phildukephd

Everything Nicholas Kang posts is quite good. IMO his Posts plus my one pretty much present what can be said on the subject in terms of our present understanding baswed on experimental verification. The rest is speculation.

As far as I know "Gravitons" are theoretical constructs related to the supposed curvature of space and both Gravitons and curved space have not been proven experimentally. If you assume that matter moves under the influence of gravity by the shortest possible route to conserve energy (why?) then the concept pf curved space can be a useful but untrue explanation. What is curved is space-time. Gravity slows time down and the decrease in time is compensated for by the appearance of motion energy, that is acceleration. Then there is no need for gravitons, because there is no force of gravity, only conservation of time/energy. It is experimentally proven that when atomic cocks are synchronized and one is flown around as high as possible, on return it is found to be running a (very) little faster than the one on the ground, showing that gravity does slow the flow of time. It is proven experimentally that when subatomic particles are accelerated to near light speed they econtinue to xist up to 20 times longer than otherwise. This shows that acceleration and time flow rate are inversely related (but not inverse linearly). Then the reverse can be expected, that an decrease in time flow will produce acceleration. As far as I know the mechanism by which matter affects time is unknown. This explanation of how the acceleration force due to/called gravity comes about is Dr. Einstein's and it is good enough for me. PD PhD

Hello ajb, and thank you for your Post which is considerably more positive than all the others. I reply as follows. The answer to my question is well-known among persons who have studied the subject, on this Forum no one has posted anything in the least way meaningful regarding the answer to my question, "Where does the electrical energy come from?". I recently Posted asking if Posters wanted me to Post the answer, not one Poster said yes. Prior comments were such as "you are less knowledgable than other Posters," "if it's GR we already know it," "the Poster is just playing games," "stop the silliness" etc. I try to give people not what they want but what they need, and this Forum needs an attitude adjustment. If despite the negativity I just went ahead and Posted the answer, this would serve to promote the negative attitude two ways. For one it would be a reward for it, and for another since the subject is very difficult to grasp, Posters would just think the astonishing explanation is all nonsense, and their opinion of me and Dr. Einstein's great work would be further dominished.. So that Posters will not think I am trying to put them down by saying the answer is very difficult to grasp, and they would not be able to, know that after many year's study including the reading of Dr. Einstein's 1904 seminal papers in German, I still feel I do not grasp it, and expect I never will. But I do understand the explanation in terms of its wording. Based on the foregoing I have therefore decided not to Post the answer, at least at this time. I again point out that not one person Posted they wanted me to Post it, plus any Poster who is the least bit interested could have and still can easily look the answr up. Then if he is brave enough he can Post it. The question I raised is an important one, because if the Energy Conservation Law, also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, is being violated, then many things could and would be different. In fact the Law is NOT being violated. The energy does come from somewhere/something, and as I have repeatedly Posted as a helpful hint, something is necessarily being converted to the energy of motion that is the result of what Sir Isaac Newton termed Gravity, from the Latin word Gravitas, or heavy. The question is, what? Posters! Continue on with your interest in and study of physics. I wish you all as much success as possible, and wish you all well. Best regards, Phillip Duke PhD

Hello all, I am not responding to the above thread here, but am simply trying to keep possibly interested Posters informed. I sent the moderator a message thanking him for allowing me to Post again, and stating that from the email timing information on the emails from him via my AOL I did not receive the warnings in time. I have had and still have problems with receiving my AOl email. In addition I asked the moderator if after Posting the answer to the question I raised, which would be Dr. Einstein's explanation and not mine,I am then obligated to defend his explanation. If so I prefer not to Post it, as IMO Dr. Einstein's work being very well accepted professionally needs no defense, and I have nothing new to add. Anyone interested need only look up Gravity in Relativity. So far I have not received a reply (via AOL). A Poster stated "you will not be missed," and so perhaps the explanation would also not be missed, and therefore possibly need not be given? Do Posters here want to see it or not? Again, it would be Dr. Einstein's explanation and not mine, and presented but not defended by me. Regards, Phillip Duke PhD

I have been notified by the moderator that I can no longer post here, because "after two warnings I again spammed" therefore I assume this will not be posted, but I hope a moderator will see it, as I see no other way to possibly contact the moderator. Please know it is my policy to follow the Rules, and I do not ignore warnings. I posted here only after reading my emails from the Science Forum, and I never received any prior warning at all, if I did I would not have again violated the Rule, which I was not aware of. If possible please send me copies of the prior two warnings. it appears I was given two hegative points and banned due to the same one post is that correct? Also I was warned about trying to "enable" something. Enable what? My email is through AOL and it has happened that sometimes I do not receive all my messages. I hope the Forum posters will know that I am unable to continue and supply the answer to the question I initially raised. This procedure of banning me without any prior warning reflects badly on this Forum, or on AOL, and unless it can be straightened out I probably will not post here again, because I like to finish what I have started, and have opportunity to answer any question I raise. It seems to me you have a good forum here and I would like to continue posting. Very truly, Phillip Duke PhD

Hello all, it has been awhile coming, but somewhat negative comments about me are being posted, and as I said initially, with derogatory posts/personal attacks I will not post further. So be careful how negative your Posts are. I am not required to supply the answer to the question I raised, when the answer is available in any book on Relativity, A poster said it was a waste of time replying to my post because I am "just playing games." For his information gravity and the conservation law's validity are important, and the answer to my question will be from Einstein not me. A poster said that any further posts regarding my ebooks will be deleted. I mentioned my 32 ebooks in the context of my website which is against the rules to advertise which lists my science questions and ebooks, and in the context of an ebook being the prize for the best science based satisfactory answer to any post of mine. A poster stated that gravity alone cannot do work. Visit a hydroelectric plant, see a water wheel turning a grist mill. Yes, you need the facility, but the water flow is the actuating agent, Stop the water flow, stop the electrical energy or mechanical work. A poster blamed me for the tidal discussions being off the subject, because I introduced it. However it is not my fault that people missed the point and ignored the fact that the tides allow gravity to do work period. The Sun is not required. A poster stated that Newtonian Mechanics are not invalidated by Einstein's Relativity. I want to make this clear even if it makes posters angry: Newton's laws of motion F =ma and V =at are not mathematically correct because m varies with a and t varies with a (as light speed is approached). Newton assumes constant time flow while Einstein's time flow can vary in relation to different frameworks and gravity. Newton's laws are special cases that apply at relatively low speeds compared to light, and relatively weak gravity as on Earth. Newton's concept based on absolute mass and constant time is wrong philosophically. In his Letters to Bentley Newton stated he did not believe in "action at a distance." Even before Einstein the work of Michaelson-Morley with the speed of light, which showed that according to classical mechanics the Earth was not moving, and the unexplained deviations in the orbit of Mercury, showed flaws in classical mechanics. Many experiments have verified Einstein's work now. You can read about them in books on Relativity. IMO great discoveries are often made by studies and experimentation in areas that are very important and very puzzling. No one can say gravity is not very important, and it is also very puzzling, so where does it come from, how does it produce energy? Hint: Gravitation does NOT invalidate the conservation law. The energy of movement comes from something, and just as atomic energy comes from matter, not energy, gravity comes from something else. Just think- what else is there? The choices are very limited. It seems to me the reply posts are becoming increasingly negative and farther afield, so perhaps I will post Einstein's explanation soon, and then just leave. I will not stay to defend Einstein, it is not necessary, The best and most correct science based post will get a free ebook of mine, your choice. For anyone who objects to mentioning my ebooks here, please know that my website which I'm certainly not going to advertise after being told so many times not to states that anyone who has a problem with purchasing any ebook of mine need only email me the title, and I will gift it to them. My email address is on the website. Probably my next posted question will be a hydrostatic question posed underground on the Moon. Regards, Phillip Duke PhD

Science is based on experimental confirmation. Dr. Einstein did thought experiments but received the Nobel Prize for experimental confirmation that validated his predictions regarding the apparent change in position of stars whose light passed close to, the Sun during a total wclipse. Since then many attempts have been made to refute his work, but they only confirm it. The ability to predict, to control, and to produce new phenomena, are the criteria on which a scientific belief lives or dies. It may be I am missing something here, but don't the Michaelson- Morley experimental results show Einstein's theory re different frameworks is correct? What other explanation is there for their repeated and confirmed finding using the velocity of light that the Earth is not rotating/moving with respect to the Sun? And of course there are many more tests made via modern technology that confirm Einstein's thnking. I believe in the value of thought experiments, but their experimental confirmation is very desirable. and eventually absolutely necessary. I suggest that a hypothesis that cannot be tested remains of little value until it is tested. Regards, Phillip Duke PhD

Introducing tidal energy generation has somewhat side tracked the question, which is still this: Since the "force of gravity" can be employed to do work and generate electrical energy, and assuming the conservation law is still valid, then where does the energy come from? The momentum of falling water is created by gravity. If science asked only questions with inheremt answers we would know much less. I have hinted at the answer, but obviously no one has a clue. Please let me say this. Classical physics has its value and its place, but the great achievement of Sir Isaac Newton has been superseded by the great achievement of Doctor Albert Einstein. IF you really want to know how the universe works study Relativity. Here is another hint: From where does atomic energy come from? It does not come from another form of energy as such. In something like this gravity does not come from another different energy source, but from something else, which can be and is converted to energy, just as matter can be converted to energy. I plan to post the accepted answer soon to the Conservation Law question I raised, and will then post another question closer to classical physics. The question I will post is one of those on Advertising removed and relates to underground hydrostatics on the Moon. It should be much easier to answer. Advertising removed Best regards, Phillip Duke PhD It is disappointing to me that you students of classical physics have never studied Relativity, why is that? Don't you know that Einstein's work invalidates that of Newton?

In reply to the posts, I am pleased that no one has personally attacked me, and the replies show thought as well as a certain misunderstanding regarding science. Science's function is to increase knowledge because lknowledge is power and science's purpose is to bemefit humanity by giving it power. The question why can be very important in addition to the question how, and both are subject to scientific investigation. The basis of the question I posed, where is the electrical energy coming from in relation to gravity, is obvious in the case of a hydroelectric plant operated by tidal flow. Open the gates and let seawater in until peak high tide, then close the gates, and ar low tide allow the water to leave after turning a turbine.generator. This is a clear example of gravity producing electrical energy. The Sun's energy is not involved. Tides are caused by the Moon's gravity, with a small contributuion from the Sun's gravity. Again, where does the energy come from? More directly, where does the force of gravity come from? It is "the force of gravity" that turns the sea water driven turbines that generate electricity, where does this force which is converted to electrical energy come from? Hint: The Conservation Law is not violated, something else is converted to gravity, the question is what? What else is there? This question was posted here to stimulate thought, but it actually belongs under Relativity. Doctor Albert Einstein's Relativity Theories answered this question and more. When the reply nposting is over I will briefly post his explanation, which is accepted and believed to be true. Einstein was a genius and his concepts are very hard to grasp, but well worth the trouble. You will be amazed! <paragraph advertising website removed - please recheck rules especially Posting - Rule 7.> Best regards, Phil Duke PhD

This is a classical physics forum and for fun and interest I asked a question that Einstein answered. The question I asked is quite valid- the Sun's energy only works against gravity to make rain and snow that fall to earth and sit there or run downhill, the hydroelectric generator's energy comes from the force of gravity, it is the force that turns the generators, keeps us in orbit and on the Earth's surfavce, keeps the Sun from exploding, etc. So gravity is very important, and if you want to know where it comes from read the work of that very great scientific genius Albert Einstein. Hint: The Energy Conservation Law remains valid, otherwise it would no longer be taught, gravitic energy comes from something else. Just as matter can be converted to energy, something else is converted to gravity. The question is, what? The question of why is harder to answer than how, but it is important and science tries its best to answer both. How gravity works was established by Newton, Einstein wanted to know and found out why. At the first derogatory reply Post I will not Post here again- in my Forum experience that will come next in the replies to this Post. If you want to know how the universe works in terms of physics, read about Relativity. It is very well worth your time. Good luck. Phillip Duke Ph.D.

On this world the primary energy source is the Sun. For life like ours an ongoing energy source is necessary, however there are several ways in theory that life might exist without sunlight. Very deep in the ocean at volcanic vents life exists based on energy provided by chemical oxidation. Then all that is necessary to sustain life is an ongoing source of such chemicals. Certain crystals grow readily without an outside ebergy source.Life might be possible based on crystalline structure, or something else we know nothing about. To create the orderly complexity of life as we know it an outside energy source is required, but perhaps something other than light could sustain life. How about a constant flux of magnetic energy, which a life form might be able to employ? How about radioactive energy? There are many possible forms of energy, and in theory some other than sunlight might be able to support life.

The Energy Conservation Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but may be transformed. A hydroelectric plant generates electrical energy, where does it come from? The weight of water (due to gravity) turns the turbines that turn the generators, so it seems the "force" of gravity is the driving force that produces the electrical energy. But, then from where does this force come? Can a force that does mechanical work come endlessly out of nowhere? Is the apparently endless energy created out of nowhere, in violation of the Energy Conservation Law, or is the electrical energy actually being transformed out of something else, and if so what? What is going on here? Hint: This question reduces to "where does (the force of) gravity and gravity itself come from?" Sir Isaac Newton in his famous "Letters To Bentley" clearly rejected the concept of "action at a distance" for gravity. Any and all answers based on science are welcome. Phillip Duke Ph.D.

Hello all, I am Phillip Duke PhD, a retired scientist. Now I write, edit, format, publish and promote my writing in the form of ebooks. Advertising removed Bye fot now. Best regards, Phillip Duke PhD