1 Joule of Energy

[Allcanadian]

@Aaron

The term GROWS (which it is CLEARLY acknowledged at the highest levels of academia that non-equilibrium systems GROW) implies that there is something that gains along the way and that is EXACTLY what a non-equilibrium system does WHILE IT IS DISSIPATING energy in a more efficient manner along the way and any gravity input is free potential that COSTS US NOTHING. That free environmental potential causes work and that work added to the lift requirement is MORE than the input work and is OVER 1.0 COP.

I would agree completely, growth or life is the singular point I use most often when confronting the skeptic. If you take any system continually losing energy, an entropic system, which is the basis for the laws of thermodynamics and apply the process of life or growth we would see the systems balance. Syntropy(gaining energy) or life will always balance with entropy(losing energy)or death. As well we should remember context, there is no mechanical machine man can build that can lift an apple without expending energy but an apple tree will lift tons of apples in time with no effort required by us. Consider the simple fact that man does not possess the technology nor knowledge to create life in any way from scratch, every system we utilize or build is based on death or entropy. We can argue semantics and physics until we are all blue in the face but that does not change the facts of what all of us already know, we are a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The laws tell us entropy will cause all systems to lose energy and deteriorate yet we perform a great amount of work every day and we grow stronger the more work we perform, our capacity to perform work increases the more we do-- maybe a skeptic here could explain this to me as it relates to entropy. This is the other half of the science and technology man has yet to learn, life/growth systems which extract energy from their environment and increase their capacity over time.
Regards
AC

[Aaron]

potential

You mean this?

The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP), of a heat pump is the ratio of the change in heat at the "output" (the heat reservoir of interest) to the supplied work.

That is very very specific in it's design. You are changing the words then saying hey this work for here and oh look by the way the cop is >1 here. Unless your device is changing the ratio of heat at the output and it has a reservoir of heat to measure that change compared to the work performed of the DEVICE then cop in your instance is way out of context for what this term was designed to represent.
So in your example where is the ratio of change and what is it compared to... I am suspecting you are comparing it to the 1 jewel it took to get there but what is this ratio of change we are trying to measure? Distance? Impacts? Seeing that you capitulated to distance as not neccessarily being work then what would be the ratio?

You are being completely unreasonable. You known full well exactly how I am applying the concept of COP as many in this field has done for years.

If you don't want to use COP, you can convince yourself that another term would be more appropriate...here use this one:

Murakami Coefficient of Performance (TM ) - MCOP. Then anytime you see this, it applies to every system EXCEPT for heat pumps. MY definition therefore is work completed by the system compared to what the operator had to put in...EXACT definition that has been accepted for COP when it applies to non-heat pump units already but since you insist that this is such an important point, there - MCOP, please remember you saw it here first!

COP has rapidly become the STANDARD for describing the output vs input ratio for MANY devices throught the "free energy" field including magnetic motors, mechanical oscillators, etc... ANYTHING can be measured in terms of COP where it is UNDERSTOOD to mean comparing total work done compared to what the OPERATOR had to input, which is different from efficiency, which accounts for ALL input including environmental.

When you're trying to distract the attention to such trivial matters, I know that you have no intention whatsoever in carrying on any kind of meaningful debate. You will simply post the same things that you take out of context over and over and over.

This is the same for any 2 sides on a political or religeous debate. Neither focuses on any valid points of the other, they just try to obfuscate the facts by pointing attention to other things (misdirection) to keep from having one's own viewpoint attacked, criticized or proven wrong.

Again, I think the record shows that 100% of the naysayers here in this thread have 100% completely failed to give anything regarding the following that COULD prove their point if they could simply answer the questions. A 100% refusal track record goes to show that 100% are unable to face the possibility of outright proving the conventional belief is an intellectual catastrophe.

1. Joule requirement to lift a ball to various heights.

2. Where is there any analysis on an object that is lifted to a certain height that measures any intrinsic change in the apple energy levels.
a. If there is no intrinsic change, the notion of "storing potential" is
totally and completely imaginary as is the entire concept of potential
in the conventionally minded physics. It is nothing more than a matter
of imaginary perspective.
b. IF there is some intrinsic change, then there can be some credit to
the concept of stored potential.

It has ALWAYS been an IMAGINARY concept for conventional physics because they never actually ever knew what the heck it is because they don't even know what energy and potential is!

In the free energy field, the concept of POTENTIAL is FAR FROM an imaginary concept. It is an actual charge potential that is measurable. It is known to exist. The non-fraudulent tests have clearly shown there is an aether that the Earth is moving through.

The potential is POTENTIAL when it is symmetrical and is not moving from one gradient to another. It is a charge that has an overall neutral or self-canceled charge when it is in a symmetrical environment.

Break the symmetrical nature of the potential and you cause a potential difference. It can be with the terminals of a battery, lifting one end of a board or pushing an apple off of a shelf.

When the symmetry is broken, then you have a SELF ORDERING mechanism of that symmetrical potential to be biased for voltage potential or to have a unidirectional downward push on the mass of an atom.

So conventional physics is using imaginary concepts while the non-equilibrium systems is known to be taking in actual organized potential that is moving from one level to another causing work along the way.

[jibbguy]

@ Cloxxki, Hehehe M8, don't try this one at home (i think he said it's a 100 lb weight).

YouTube - Higher pendulum more weight lifted B of A&B

Although i WOULD love to see those eh, "people" on TV you mentioned try it

[Aaron]

skeptics

I don't pretent to know everything. But what I do know is you think you do and boy you are convinced that you have the facts. You are the posterboy for quantum mechanics aren't you. You the observer are infinet and cause everything outside of your physical system. Wow how god like of you.

What I am convinced of is that there are some very critical points that have been brought up that all the skeptics run and hide from.

Don't mistake my passion for the truth and the desire to actually get a real answer to my questions as anything other than what it is...simply a desire for the truth.

I have given EVERY skeptic through this entire thread an opportunity to prove the conventional viewpoint correct. I don't mean regurgitating what the books say over and over and over as if hasn't been said. I'm talking about show with the conventional math the joule calculation compared to the input requirement and do so based on the ACKNOWLEDGED non-equilibrium thermodynamics systems at the highest levels of academia and see what it shows. 100% of skeptics REFUSED to do this.

You skeptics are too late. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics has ALREADY swept through virtually EVERY field of science because it is realized that it actually describes our natural world and that conventional thermodynamics has ALWAYS been wrong!

It is funny that the skeptics think they are defending conventional science even though across the board, everything is moving in the direction of everything I described.

Even though the highest levels of academia are using non-equilibrium thermodynamics to describe virtually everything as we know it the die hard skeptics will still defend the outdated model that has been proven wrong time and time again.

[Aaron]

natural systems

we are a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The laws tell us entropy will cause all systems to lose energy and deteriorate yet we perform a great amount of work every day and we grow stronger the more work we perform, our capacity to perform work increases the more we do-- maybe a skeptic here could explain this to me as it relates to entropy. This is the other half of the science and technology man has yet to learn, life/growth systems which extract energy from their environment and increase their capacity over time.
Regards
AC

Exactly!

I have literally posted PAGES UPON PAGES of references earlier in this thread from all the major universities in the world, Oxford, Harvard, Berkley, MIT, etc...you name it - departments in biology, sociology, etc...

A growing city self organizes and defeats entropy. A growing life form with cells is self-organizing and violates classical thermodynamics. These non-equilibrium thermodynamic concepts are known across the academic world as really being the only thermodynamic model that accurately explains life as we know it and virtually every thing that we encounter in the world.

The predicted argument from skeptics is - that is a city, what does that have to do with lifting an apple, etc...

I mean, it isn't that difficult to connect the dots and see how "as above so below"...any natural self-evident truth in nature is reflected on multiple topologies at the same time - nature doesn't operate in any unnatural way at all and conventional thermodynamics is the most unnatural way to describe nature that there is.

Just a matter of time until these concepts are on Oprah and the general public knows the distinction between open natural systems and artificial closed systems... lol just a matter of time...

[Inquorate]

Potential

If it is static, then all our efforts are in vain. But if it is kinetic, and we know that it is, then it is a mere question of time until man attaches his machines to the very wheelworks of nature

Superwave Theory and Subquantum Kinetics Predictions

Read part 2, regarding red shift and blue shift.

There is a lot of verification (more than for the theory of relativity) for the theory of sub quantum kinetics.

Love and light

[Jbignes5]

This post of yours demonstrates that you have not understood anything I have posted in this thread.

The energy dissipated on impact is irrelevant because....

1. Conventional physics requires X amount of joule(s) to LIFT it to each height.

2. Measure the height of each ball's bounce and how fast it bounces to each height. There will be a KNOWN mathematically calculatable amount of joules required for each bounce upwards to a known height at a known speed over a known time.

"The unknown that you don't speak about is in the action of the ball bouncing. The ball is the transducer it has a predictable tranducing of force applied to it relative to the distance it travels and the weight. Ever seen two different balls made of two different materials? If you were completely right then materials don't mean doo doo and that is not right at all!"

3. ADD ALL THE REQUIRED JOULES that conventional physics says is required to lift it to each height. Include the first lift joules.

"You can not add what the first lift was because what lifted it? If it was the ball then ok you could add them but then you didn't have any input did you?

4. Compare that to the required amount of joules needed to lift it the very first time.

"You cannot compare that without a very complicated conversion of the shape, material and cavity of the ball to what you used to lift it the first time to give it it's potential. The ball is a transducer not your hand or magic. It can not lift itself but by tranducing the energy that is released by another rather lengthy computation of the material and cavity and weight of the ball plus distance resistances both ways."

Not applying scientific method? You are asking questions that don't even address the point.

"They are valid questions. It is relevant that you avoid answering them because it shows you are only using one sided physics to see what you want.

You ignore very valid questions I have asked as well as every other skeptic.

Simply...

It requires 1 joule to lift a small apple to 10cm. IF THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL "STORED" IN THAT APPLE AFTER the apple was lifted, that means it didn't really require 1 joule to lift it after all did it? If .9 joules are stored at that resting height, then conventional physics MUST admit that it really only took 0.1 joules to lift it to 10cm and NOT 1 joule.

"The Potential is the distance for which you had to lift the apple. It also contains weight, specific gravity(where you are taking the measurements), shape and anything else that would affect the fall. I call it potential because it hasn't left your hand. It doesn't contain this potential but it has all the information one could need to calculate it's fall and reasonably predict it end. You are saying that your lift takes away potential when potential goes up the farther it gets away from a specific point on the earth. The energy you decided to use is wasted to the background environment. You gain nothing and you point is moot. You are twisting what I say and this just proves it."

And simply...

If you "get the potential out that we put in when the apple drops" than that means that it really didn't take any potential at all to raise it to begin with - since MYSTERIOUSLY we just got out what we put in!!

Again that was sniped out of context. Nice. Potential is only and I'll say this again potential is only a potential not a fact. Here is a definition of what this is in case you missed it in high school...." existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits"
The potential in the way I was using it means just that. Based on specific measurements we can tell the potential of an item. You are only including very few specifics like omiting transducer information and other essential information about your question. Why because given that information you would be wrong."

What blatant contradictions!

And simply...

If you raise an apple to 10cm and it takes a joule of energy, the notion that the apple is storing anything is ridiculous. It stored potential that we put into it?

Again, dig a 10 foot hole next to an apple laying on the ground. I guarantee that apple will do a heck of a lot MORE work falling and hitting the ground that I would have to input into the apple by simply pushing it over the edge. What energy was "stored" in the apple by creating a potential difference of 10 feet between the bottom of the hole and the apple? The apple would have never been touched so don't tell me that the apple does go through some change in the amount of potential it has.
"Again you are omitting information on purpose and how much energy did it take to dig the 10 foot hole???? Yoiu are chaning the parameters of the environment to prove your point and thats desperation!"

Potential is not some abstract concept to play with as conventional physics will have you believe. It is the radiant potential that all electrical circuits use for voltage potential and it is the same potential that gives a push on objects back towards the larger mass that displaced the gravitational potential. Potential is not an abstract concept, it is a literal polarized charge. It is not debatable that this free radiant potential exists.

"Again I urge you to learn the terminology that you use. Obviously you only know one part of the whole. Potential mean from websters dictionary (existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits)

The only thing that is debatable is what it is. I like the concept of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum as Bearden describes it and as NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS have been acknowledged for.

Rosemary Ainslie likes her model of the zipons - magnetic particles.

Peter and John seem to move towards the neutral particle concept.

Others have their own model they like to describe this infinite potential.

What it comes down to is that this potential IS what exists in a symmetrical type of fluid medium UNTIL something breaks the symmetry of it such as an object that is falling and the hits the ground. While an object is at REST at any height, it is in EQUILIBRIUM and is dissipating 100% of all gravitational potential by the resistance that is encountered by whatever is holding it up - meaning there is NO storing of any of this potential just because it is lifted up against gravity and held at any height. The only time 100% of that potential isn't dissipated is when it is allowed to move and gives way to the downward push.

The answer - zero potential was stored in the apple by digging a hole next to it the same way that ZERO potential is stored in ANYTHING that is lifted to any height.

Don't you see that the concept of storing potential is an IMAGINARY concept that is convenient from a matter of PERSPECTIVE and has NOTHING to do with any energetic characteristics of the apple itself?

Actually, the higher an object goes from the surface of the Earth, the LESS available gravitational potential is has available to it since the density of the gravity gets WEAKER and WEAKER the further from the surface.

"Dude try using that description when you next jump from a plane. Oh and by the way don't bother with the chute because the potential that you have won't kill you it is only imaginary and even better less the higher you go... So fly high man and lets put this theory to the test!"

The potential relating to an object for useful purposes other than just dissipation at a height is gravitational potential that is ONLY available to the object while it is falling. During the fall, there is only dissipation of the GRAVITATION POTENTIAL that is pushing on the apple as it hits any air resistance, etc... and when it hits the ground, it is 100% from the gravitational potential that entered the apple once it is moving downwards and NOT at any resting height. That is NEW potential that was NEWLY available to the apple at the very moment of freefall and NONE of this potential is carried over from the energy we expended to lift the apple, which 100% of all potential that is required to lift an apple is DISSIPATED during the lift.
Nope it is realized when tipped from the plane that it rests on. Gravity works the same weather you want to believe it or not. It's one of the main factors in calculating the potential. In fact a potential is really on a sliding scale you change the parameters and the potential changes until it realizes (you push it) and starts to fall.

And you say I don't know what I am talking about wow. You only have one half of the teaching of anything really. It sounds like you never even learned anything about language or even current physics. You can't say something is wrong if you don't have an understanding of it. Otherwise you only know what the "Experts"<-- whoever you learned from side of the story. Come on At least answer some of the questions I asked you. I have done my best to share with you what I know from what I have learned and from what I have seen with my own eyes.

[Jbignes5]

So you don't read the quotes?

If you read your quote you would see that I am actually answering you in the quote... Sorry but that is the only way I can answer you and really stay on topic...

[Jbignes5]

What I am convinced of is that there are some very critical points that have been brought up that all the skeptics run and hide from.

Don't mistake my passion for the truth and the desire to actually get a real answer to my questions as anything other than what it is...simply a desire for the truth.

I have given EVERY skeptic through this entire thread an opportunity to prove the conventional viewpoint correct. I don't mean regurgitating what the books say over and over and over as if hasn't been said. I'm talking about show with the conventional math the joule calculation compared to the input requirement and do so based on the ACKNOWLEDGED non-equilibrium thermodynamics systems at the highest levels of academia and see what it shows. 100% of skeptics REFUSED to do this.

You skeptics are too late. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics has ALREADY swept through virtually EVERY field of science because it is realized that it actually describes our natural world and that conventional thermodynamics has ALWAYS been wrong!

It is funny that the skeptics think they are defending conventional science even though across the board, everything is moving in the direction of everything I described.

Even though the highest levels of academia are using non-equilibrium thermodynamics to describe virtually everything as we know it the die hard skeptics will still defend the outdated model that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I can not answer your question because you do not or will not answer the questions I have asked about the problem you pose. I need to know how we calculate the joules that are used on each impact compared to the conversion rate the ball has. This important answer one would need to finish the calculations and for which I think you have no answer for.
You don't know it so how could you know what the results could be? Obviously you can't and that makes the question invalid. It doesn't matter anyways because even if you did know there is no way for you get get a net gain. In thoery it looks good but lacking information and a way to collect the gain makes it a futile problem.
I would also need to know if you lifted the ball or apple by your device or by the balls own will? You are taking the problem and making it a chinese finger trap if you will. There is no answer and I bet you have no answer as well.
Any gain in the "open" system would only go to the environment and not anything else. Wow you are an observer at that point and the environment is reaping the gains. Good job...

[Aaron]

what is potential?

I'm supposed to re-read my entire post you quoted to find your camoflauged answers inside? You should bold them or something.

"Again I urge you to learn the terminology that you use. Obviously you only know one part of the whole. Potential mean from websters dictionary (existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits)"

First of all, it is irrelevant what the "dictionary" says, which is owned my multi-national corporations that have altered, changed and updated the dictionary for many years to keep people ignorant of what their own language means. It is called DEPOWERING people, which is what they are doing and that word doesn't even exist in the dictionary.

Language is POWERFUL because when we can define things in very acute detail, we are empowered by it because our frame of reference grows. I would urge you to actually learn about the nature of the reference that you give me to describe what potential is.

It says potential is "capable of development into actuality" - yes it is but...

1. That is an ABSTRACT IMAGINARY concept and doesn't point to any kind of potential that is actually converted into real work in any of these systems just like I said...the conventional always dealt with mythical concepts instead of dealing with what potential actually is.

2. The same dictionary also says ENERGY IS THE CAPACITY TO DO WORK. A CAPACITY is being CAPABLE and CAPABLE is POTENTIAL! That means that the same book says energy and potential is the same thing!

In fact, energy IS potential moving from one level to another and when doing that, WORK is done and when work is in the process of being done, that is what energy is. Energy is not the capacity, capability or potential to do work...Energy IS potential turning from potential work into actual work.

3. Yes, potential is a capability of something turning into actuality. However, that is a dictionary for non-scientific purposes and a flawed dictionary at that and again, does NOT address the distinctions between the IMAGINARY ILLUSION of potential that conventional physics deals with and the ACUTAL free radiant potential that actually does work when its symmetry is broken so that it can be polarized and do work.

So, it is obvious that I only know half the story? You quote me a reference that says energy and potential are the same thing and a non-scientific reference and you use that as your definition of potential to defend the conventional thermodynamic viewpoint? An imaginary abstract concept with no substance. That is a reference suitable for teaching a child the concept of potential.

But that is NOT a reference for showing SPECIFICALLY what potential is in terms of the actual potential of something being stored in an apple that is supposedly supposed to happen when lifted to a height.

Saying that potential is stored in the apple when lifted to a height is IMPLYING AND CLAIMING that it is a tangible or measurable thing. I don't mean measurable by bogus math formulas with their IMAGINARY constants and so forth...I'm talking measurable as in specifically point out as to what this mysterious potential is that conventional physics claims is being STORED in the apple.

Is it an IMAGINARY ABSTRACT CONCEPT - or is the potential being stored supposed to actually be something tangible or measurable?

If it is abstract, then nothing is being stored and this mythical concept of storing potential is truly nothing other than a matter of perspective and has been a fraud over all the years.

If it is not abstract, then please tell me, what is this potential?

You don't store an abstract concept even though there is math that says how much of an abstract concept is in that apple isn't there? It is abstract because in conventional terms, they don't know what the potential or energy is and don't even know that it is far from abstract but is actually an energetic phenomena of actual charges that may or many not do work depending on whether or not that have an asymmetrical route to follow, which turns the potential work in to actual work or what we would call energy.

[Jbignes5]

@Aaron


I would agree completely, growth or life is the singular point I use most often when confronting the skeptic. If you take any system continually losing energy, an entropic system, which is the basis for the laws of thermodynamics and apply the process of life or growth we would see the systems balance. Syntropy(gaining energy) or life will always balance with entropy(losing energy)or death. As well we should remember context, there is no mechanical machine man can build that can lift an apple without expending energy but an apple tree will lift tons of apples in time with no effort required by us. Consider the simple fact that man does not possess the technology nor knowledge to create life in any way from scratch, every system we utilize or build is based on death or entropy. We can argue semantics and physics until we are all blue in the face but that does not change the facts of what all of us already know, we are a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The laws tell us entropy will cause all systems to lose energy and deteriorate yet we perform a great amount of work every day and we grow stronger the more work we perform, our capacity to perform work increases the more we do-- maybe a skeptic here could explain this to me as it relates to entropy. This is the other half of the science and technology man has yet to learn, life/growth systems which extract energy from their environment and increase their capacity over time.
Regards
AC

Do you eat? We grow because we feed our bodies. We grow stronger because we consume the calories from what we eat as we perform work. We also die as well. Not one of us has lived forever. there are cycles in life if you pull your view to see the entire cycles from begining to end. There is nothing magical about that. Don't feed your plants and they die. Don't take care of the environment (pollution) and it dies. Everything is a transducer of energy. Otherwise it would not exist. Each one has a verying degree of efficiency. Some grow faster some get stronger then others but we all have limits based on the intake of our sources of energy and the design limits to our genetic make up. Eat too much and you get fat. Don't eat enough or the wrong kinds of foods and you wither. Again nothing magical about that.

[Jbignes5]

I'm supposed to re-read my entire post you quoted to find your camoflauged answers inside? You should bold them or something.

"Again I urge you to learn the terminology that you use. Obviously you only know one part of the whole. Potential mean from websters dictionary (existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits)"

First of all, it is irrelevant what the "dictionary" says, which is owned my multi-national corporations that have altered, changed and updated the dictionary for many years to keep people ignorant of what their own language means. It is called DEPOWERING people, which is what they are doing and that word doesn't even exist in the dictionary.

Language is POWERFUL because when we can define things in very acute detail, we are empowered by it because our frame of reference grows. I would urge you to actually learn about the nature of the reference that you give me to describe what potential is.

It says potential is "capable of development into actuality" - yes it is but...

1. That is an ABSTRACT IMAGINARY concept and doesn't point to any kind of potential that is actually converted into real work in any of these systems just like I said...the conventional always dealt with mythical concepts instead of dealing with what potential actually is.

2. The same dictionary also says ENERGY IS THE CAPACITY TO DO WORK. A CAPACITY is being CAPABLE and CAPABLE is POTENTIAL! That means that the same book says energy and potential is the same thing!

In fact, energy IS potential moving from one level to another and when doing that, WORK is done and when work is in the process of being done, that is what energy is. Energy is not the capacity, capability or potential to do work...Energy IS potential turning from potential work into actual work.

3. Yes, potential is a capability of something turning into actuality. However, that is a dictionary for non-scientific purposes and a flawed dictionary at that and again, does NOT address the distinctions between the IMAGINARY ILLUSION of potential that conventional physics deals with and the ACUTAL free radiant potential that actually does work when its symmetry is broken so that it can be polarized and do work.

So, it is obvious that I only know half the story? You quote me a reference that says energy and potential are the same thing and a non-scientific reference and you use that as your definition of potential to defend the conventional thermodynamic viewpoint? An imaginary abstract concept with no substance. That is a reference suitable for teaching a child the concept of potential.

But that is NOT a reference for showing SPECIFICALLY what potential is in terms of the actual potential of something being stored in an apple that is supposedly supposed to happen when lifted to a height.

Saying that potential is stored in the apple when lifted to a height is IMPLYING AND CLAIMING that it is a tangible or measurable thing. I don't mean measurable by bogus math formulas with their IMAGINARY constants and so forth...I'm talking measurable as in specifically point out as to what this mysterious potential is that conventional physics claims is being STORED in the apple.

Is it an IMAGINARY ABSTRACT CONCEPT - or is the potential being stored supposed to actually be something tangible or measurable?

If it is abstract, then nothing is being stored and this mythical concept of storing potential is truly nothing other than a matter of perspective and has been a fraud over all the years.

If it is not abstract, then please tell me, what is this potential?

You don't store an abstract concept even though there is math that says how much of an abstract concept is in that apple isn't there? It is abstract because in conventional terms, they don't know what the potential or energy is and don't even know that it is far from abstract but is actually an energetic phenomena of actual charges that may or many not do work depending on whether or not that have an asymmetrical route to follow, which turns the potential work in to actual work or what we would call energy.

Damit Aaron you can not make up meaning and round about thinking when dealing with others. Why do you think they have dictionaries in the first place. Potential means just that if I measure the potential of a 12v battery it will read 13 volts. This potential is not really being consumed it is for reference. When I say an apple has potential it means given the same distance from the ground in another place it would fall with the same resulting force as the place you are talking about. No it hasn't been realized yet because it hasn't fallen but we know what will happen when it does before hand.
Now since you decided to pick apart yet again one thing you thought you could get a one up on me about I need to know a few things about the problem you put forth. How many joules are expended upon impact. And don't tell me 1 because thats not it.
Also I need to know specifics about the ball like given a certain amount of force how much will it bounce. Then I can calculate the amount of distance it will bounce the second time with the amount of joules it has converted. Mind you nothing is a perfect conductor.


For gods sake understand the terminology you are using not some made up meaning from some obscure guy who thinks he has the new meaning. Potential is just that a potential to do work. That potential can be calculated given the weight, near earth?, shape, surface area<resistances, and the distance dropped. Anything else after the impact will also have to be calculated with a diatribe of information like how well does the ball transduce the enery of impact and the likes.

So the questions are how many joules are expended at impact.
And what is the conversion rate of the ball to take those joules and rebound a certain distance?
Also what makes you think that you witnessing the results meany you had anything to do with the results other then waste 1 joule giving it the potential to fall a certain distance. You are not attached to the ball and no device is there to extract anything from the ball. So what is the end result? The energy was wasted to the environment. The Environment can not be the output because it is not connected to you in any way? Other then you observing the results. Then energy if any gains are for the environment and not you so whats the difference anyways? Whats the point to this question other then sharpening you ability to twist these observations to your benefit. But I have yet to see what benefit you are getting from this experiment...

[Jbignes5]

here is the complete meaning of energy..

1 a : dynamic quality <narrative energy> b : the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual energy> c : a usually positive spiritual force <the energy flowing through all people>
2 : vigorous exertion of power : effort <investing time and energy>
3 : a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work
4 : usable power (as heat or electricity); also : the resources for producing such power

If you are gonna say a meaning you should use the right context. Not one that proves your point. # 3 I believe you used out of context and only used the part after usually... Words have many meaning or ways to use them. Choose them wisely and it proves your point but only in it's whole meaning. take only part of that meaning and it starts to look like you are making it mean what you want.

This is the whole meaning of the word potential:

1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>
2 : expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in “it may rain”)

Now I chose #1 because that is the context of the meaning I chose. I didn't use only part of the sentence I chose #1 because it fits the meaning I was trying to convey.

[Aaron]

natural system

Do you eat? We grow because we feed our bodies. We grow stronger because we consume the calories from what we eat as we perform work. We also die as well. Not one of us has lived forever. there are cycles in life if you pull your view to see the entire cycles from begining to end. There is nothing magical about that. Don't feed your plants and they die. Don't take care of the environment (pollution) and it dies. Everything is a transducer of energy. Otherwise it would not exist. Each one has a verying degree of efficiency. Some grow faster some get stronger then others but we all have limits based on the intake of our sources of energy and the design limits to our genetic make up. Eat too much and you get fat. Don't eat enough or the wrong kinds of foods and you wither. Again nothing magical about that.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about anything being magical...

You prove my point...what do plants need and what do we need to sustain? How much do we have to pay for the sunshine?

We take in sun and oxygen and QI (life force energy that potentiates our nervous system, etc...)...we are NOT separate from our environment and would die without it.

In addition to our own efforts, nature is feeding us from all directions, which we do not have to pay for. The cummulative amount of work that we do is MORE than what we have to intake as far as food or water. Sun, oxygen and lifeforce energy are free for the taking and add to what we have to personally provide.

Everything you describe as being nothing magical VIOLATES conventional thermodynamics.

[Allcanadian]

@jbignes5

Do you eat? We grow because we feed our bodies. We grow stronger because we consume the calories from what we eat as we perform work. We also die as well. Not one of us has lived forever. there are cycles in life if you pull your view to see the entire cycles from begining to end. There is nothing magical about that. Don't feed your plants and they die. Don't take care of the environment (pollution) and it dies. Everything is a transducer of energy. Otherwise it would not exist. Each one has a verying degree of efficiency. Some grow faster some get stronger then others but we all have limits based on the intake of our sources of energy and the design limits to our genetic make up. Eat too much and you get fat. Don't eat enough or the wrong kinds of foods and you wither. Again nothing magical about that.

I would agree with all the comments Aaron made in his post, if you are looking for magic there is none to be found here nor do we believe there is, LOL. You seem to be making many assumptions as to what you think we do believe, false assumptions I might add. I would agree with most of what you have said with the exception of plants. Most city folk may believe you have to feed plants and buy them in a store but in nature this is not the case, plants do very well without our help as does all nature.
The main point I would make is that syntropic reactions are related to absorbtion of energy not radiation of it as in entropic reactions. A plant does not need to run about and kill something or destroy something else to thrive, unlike humans. The conditions are such that ambient or radiated energy is absorbed when something creates the conditions of an energy sink.
Another good case against the fatalistic entropy crowd is obvious--gravity. Gravity acts inward, earth pulls all objects in space to itself and grows larger in the process by 30,000 tons a year roughly. I wonder how this relates to the second law of thermodynamics which states "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it." , the earth and all living things take small things and/or energy then organize them into larger things and this is a decrease in entropy. We could argue context all day long but the fact remains that if a law is broken even once it has no application and should be replaced with a better one.
Regards
AC