Cap'n Refsmmat

Because the fact that wires spark does not prove there is a physical force on the insulator. The fact that something has gravitational potential is indeed evident if it has weight. However, its weight is not the same thing as its potential, and the amount of weight does not necessarily correlate to the amount of potential energy, given that height also matters. In one sense, yes. No, it is not a "capacity" to do so in the way energy is. Energy is used up while doing work -- once something does work, it has less energy. However, objects do not "have" force or use it up while doing work. As such, force is not a capacity to do work. Yes. "But it makes sense to me!" could perhaps be replaced with "So explain in more detail why point 3 is inaccurate, as I don't get the bit about walruses." Also knowing what all the terms mean. That seems to be a key issue. "Could you explain why? What definition is more accurate for 'penguinal force'?" From our position, saying "that's wrong -- here's a link" and getting back "but it makes sense to me!" is exceedingly frustrating. Of course it makes sense to you -- you posted it in the first place, and clearly you're a poor judge of what makes sense in physics! Generally these have not been ad homs but "that just makes no sense", which is not a fallacy but merely a statement.

Being measured in the same units does not make two things the same.

"Pressure" is a poor term for this, because pressure indicates a physical force over an area, which is not the case. This is again a poor analogy. The electrons do not push on the insulator until it fails, allowing sparking. Rather, the electric field they generate becomes strong enough to exert an electric force on its constituent atoms that rips electrons off of them, allowing a current to flow. In an alternating current, the electrons in the wire do not even leave -- they merely cause the electrons in the insulator to oscillate as well. It's not like water flowing through a pipe and hitting a blockage with physical force. What is "the strength of charge intensity"? What does that mean? "Charge intensity" is a meaningless term in physics, as far as I know. You will need to explain what exactly you want to know. No, it is not. If I push more electrons towards the insulator, but the electrons still have the same energy, the voltage across the insulator will stay exactly the same, even as I push millions of electrons at it. If I give the electrons on average more energy per electron, the voltage across the insulator will increase. Voltage is the measure of the potential difference between any two points, and so if my battery supplies three volts, the voltage across the insulator will be three volts no matter how long I leave the battery connected to push electrons at it. Voltage is not a measure of electric potential energy, but electric potential only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromotive_force

This has nothing to do with applying a force on the insulator. Suppose I measure an object to have a mass of 1kg. I put it on the ground. It has no gravitational potential energy. I pick it up and put it on a tall shelf. It has some small amount of gravitational potential energy. Solely with knowledge of its mass, I know nothing about its gravitational potential, which depends on its height. The fact that you can use mass and height to determine gravitational potential similarly does not mean that "the 'equal and opposite reaction' of the resistance is the potential of the impeded kinetic energy", because it is not the resisting force that "is the potential." The resisting force has nothing to do with the potential; it is a separate entity, and even without any resisting force the potential still exists. Yes, it does. Sure. An object sitting on the ground can fall into a cave. An object which is connected to a rope and pulley and consequently falls extremely slowly has the same potential energy as one which is dropped freely from the same height. I am not asking you to believe you are wrong all the time. However, your present attitude is very frustrating for anyone who discusses physics with you. Generally, you contrive an explanation which makes very little sense and includes several falsehoods, determine you "see nothing faulty about it," and then argue strenuously when anyone points out the flaws. I don't believe it is arrogance which blinds you to the possibility of being wrong. I believe it is arrogant and frustrating to continue advancing your beliefs as credible when you know admittedly very little formally about the subject at hand. Perhaps a wise neutral approach would be to post your ideas with the comment, "Does this make sense?", rather than the comment "This makes perfect sense to me," and then to accept criticism graciously, as a contribution which helps you learn and advance your ideas. The credentialed folks have a certain advantage in the critical discussion of your content.

Also: Voltage will not "build up" as more electrons arrive at the insulator. If I have a DC power supply set to a fixed voltage, it will supply electrons with a specific potential energy, and they will all arrive at the insulator that way. Charge may build, but that is not the same as voltage.

This makes no sense because electric charge does not exert a force on the insulator. Also, voltage isn't really "transmitted." Charge is transmitted, along with energy. Voltage is a measure of the potential difference between two arbitrary locations, and the total energy transmitted is a function of both charge and voltage (how much charge and how much potential it has). No, the potential energy has nothing to do with any force. Force and energy are two entirely different things. Potential energy exists even if the object is not obstructed while falling. You would be better received on this forum if, admitting your lack of basic physics training, you recognized your ideas are very likely wrong and sought improvements, rather than assuming they are correct and fighting whenever they are rejected.

It's available here: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=members&area=ignoredusers

What you want is "Copy Image Location", at least in Firefox. Then you can post it with the "insert image" button in the editor, pasting in the image URL:

on·tol·o·gy, noun: the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ontology?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Ah, I see what you mean. I do have an iPod Touch handy, but because of the limited text input (tiny keyboard) I've never composed very long posts on it before. The mobile app just wraps around the mobile site. That's something I'd have to suggest to the developers of the forum software.

Bettina: Congrats, and good luck on getting your license! I think Martin still visits, although I don't believe he posts quite as often these days.

Why not? (This is a pertinent question, since it helps us know which labs to suggest.)

A much shorter summary: Since potential energy can be arbitrarily defined, what matters is the potential energy difference between two states. If I start with 0 potential and proceed to -10, that's 10 units of energy freed up to do something else. The fact that I had 0 at the beginning is irrelevant, since negative potential isn't a problem. So if something has a potential energy of 0 in some chosen system, that doesn't mean it cannot move. Perhaps other states have negative potential energies.

There is no potential energy which is "excluded from analysis." Consider a 1kg object which falls from a 10m height to the ground. Its potential energy [imath]mgh[/imath] at 10m is [imath]10g[/imath], and at the ground is 0. When it falls, all that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, and so it has [imath]10g[/imath] of kinetic energy when it strikes the ground. (Conservation of energy requires it to, since it starts with [imath]10g[/imath] energy, and must end with [imath]10g + 0 = 10g[/imath] total energy as well.) Now suppose I redefine the zero point to be at exactly 10m height above the ground. Its potential energy [imath]mgh[/imath] at 10m is 0, and at the ground is [imath]-10g[/imath]. When it falls, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, and so it has [imath]10g[/imath] of kinetic energy when it strikes the ground. (Conservation of energy requires it to, since it starts with 0 energy, and must end with [imath]10g + -10g = 0[/imath] energy as well.) So no energy has been excluded because of my choice of zero point or framing.

Search will be supported with the next major software update: http://community.invisionpower.com/blog/1174/entry-6125-ipboard-32-update-mobile-skin/ I'm not sure why they chose to display profile pictures in the mobile layout, but that's definitely intentional. Also: What do you mean "the ability to post long threads"? What is the mobile layout preventing you from doing?

Is God's ultimate goal to convert the most souls?

The rules officially say "Avoid the use of vulgar language", so it's rather open to interpretation. I'd like to discourage its use whenever possible, simply because we're a family-friendly site.

It seems to me that this would afford very little additional stability for the conditions a bird flies under. Most birds have relatively short bodies, meaning a tail fin would have to be very large -- you want control surfaces to be as far away from the center of gravity as possible to make them effective. If the fin has no additional muscular structure to allow it to move under the bird's control, it would improve stability at the cost of decreased maneuverability as well. In evolution, however, the big question is "does this lack of yaw stability constitute a disadvantage for survival?" I think birds are able to control their yaw through their existing tail feathers and wings, so perhaps the answer is "no," and so there's no evolutionary reason for a vertical tail to become widespread.

It's still against the rules, as you can see in posts 3 and 4 in this thread, although the forum software no longer censors it automatically. If you see vulgar language being used in an abusive or inappropriate manner, you can report the post and we'll take care of it.

No, the Jews thought the opposite -- the Messiah would be a grand leader. This produced some friction with the early Christians, because the Jews thought it absurd that the Messiah would be crucified. There is, however, a large portion of New Testament scripture dedicated to showing that Jesus' death was indeed prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures. As far as I am aware, this is the widely accepted Christian interpretation.

I presume you made similar derogatory comments the first time an organ transplant was attempted. Why is the basic ability to walk functionally useless?

I think this thread has reached the end of its natural lifetime. owl, please do not derail threads in the mainstream science forums with your own speculation when it is clear you are not willing to learn what the currently accepted science actually predicts. And to everyone involved: Personal attacks are not acceptable, no matter how pigeon-like your opponent.

Because Jesus said it can be summarized with "love thy neighbor." Well, there's a brief mention of sexual immorality in the New Testament as well, and some people interpret it to also condemn homosexual relationships. Paul addresses rules of conduct by suggesting you simply remove immoral people from your church, rather than stoning them to death. The End will come soon enough anyway. I don't think this is valid when the New Testament specifically addresses certain parts of the law and alters or denigrates them. You need to read it with a decent study Bible (HarperCollins or Oxford Annotated) to get an idea of the history around the texts. It's very difficult to understand Paul's letters, for example, without knowing who he was writing to or why.

"God doesn't like _____" is still a valid moral argument. "The Law" is more than just a set of moral rules -- it is primarily a set of behavioral rules for ritual purity, sacrifice, and so on. Those are cast out by Christians. The rest of your questions could be answered by reading the Gospels and Paul's letters. I don't think I can explain them better than the original texts can.

Paul argued primarily against following the nitty-gritty rules of circumcision, sacrifice, ritual purity, and so on. Jesus specifically said in Mark (see the quote I posted above) that the Commandments are still important but that they can be summarized with "love thy neighbor." The Gospels also alter the purpose of the Law in Jesus's disputes with the Pharisees, arguing that, for example, the Sabbath was created for mankind's benefit, and hence it is not a violation of the Law to heal a sick man on the Sabbath. Christians hold the Old Testament dear because they believe the writings of the Prophets predict the coming of Jesus. When the New Testament talks about Scripture -- and it does so very often -- it usually means the Old Testament, and particularly the prophets.