Conservation of Energy and Gravitation

[Sensei]

Again, the best acceptable answer to any of my postings gets a free ebook of mine, your choice. You can look my 32 published ebooks over at

 

-1 for yet another time (I see it 3rd time, you have been warned already) using this forum for advertising your pay-per-view ebooks.

Good scientist is sharing his knowledge for free, doesn't sell it.

 

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?

 

It's disappointing you're treating us as idiots...

Who said we are students?

 

ps. I have feeling you won't last long on this forum.. You have written just 6 posts, and 50% of them were advert...

Edited September 9, 2014 by Sensei

[Bignose]

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?

It is disappointing to me that you assume that just because people post in the subforum entitled Classical Physics that you just assume they have no knowledge whatsoever about relativity.

 

It is further disappointing that if you think relativity is the answer to the problem you've posed, that you haven't provided any evidence to support that assertion and furthermore you have the gall to lecture us about science when you can't even follow the basic tenant of supporting your statements with evidence.

 

Probably the most disappointing the statement that Einstein somehow 'invalidated' Newton, when a good scientist should probably understand the domains of validity of each theory.

 

But, maybe that's just me.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Bignose

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

phildukephd,

Please stop using this forum to advertise your website and ebooks. Any more posts that contain a reference to any of those things will be deleted.

[MigL]

Well, no sense posting to this one. The OP is just playing games.

[ajb]

I plan to post the accepted answer soon to the Conservation Law question I raised...

 

As already stated by others, the missing key component seems to be potential energy. In your atomic energy question this potential energy is in the form of the binding energy. Typically a bound system has a lower potential energy than the free constituent would have. Meaning that energy is realised upon creation of the bound system. The nuclear binding energy is equal to the energy released when a nucleus is formed from nucleons or other nuclei. This is the source of nuclear power and it origin is from the residual strong force.

 

Your hydroelectric question is similar. You have a configuration with high potential energy as compared to another configuration that it can reach. Nature likes to be at the lowest potential it can reach and so the system will evolve into the lower potential configuration releasing energy. This is how hydroelectric plants work.

[phildukephd]

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

Edited September 10, 2014 by Phi for All
advertising links removed

[Bignose]

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."

This is where the phrase I specifically used -- domain of validity -- comes in. I never claimed Newton's laws were valid in the limit as light speed is approached. Just that Newton's laws were not invalidated in their domain of validity by Einstein. If anything, I think Einstein's work may have made Newton's work even more valid because the Einsteinian equations reduce to the Newtonian equations in the limit of speeds much less than light speed.

 

Again, just because we're in the 'Classic Physics' subforum, doesn't mean we're ignorant of relativity.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

philduke

 

I have removed your ability to create content - you have been warned not to advertise your books and in contravention of the rules you continue to do so. The staff will discuss whether we need the continued extra workload necessitated by your refusal to toe the line.

 

 

 

[ajb]

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.

You are welcome to stop posting at any point you wish. However please do not misinterpret comments on the content of your posts nor the style of them with a personal attack. It is your posts that are under attack and not you. Please try to be little thick skinned about this.

 

I must say that it is interesting that you mention personal attacks early in your discussion.

 

 

Anyway, please see my next point...

 

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

As a discussion forum this seems a very strange attitude. Why post a question that you know the answer to? If it is because you have learned something cool and want to share it then this is great. So share it.

 

People can learn from this and we may even be able to have a worthwhile two way exchange about this.

 

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.

It looks like you are trying to play games and advertise your book.

 

 

 

 

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:

Your comments here just show that you don't understand the notion of domains of validity and so on. We know how Newtonian mechanics is a limit of special relativistic mechanics and that Newtonian mechanics describes nature very well within its domain of validity. The modern view is that Einsteinian relativity does not invalidate Galilean relativity, but rather Einstein's relativity gives us a more complete theory.

 

Note that both Einsteinian mechanics (on curved space-times or not) and Newtonian mechanics (more generally analytical mechanics) are both mathematically sound constructs.

 

So, back to your opening questions... are you willing to discuss energy conservation in relativity? This is actually quite a subtle issue in general relativity, which maybe ware we are headed...

[swansont]

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

 

How about with your next post, right from the outset, and stop with the silliness?

[zapatos]

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.

You seem to misunderstand the situation here. The risk is not that you may quit talking to us and that we will be deprived of what you have to say. The risk is that the people on this site will quit talking to you and you will be deprived of what they have to say.

[between3and26characterslon]

Hello all, it has been awhile coming...

 

Phillip Duke PhD

 

 

In reply to this post (I've cropped it a little bit cos there were a lot of words) I for one would rather you just provide the answer and let the discussion develop. Science is an interest of mine, not a job and as such I don't have the time or energy to devote to having a great enough understanding of the subject to allow me to decipher your somewhat criptic question. This all seems very much like another recent thread where there was a question about photons travelling side by side which "led to the conclusion there was a universal frame". I'm not saying your scientific understanding is the same just your approach in this forum is similar in that you have not really provided enough information for people to partake meaningfully. You've only provided enough information for you to keep telling people they are wrong which I'm sure you understand is frustrating.

 

I look forward to learning something new.

[phildukephd]

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

[zapatos]

I hope the Forum posters will know that I am unable to continue and supply the answer to the question I initially raised.

 

<snarky comment removed>

Edited September 11, 2014 by zapatos

[ACG52]

First poster I've seen with more negs than posts.

[imatfaal]

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.

 

...

 

!

Moderator Note

 

1. You are able to post

 

2. You agreed to abide by our rules when you signed up for the forum - they are here

 

3. On the 9th Sept - I edited your post to remove adverts and warned you that your advertising broke forum rules

 

4. On the 10th Sept - You were warned on the forum and via warning system that you were spamming forum with adverts and this would not be tolerated. Again all links were removed from your posts

 

5. A few hours after the public warning and the message advising of a warning point you posted again with yet more adverts; which again staff had to take time to remove.

 

DO NOT respond to this moderation within the thread, any responses will be hidden - you may report this post if you feel it is unfair.

 

 

[phildukephd]

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

[Sensei]

If it's GR, everybody here know it already...

Edited September 14, 2014 by Sensei

[elfmotat]

What a constructive discussion this has been.

[zapatos]

You were not invited to this site as a guest lecturer.

You are not our instructor and we are not your students.

From what I've seen thus far you are far from the most knowledgeable person who is posting.

 

If you'd like to discuss science with the people on this site we'd love to have you join us.

If you continue to treat us as you have so far, I don't believe the interactions will be very fruitful for anyone involved.

[ajb]

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).

This is very curious and frankly strange. You don't want to discuss the question that you posed, regardless of the fact that the answer is well-known? Thus, as this is a discussion website I see no other course of action than the moderators locking this thread. This thread serves no purpose.

 

As GR is a big subject, would you care to say a little bit more about energy conservation in this context, or at least try to keep this thread going with some physics? Or is that it?

[phildukephd]

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

Edited September 15, 2014 by phildukephd

[Phi for All]

I try to give people not what they want but what they need, and this Forum needs an attitude adjustment.

 

!

Moderator Note

When people come here, what they want AND need is a conversation. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

 

What you're doing is essentially blogging, expecting to teach with no interaction. The attitude you've encountered is due to your behavior, which isn't normal for people who want to talk about science. As has been mentioned, we're not your students, that's not what the site is for, and I think you need to adjust your own attitude if you expect to be part of the conversations we have here.

 

Alternatively, you could start a blog here, we have the tools. But if you come into the science topic sections, we expect the flow of information to go both ways. I'm sure your next thread will reflect this change in behavior.

 

Thread closed.