I have done it before, I can do it again. But the difference is that my students really wanted to understand physics as it is taught, while Aaron really does not want so, and wishes to stick with his own definitions and theories.
Now that is perfectly OK with me, why should I force my understanding onto someone else?
I can use my energy in much better ways.




Ernst.

If you could only hear your own words in this short sentence. The above has nothing to do with you according to you. Or what you teach has nothing to do with what you think it is what you are told to teach.

Don't you see that Ernst? You won't spend your energy on anything if it goes against the Gov Run thought. It is a waste in your own words.

The experiment is YOUR responsibility and YOU claim to a capable experimenter as you demand all of YOUR students to be yet in the post above it is a choice of who you follow the teaching of, to teach.

Your 2 choices in YOUR post above is 1.Gov RUN whatever and 2. Aaron's theories.

So you said it yourself that you made a choice to teach what someone else tells you to teach.

Did you get it?

Your students should be upset with this double standard.

If the experiment shows the opposite of what you are told to teach from your GUV RUN society, then YOU as an honest investigator should at least know the difference.

Not just spread lies because you are being paid to do it, when you know better.

YOUR post shows us that you are following the pack because you don't have enough energy to go against everyone in the world.

I can understand this.

Start with the experiment and don't be concerned with everyone else.

Peer pressure driven robot triggered by key words and intimidating phrases is a jail cell.

I know you are and probable have done the best you know how with this system, yet you are here and searching for more.

There is great pleasure in finding out new things that would get you in hot water in your school, finding out more is why you have come.

Don't give up.

Aaron is not the author of every idea you hear him promote, he is a discoverer of those principles for his own satisfaction and we should be doing the same.

Fair well for now.

Mike

[Aaron]

erroneous use of force

I have been teaching high-school physics when I was young, and I was successful there judging from the grades of my students. Then when I was reading Aaron's posts here, I thought; let me try to explain this simple high school stuff again. I have done it before, I can do it again. But the difference is that my students really wanted to understand physics as it is taught, while Aaron really does not want so, and wishes to stick with his own definitions and theories.
Now that is perfectly OK with me, why should I force my understanding onto someone else?
I can use my energy in much better ways.

I already learned and believed the conventional physics as erroneously taught by the conventional school of thought. Then when it became common sense that it was wrong, I'd be a fool to continue believing it.

You still can't explain why the definition of energy is the capacity to do work, which is potential energy, yet, the actual measurement of energy or work, the joule, is not potential energy but actual energy. They are 180 degree opposites, yet you nor anyone else pushing the conventional definition have an answer to this. You all keep talking around it. My definition of energy is in perfect alignment with the actual unit of measurement for energy, which is identically the measurement for work.

What makes sense? Believing in two contradictory definitions as the conventional believers? Or, using definitions that are actually consistent, like what I am using? One is schizophrenic and the other is completely sane and rational.

You said:

"Originally Posted by Ernst
Every school that I have been to did not say that!
They said Force equals Mass x Acceleration.
Gravity itself is a force, how can force be a force x mass?"

You taught high school physics, yet you don't know that f=mg is identical to f=ma? That just proves my point that there is no reason to have any confidence in the conventional teachings because the indisputable fact that f=ma and f=mg is identical.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

When there is a reference to the 4 "forces" of the universe, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravity, and electromagnetic - that is NOT the same as force in the context that mass x acceleration is a force. Force has TWO contexts here and you are equating them. How do you not know this?

When calculating force with mass x acceleration, gravity is an acceleration, period. There is no force unless it has an interaction with mass. Then you multiply gravity x mass and you have a force in the Newtonian context - it will be measured in Newtons. Newtons on the surface of the Earth is called WEIGHT. Weight = Force. That is mass x gravity. Weight x distance = Force x Distance = joules of WORK DONE or ENERGY DISSIPATED.

This is all pre-physics 101, yet as a former high school teacher, you never learned this???

Gravity as one of the 4 forces in the Universe comes from the Einsteinian belief that large object have a tendency to "curve time and space" and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the use of Force as in the Newtonian context when doing the above equations. Even conventional popular figureheads like Neil deGrasse Tyson says Gravity is not a real force.

[Aaron]

NIST shows Force (Newtons) = mass x gravity

NIST reference...

Section 8

8.3 Weight
In science and technology, the weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that gives the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame [4: ISO 80000-4]. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight defined in this way is the newton (N). When the reference frame is a celestial object, Earth for example, the weight of a body is commonly called the local force of gravity on the body.

Example: The local force of gravity on a copper sphere of mass 10 kg located on the surface of the Earth, which is its weight at that location, is approximately 98 N.

Note: The local force of gravity on a body, that is, its weight, consists of the resultant of all the gravitational forces acting on the body and the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the celestial object. The effect of atmospheric buoyancy is usually excluded, and thus the weight of a body is generally the local force of gravity on the body in vacuum.


In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb “to weigh” means “to determine the mass of” or “to have a mass of.”

Examples: the child’s weight is 23 kg the briefcase weighs 6 kg Net wt. 227 g

Inasmuch as NIST is a scientific and technical organization, the word “weight” used in the everyday sense (that is, to mean mass) should appear only occasionally in NIST publications; the word “mass” should be used instead. In any case, in order to avoid confusion, whenever the word “weight” is used, it should be made clear which meaning is intended.

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

First of all, NIST's use of the statement "force of gravity" always includes the mass. There is no force of gravity separate from mass.

"Example: The local force of gravity on a copper sphere of mass 10 kg located on the surface of the Earth, which is its weight at that location, is approximately 98 N."

See?

Copper sphere 10kg is the mass X gravity of 9.8 mss = 98 N, which is 98 NEWTONS and Newtons is the measurement of what? FORCE!

NEWTONS on Earth is the same thing as Weight, but you can see even from NIST's definitions of mass and weight that they are so cross mixed and convoluted that they recommend not even using the word weight in their printed material.

Obviously gravity itself is NOT a force even though they say force of gravity because the proof is in the equations. N is unit of Force and is derived by multiplying mass x gravity = N and that is the same exact thing as Force = mass x gravity since N IS the measurement of Force.

Weight is typically used if the object is sitting and Force is typically used if the object is in free fall but the equations are identical and the product of multiplying the mass x gravity will still be in NEWTONS, the unit of force whether the object is sitting still or falling.

Every calculation I showed of lifting work is 100% accurate and are simply using the conventionally accepted equations, which are correct. What is not correct is the conventional interpretation that there is work put into the object that is lifted, but all the math is the same. We're still at a minus 900 joules of work that the rocket scientist cannot justify when we started with 100 joules to lift the ball.

[cikljamas]

If your conclusion is that we live on a flat earth in the centre of the universe, fine with me. I would still invite you for dinner or drinks if we were neighbors.

Ben, dinner or drinks if we were neighbors, of course, i accept it , next time on my account..., and yes, we are neighbors although not so near one...

Regarding story about flat/round earth i've used that example mainly to emphasize true nature of the fraudulent political-"scientific"-paradigm (matrix) inside which we are trapped like a intellectual and physical slaves, and it is obvious how difficult is to abolish slavery of our minds when we are faced with new paradigm.

I would like to close my flat earth story with this excerpt-reminder of the real truth about Galileo-myth-legend:

One frequent embellishment to the story is the claim that certain clergy refused to look through Galileo's telescope, because they thought it bewitched. Actually these were not churchmen at all but two of Galileo's scientific rivals, the scholastic natural philosophers Cesare Cremonini and Guilio Libri, who embraced the then popular view that telescopic observations were a superfluous amendment to the complete adequacy — or so they thought — of Aristotle's physical system. Ironically, the two priests who did look through Galileo's telescope, Frs. Clavius and Grienberger, were converted by the experience to Galileo's Copernican position, but this is only mentioned in scholarly histories. ...

The facts that are consistently left out of this story are probably more critical to its misunderstanding than are the embellishments. The most important of these is the story's failure to acknowledge the role that academic politics played in this affair. Historians have known for some time that the sequence of events that eventually led to the Church's actions against Galileo was set in motion by secular academics, not priests, and this changes the whole complexion of the affair. Galileo's academic enemies had much more to lose than did the Church if the Copernican world view turned out to be right, and this makes them the more plausible villains of this story. Galileo's personal correspondence indicates that he shared this view...

A broader reading of scientific history shows that Galileo's mistreatment by his ecclesiastical bosses was an anomaly, a momentary break in an otherwise harmonious relationship. In fact a more complete understanding of the relationship between Christianity and science has suggested to some scholars that Christian belief may have been the leaven that made the development of modern science possible. Modern science, after all, emerged in a most unlikely place, in an adolescent European culture that was only a few hundred years removed from barbarism. Nothing so revolutionary ever developed in the great civilizations of the Middle or Far East, despite their considerable antiquity and sophistication. The reason for this should be quite clear. The founding assumptions of modern science, its belief in a universe that is highly ordered and in a human mind that was created to reach beyond its finitude to grasp the mystery of this order, are premises that are secure only where monotheism has taken root...

In saying this, I do not mean to suggest that the Galileo story ought to be discounted altogether. It is a story that can teach Christians the wisdom of exercising caution in the face of scientific hypotheses that superficially might seem to challenge revelation. But removed from the larger context of history this story promotes the misleading belief that Christian faith harbors a general disposition to suppress rational inquiry. The consequences of such distortion, though hard to measure, are undoubtedly real. The Galileo myth sustains the widespread belief that the voice of the Church should never be raised in criticism of scientific claims, and it promotes the equally perverse assumption that religious resistance to potential abuses of scientific knowledge is simply a mask for obscurantism.

Read more: The Galileo Legend

What is more - Galileo was wrong: Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: Robert A. Sungenis, Robert J. Bennett: 9780977964000: Amazon.com: Books

[Ernst]

Ok Aaron, one more for you

One more post then, I know beforehand that you will not agree, but ok, what the heck?

There are 2 things troubling our conversation; definition and understanding.
One example of definition is of course your definition of energy. That is clear and we agree that there is a difference which is causing, what shall I call it, "communicational problems".
You ask me

You still can't explain why the definition of energy is the capacity to do work, which is potential energy, yet, the actual measurement of energy or work, the joule, is not potential energy but actual energy.

Ok, I will answer.
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.
The other problem lies is the usage of single characters as a variable. Different countries use different characters. For example velocity is often written as "v", but in some countries the "u" is used. Electrical current is usually written as "I", while you will also see "J" some times. When you wrote "g", I read gravitational force. I don't know why, I was probably confused by other things I read just before. But you were right there. g is gravitational acceleration. But be aware that it is not just acceleration, it is acceleration caused by gravity (force-field). And that is where we run into the second type of problem, that of understanding.

Your forklift example displays your lack of understanding of high school physics.

Problem: A fork lift moves 34m carrying a 1023N box across the warehouse floor. How much work is done by the fork lift.
Step 1: Write down the equation needed to solve the problem.
W = F x d
Step 2: Insert all known measurements into the equation.
W = (1023N)(34m)
Step 3: Solve. Carefully enter numbers into your calculator.
W = 34,782 J
The forklift does 34,782J of work.

The problem is that you are mixing gravitational acceleration with a horizontal displacement. The weight (1023N) has no influence whatsoever on the energy needed for a horizontal displacement. The gravitational force is perpendicular on the displacement, so the in-product of these is 0. Gravitation does not perform any work here.
To lift the box we need to apply a force 180 degrees opposite to the gravitational force, but this force too is perpendicular on the displacement (34 m), hence no work is done.
To get a better understanding of Newtons laws, let's assume that we have a completely frictionless floor as you imply already otherwise it would not be possible to come up with an answer. Let us also assume the box has no initial velocity relative to the floor.
If I apply a horizontal force of x Newton onto the box, for y seconds, then what happens?
The box weights 1023N, so its mass is (roughly) 104 Kg, using F = m . a we get a = F/m, so the box gets an acceleration of x/104 m/s²
This force is applied for y seconds so the end velocity of the box is y.x/104 m/s, during which the box has travelled d = a.t²/2 = y² . x/208 m.
The energy expended is W = F d = y² . x²/208 Nm (or J)
The box has moved and has a certain velocity, so no matter how much force was applied and for how long, the box will eventually reach the 34 meter mark.
If an ant sneezes on the box it may acquire a velocity of 1 nm/s and we will have to wait eons for the box to arrive. Whereas if a 747 crashes into the box it may arrive considerably faster.
This my dear friend is the kind of high school physics that I taught in the evening hours while studying at the university.
Now you would like to prove that there is something wrong with modern science, and you are right, for there IS something wrong with modern science. But by changing definitions and wrongly applying the rules you do not proof anything but your misunderstanding.

I would like to leave it here, if that is ok with you.


Ernst.

[Ruphus]

I agree with Ernst.

The math works as does the experiments.

The only thing I can agree with Aaron on this matter, (as I do like his aether influx as gravity idea, and others he has) is there are areas for improvement in the equations. With the idea of a universe of aether and all things are in it and travel through it, well where is the aether in the equations. There is no way to determine the effects aether on mass and acceleration. It is "built" into the math from the beginning. Maybe that is why Einstein dropped the idea of aether, it can't be proven.

Also is the E in E=mc^2
kinetic
potential or
force?

[aljhoa]

The math works as does the experiments.

So if mathematicians, engineers, and physicists can all manage to perform their work despite differences in opinion on this philosophical subject,
why does the true nature of mathematics in its relation to the physical world really matter?

The reason, Abbott says, is that because when you recognize that math is just a mental construct—just an approximation of reality
that has its frailties and limitations and that will break down at some point because perfect mathematical forms do not exist
in the physical universe—then you can see how ineffective math is.


Read more at: Is mathematics an effective way to describe the world?


Al

[Ben2503]

Ben, dinner or drinks if we were neighbors, of course, i accept it , next time on my account..., and yes, we are neighbors although not so near one...

Regarding story about flat/round earth i've used that example mainly to emphasize true nature of the fraudulent political-"scientific"-paradigm (matrix) inside which we are trapped like a intellectual and physical slaves, and it is obvious how difficult is to abolish slavery of our minds when we are faced with new paradigm.

I would like to close my flat earth story with this excerpt-reminder of the real truth about Galileo-myth-legend:



Read more: The Galileo Legend

What is more - Galileo was wrong: Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: Robert A. Sungenis, Robert J. Bennett: 9780977964000: Amazon.com: Books

Like I said:

I stay away from religions, dogmas, priests and politicians. Because these 4 have killed millions of people because they: were of the wrong religion; political party; country; wrong skin color; believed the world is round; believed the earth is not the centre of the universe; sexual preferences; wanted a democracy, live in freedom.
And although all of religions, dogmas, priests and politicians say that killing people is not acceptable and should be severely punished, they all found ways to justify to kill innocent people by the thousands and even millions.

In my view physics and a scientific approach are the best way to achieve free unbiased thinking. Math is just a toolbox in science, math models are approximations.

[cikljamas]

Like I said:

I stay away from religions, dogmas, priests and politicians. Because these 4 have killed millions of people because they: were of the wrong religion; political party; country; wrong skin color; believed the world is round; believed the earth is not the centre of the universe; sexual preferences; wanted a democracy, live in freedom.
And although all of religions, dogmas, priests and politicians say that killing people is not acceptable and should be severely punished, they all found ways to justify to kill innocent people by the thousands and even millions.

In my view physics and a scientific approach are the best way to achieve free unbiased thinking. Math is just a toolbox in science, math models are approximations.

Try to free unbiased think about planet Earth traveling 30 km/s around the Sun, rotating 1600 km/s on it's axis, and by same measure of identically strong gravitational force keeps us on it's surface and in the same time holds on all the enumerable billions of tons of ocean waters and rivers and lakes in their places and holds them (oceans) on the same see level all across such a hastening sphere as Earth should supposed to be...

If you succeeded to comprehend this picture without any serious doubt and without finding any great inconsistency in it, then you could probably begin to delude yourself even more (then before) how you just have made some intellectual progress but you have not, because such a ludicrous picture is just a demonstration of utter insanity of this world in which such insane theory could have been so easily accepted as (almost without any reasonable doubt) 100 % proven fact.

If you think that Apollo 11 was the most hilarious comedy of 20th century, then i have to disappoint you, Einstein's theory of relativity was much more ridiculous. I've prepared for you something ultimately hilarious, you just have to read it and you won't miss the point, i promise you. After reading it i hope you'll come back and tell us what was the point that you just have found in it.

Here it is: Herbert Dingle Was Correct!

You don't have to read whole article, just the chapter 7.0 Special Relativity After Einstein...

Then you maybe become prepared to take up profound significance of these words:

25At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26"Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.…

And the significance of these words is this: Science alone can't help us if there is no morality and honesty (behind science) in the same time, because when there is no morality there is no real science too!!! And without God there is no morality! I Believe in Order to Understand | Carpe Diem Coram Deo

Cheers!

P.S. I have forgotten one another example of human ultimate stupidity and immorality: Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?

At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them!

Why such a stupid (bolded) conclusion? Because these creationists think that they are progressive by evading Flat Earth hypothesis which can only explain this deliberately neglected and overlooked archeological fact of the highest importance : ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? - YouTube

[indio007]

For the record the Michelson - Morley result was NOT zero. Using the word "null" is for the purpose of obfuscating the real result.

The result was not what was predicted by the using the sun as the rest frame.

Kind of hard to perform the experiment now because the speed of light and the meter are fixed to each other.

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second

If the speed of light changes the measuring stick changes so that there will be no change.

[Ben2503]

For the record the Michelson - Morley result was NOT zero. Using the word "null" is for the purpose of obfuscating the real result.

The result was not what was predicted by the using the sun as the rest frame.

Kind of hard to perform the experiment now because the speed of light and the meter are fixed to each other.



If the speed of light changes the measuring stick changes so that there will be no change.

Didn't these guys prove that the earth and the ether have almost the same speed. Thus the ether is moving with earth, or the earth is moved by the ether?

[Aaron]

Intellectual Dishonesty

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.

The other problem lies is the usage of single characters as a variable. Different countries use different characters. For example velocity is often written as "v", but in some countries the "u" is used. Electrical current is usually written as "I", while you will also see "J" some times. When you wrote "g", I read gravitational force. I don't know why, I was probably confused by other things I read just before. But you were right there. g is gravitational acceleration. But be aware that it is not just acceleration, it is acceleration caused by gravity (force-field). And that is where we run into the second type of problem, that of understanding.

Your forklift example displays your lack of understanding of high school physics.

The problem is that you are mixing gravitational acceleration with a horizontal displacement. The weight (1023N) has no influence whatsoever on the energy needed for a horizontal displacement. The gravitational force is perpendicular on the displacement, so the in-product of these is 0. Gravitation does not perform any work here.
To lift the box we need to apply a force 180 degrees opposite to the gravitational force, but this force too is perpendicular on the displacement (34 m), hence no work is done.
To get a better understanding of Newtons laws, let's assume that we have a completely frictionless floor as you imply already otherwise it would not be possible to come up with an answer. Let us also assume the box has no initial velocity relative to the floor.
If I apply a horizontal force of x Newton onto the box, for y seconds, then what happens?
The box weights 1023N, so its mass is (roughly) 104 Kg, using F = m . a we get a = F/m, so the box gets an acceleration of x/104 m/s²
This force is applied for y seconds so the end velocity of the box is y.x/104 m/s, during which the box has travelled d = a.t²/2 = y² . x/208 m.
The energy expended is W = F d = y² . x²/208 Nm (or J)
The box has moved and has a certain velocity, so no matter how much force was applied and for how long, the box will eventually reach the 34 meter mark.
If an ant sneezes on the box it may acquire a velocity of 1 nm/s and we will have to wait eons for the box to arrive. Whereas if a 747 crashes into the box it may arrive considerably faster.
This my dear friend is the kind of high school physics that I taught in the evening hours while studying at the university.
Now you would like to prove that there is something wrong with modern science, and you are right, for there IS something wrong with modern science. But by changing definitions and wrongly applying the rules you do not proof anything but your misunderstanding.

I would like to leave it here, if that is ok with you.


Ernst.

Ernst,

I think the problems are with what you are saying... my definition doesn't cause a communication problem and you although you say you are answering the question, you still didn't answer it!

1. You're giving a false argument here: "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". What you state is a fact, but I never said potential energy is work done, nor have I implied it. This is like the cop who is confronting someone just standing there who starts yelling "Calm down." So people who aren't paying attention will think, wow, that person is being aggressive with the cop, the person's credibility goes down and people think the cop is making a rational argument when he is not. You're doing the same thing - by arguing and correcting things in this manner that has ZERO to do with what I said, you are deceiving people into seeing something that never happened. And you even go off into your color example as if you're trying to correct me? Why the deception? The only problem is with these games you're playing.

2. It is irrelevant what single letters are used - you admit you might have been thinking of something else, but that doesn't change the obvious fact that all this other nonsense doesn't add to your argument - it makes it look like you're running around in circles because you can't just give a simple honest answer that you erroneously said that gravity is a force so force = mass x gravity makes no sense - that is what you claimed. Also, you ignore all the times I have SPELLED OUT that force = mass x gravity. There is no confusion about what I meant and I have spelled it out many times. I probably spelled them out the words more than I used single letters, work = force x distance, force = mass x gravity, etc... first you argue the letters could mean different things then you admit you were looking at something else, which means the letter argument has nothing to do with anything. That is some serious cognitive dissonance when two unrelated things are used to argue the same thing.

3. You are mixing apples and oranges - you state: "But be aware that it is not just acceleration, it is acceleration caused by gravity (force-field). And that is where we run into the second type of problem, that of understanding. " 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. 9.8mss is gravity in the equation and it is not locked to the mass. Just like speed in some equations is not locked to the mass that is moving like a car, in the equations, speed will be all by itself and so will mass. In the gravity equations, acceleration is NOT caused by gravity, it IS gravity. Here you go again with your deceitful claims about some problems - the only problem is your comprehension of it, don't make that my problem or anyone else's. You are erroneously mixing a description of what gravity does to an object to back your argument about an equation. If you want to talk about what gravity does, fine say it accelerates objects, but that has nothing to do with the fact that in the equation, gravity does not cause acceleration, gravity IS acceleration.

4. 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?

Calculating Work

I posted that example to show the basic equation for work, which is correct. What you are talking about with the "horizontal displacement" is if there is a 100N box on the ground and we put 10N of force to push it 5 meters, we expend 50 joules and not 500.

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.

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.

5. "But by changing definitions and wrongly applying the rules you do not proof anything but your misunderstanding."

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...

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.

Anyone that says otherwise is 100% in denial of the blatant obvious facts here. The definition of Joule does NOT say that a Joule is equal to the capacity to expend energy or the capacity to do work, it IS the unit of energy or work (because energy = work). A watt second in the 2nd example in the definition of the Joule is REAL WORK or energy dissipation measured in joules. Joules is not measuring a capacity to do work. Because Joule is defined as such, the actual unit of measurement for ACTUAL work done or energy expended, the definition of energy, being a CAPACITY to do work is proven false.

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 means there is ACTUALIZED energy and then there is POTENTIAL ENERGY. Those are opposites. Yes, the definition in A as energy being the CAPACITY to do work wrongly states that Energy = Potential Energy. It isn't just wrong, it is completely laughable as it equates two polar opposites as being the same thing. That is like saying north = south or up = down.

The amount of denial against this very simple point speaks volumes about the sad state of the mentality behind conventional science - it is a complete joke. It is this kind of cognitive dissonance in the minds of the conventional believer that is the real problem. The obvious facts are right in front of their face, yet they dance around with their dog and pony show because they are incapable of dealing with reality or any facts about it. And, they DEFEND what is obviously false.

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.

Anyone that believes both is lying to themselves - there is no way around it.

They are... Intellectually Dishonest = "Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc."

[Aaron]

Dayton Miller

One of the best references for Dayton Miller's work and the Aether: Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

[Aaron]

proper definiton of energy

"My" definition of energy has been referenced several times as "Aaron's definition."

However, I am using the definition of energy that is defined by what a Joule is, which is the official standard unit of measurement for ENERGY or WORK DONE (they're the same thing).

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. "

So although I do use this definition, it it is not my definition, it is the definition of energy that is stated by the definition of the Joule and is therefore the proper definition. There is no contradiction in the definition of Joule. And the definition of Joule tells you the truth to what energy is... unite of ENERGY, WORK or AMOUNT OF HEAT. Energy therefore is actual WORK DONE and NOT the capacity or potential to do work.

However, the definition of energy being the capacity (potential) to do work is profoundly contradictory and is a complete farce at face value.

Obviously, I hope everyone would use the definition of energy that is consistent with the actual measurement of energy and not one that contradicts itself.

WHO'S COMING WITH ME?

[BroMikey]

Potential Energy Joules?

Ok, I will answer.
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).

I would like to leave it here, if that is ok with you.


Ernst.

Hi Ernst

I think if we can agree that work done and potential energy are not the same thing, we should all see a new model of what thermodynamics should be like.

The math is clouding the basic understanding of common sense evaluations.

I noticed this tendency in class when questions arise from conflicting data in any experiment, that the heads bring out more complex math.

The complex math is there to keep the student ever learning yet to never be able to make heads or tails out of any one subject.

Potential is "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

It is not an actual, it is more a hypothetical word that a thing might evolve into and could develop into something possibly.

It is a generalization or a loose approximation not an actual figure.

This is a bad brain freeze for many people.

We get to reading the books thinking they are great instructional guides that should never be questioned with one wrong plant or error like this alters the entire foundation of conventional science.

Embarrassing.

I hope you can see some of these small things make for poor building blocks.

Also when reading your post as a teacher I got the feeling that your statement negated gravity or the height of the object and force as it comes down is not counted in these equations.

I have spent half of my life at the library so I have seen books in many fields of science. I have moved around TX,CA,SC,MI,KS and the first thing I do is find the huge libraries.

The books with endless math always ended the same as they started using our conventionally excepted Laws.

It is time to go outside of these books and think for ourselves, keeping away from calculations that will bring us back to the same thing.

We want more. There is more and will always be more regardless of how much knowledge we gain.

The fact is we have spent a great deal of life just rolling with the flow to follow the crowd who must be right.

This is not the case, the majority doing it, does not only, not make it right, in my mind it is a guarantee that it is probably wrong somehow, though I may not be able to spot why.

But they call me a trouble maker sometimes because I am not afraid to questions the questions (why are they asking THAT question and not this one/) and those generating the questions and answers.

Mike