insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 you wouldn't believe how good a therapy it is to argue with a troll, these threads have been keeping me from going completely nuts the last few days. shrinks can sod off, this is free.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 That's what I said, and no work means no power, right? This is correct. That DOES NOT mean that a system can never produce work, and therefore power.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 This is correct. That DOES NOT mean that a system can never produce work, and therefore power. Are you suggesting an outside "spiritual influence" decides when work is accomplished??? :rolleyes: you wouldn't believe how good a therapy it is to argue with a troll, these threads have been keeping me from going completely nuts the last few days. shrinks can sod off, this is free. Especially one that knows what he's talking about.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Are you suggesting an outside "spiritual influence" decides when work is accomplished??? :rolleyes: Especially one that knows what he's talking about. I defy you to actually quote me saying that. There are straightforward equations that define when work is done. Work= Force x Displacement. I push a box across the ground for 100m, and I've done work. I lift a box up a flight of stairs I've done work. I push on a box, and it doesnt go anywhere, no work is done. A box flies through space, with no force pushing it, and no work is done. Electrons work the same way as the last scenario.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 They don't, otherwise chemical bonds would cease to exist. I exist, therefore your theory fails. Gravity holds them together. I defy you to actually quote me saying that. There are straightforward equations that define when work is done. Work= Force x Displacement. I push a box across the ground for 100m, and I've done work. I lift a box up a flight of stairs I've done work. I push on a box, and it doesnt go anywhere, no work is done. A box flies through space, with no force pushing it, and no work is done. Electrons work the same way as the last scenario. How much time did it take for each measure of displacement to occur, or did you do work with no time?
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Gravity holds them together. And earlier you argued that gravity was a repulsive force. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=437617#post437617
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Gravity holds them together. ahahaha, i think you just proved you don't know what your talking about there, gravity is pretty damn inconsequential on the molecular level. electromagnetics rules chemistry with some strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force included in nuclear chemistry. seriously, have you ever studied ANY SCIENCE AT ALL?
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 How much time did it take for each measure of displacement to occur, or did you do work with no time? Irrelevant. You asked about work. I answered about work.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 And earlier you argued that gravity was a repulsive force. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=437617#post437617 I didn't say it was a repulsive force, I said the object would get further away from the core. D H has already posted that in order for energy to be conserved the Earth must get further away. I'd say that is true for all bodies (expansion).
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 only because mass is being lost from the sun. that was the reason. if the sun was not losing mass then the earth would be getting closer due to energy loss from gravitational radiation.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 ahahaha, i think you just proved you don't know what your talking about there, gravity is pretty damn inconsequential on the molecular level. electromagnetics rules chemistry with some strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force included in nuclear chemistry. seriously, have you ever studied ANY SCIENCE AT ALL? It's all the same.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 no, it is not all the same. go get a basic physics book and read it.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 only because mass is being lost from the sun. that was the reason. if the sun was not losing mass then the earth would be getting closer due to energy loss from gravitational radiation. "If" the sun was not losing mass?
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 yes, the sun is losing mass, the disturbance caused by this overwhelms the disturbance caused by gravitational waves
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) so where is the energy coming from to move them away? and why do they always fall back down to the origional level after they have been excited by a photon such as in a laser? They get further away when they are exited, they must to conserve energy, as the frequency can't change, so the distance must increase. As the additional energy is dissipated, the electron must start traveling back to its original position to the nucleus to conserve energy, but constantly moving outward from the nucleus as energy is dissipated in the system as the volume of the system increases. Edited October 12, 2008 by traveler
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 yes, but you haven't explained why they should spontaneously move away like you said.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) yes, but you haven't explained why they should spontaneously move away like you said. They were excited, additional energy was added to the system. Edited October 12, 2008 by traveler
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 yes, but before i brought up excitation you said they would move further from the nucleus on there own without energy input.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 yes, but before i brought up excitation you said they would move further from the nucleus on there own without energy input. They will.
D H Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 They will. Stop trolling. Moved to pseudoscience.
mooeypoo Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Correct, no work is being done, therefore there is no power, as power=work/time. That means for all of time there has never been, and never will be any power? As discussed earlier in many posts, threads and IRC chats late at night with you, traveler, as much as you want to fight against this, General Mechanics (force/power/velocity, F=ma, for that matter, and your power definitions) do not explain everything. As we've discussed on IRC before, the subatomic is not consistent with "F=ma" (which is, btw, by itself, very simplistic, as the actual formula is F=m dv/dx ). Neither do variable stars, for that matter. Quazars are a good example. Good luck explaining those with only F=ma in your arsenal. you seem to be ignoring everything outside of General Mechanics. Then, things make no sense to you (as they should, since they don't work with that theory, like behaviour of subatomic particles), then instead of doing the scientifically-correct thing and reexamining your methodology, you force your theory on the problem and insist that existing phenomena do not happen. Ignoring reality does not make reality different than what it is.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 D H, Can you at least humor me and calculate the time it would have taken the Earth to reach this point from the sun, according to your calculations? How about the the formula, still working on it?
swansont Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 I'm locking this thread pending review. There is a subsystem to an electron, it's called distance. How do you "apply" work to a subsystem when you can do no work? You can't just make up definitions, like you're Humpty Dumpty. I wasn't suggesting "falling through the ground," I was pointing out that since it is so obvious that you CAN'T be "falling through the ground," your velocity towards the center of the Earth is 0 m/s, and your acceleration is therefore 0 m/s^2, since no matter how much time is observed, your exact distance to the center of the Earth remained unchanged. Centripetal acceleration. It's in physics textbooks. ——— I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, and from the looks of things, it seems you've tossed that out the window, stomped on it and set it afire. I see no reason to reopen this thread. 1
Recommended Posts