E=mc^2

[cikljamas]

Didn't these guys prove that the earth and the ether have almost the same speed. Thus the ether is moving with earth, or the earth is moved by the ether?

First:

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference-Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?

Second:

I would also add that if we calculate based on the raw data of the 1881 experiment, and since MM said that the displacement was certainly less then one twentieth part (1,5 km/s) of expected 0,4 fringe (which corresponds to 30km/s) and perhaps less than one fortieth of what they expected, if we take one fortieth of 30 km/sec we have 0.75 km/sec. One fiftieth would be precisely 0.45 km/sec, the exact figure corresponding to the movement of ether you stated at the equator. the fringe shifts were no where near what would be expected for an Earth moving at 30km/sec around the sun, and (b) that the results of all the interferometer experiments showed

We have to keep in mind that sun is moving above fixed Earth at a different speeds:

http://zaslike.com/files/73dx62d9cfevj2qbs1ia.jpg

http://www.zaslike.com/files/lc0s8a16a6fjzmi6sih5.jpg

It would overturn almost everything modern science had striven for in the past 500 years. Every career, every book, every sheepskin, including the fame and fortune that went along with them, would have been put in jeopardy if a non-moving Earth was found to be the best solution to MMX.

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert MichelsonArthur Eddington Bernard Jaffe

[Aaron]

force

Hi Aaron
please check Work (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The work done by a constant force of magnitude F on a point that moves a displacement (not distance) s in the direction of the force is the product,

W = Fs.



I just want to determine the force F.
Is this Force F, the gravity, the force I need to apply to lift the ball or the sum of these 2??

seems to me a simple and honest question that could easily be answered by anybody with high school physics.

In your wiki definition, it gives you an example right there...

The work done by a constant force of magnitude F on a point that moves a displacement (not distance) s in the direction of the force is the product,
For example, if a force of 10 newtons (F = 10 N) acts along a point that travels 2 metres (s = 2 m), then it does the work W = (10 N)(2 m) = 20 N m = 20 J. This is approximately the work done lifting a 1 kg weight from ground to over a person's head against the force of gravity. Notice that the work is doubled either by lifting twice the weight the same distance or by lifting the same weight twice the distance.

The force needed to lift an object is the mass of the object x the gravitational acceleration.

It is NOT the sum of those two - what sum... F and s? That is force x distance, which is a product - not a sum.

[Aaron]

not an analogy

It's a 100% analogy, what you call merchandise are the 'loses' in the other situation. you can give the merchandise away, if you want.
You converted potential spendings (capital) in actual spendings. Like you convert potential energy in work.

To make it an analogy, you spend money and it gets dissolved into an infinite bank in the sky and then you created a new potential difference for that bank to provide the financial money based on that potential difference to do more work.

If you keep the $100 changing hands and it keeps buying more stuff, that $100 can theoretically purchase a combined total of trillions of dollars over time... it is not an analogy.

I can't charge a battery, then light the light and kill the battery (expenditure)...then give the flashlight to someone else and suddenly it is charged again so they can turn around and use it all over again. In the money example you can do that but you can't in these energy examples so it isn't an analogy.

[Aaron]

force and acceleration

I fully agree with this.
I think the most confusing part of physics are the parts that deals with units and time.
Force= Mass* acceleration doesn't make any sense to me. I have a mass, then I use a force F to move, then I get an acceleration, then I get a speed and then distance.

if I drag a mass of 100 KG over concrete I have to use a force F to keep a constant speed. The unit kg*m/sec^2 doesn't make sense to me.

If you put the 100 KG on a stand, the stand has to counter the gravity with a force of 981 N to become static.Then there seems to be 2 accelerations in 2 opposite directions.

Why not simply call the unit of Force Newtons? That makes it easier in all kinds of situations??

Force is what it is and Newtons is the measurement of the Force.
Just like...
Energy is what it is and Joules is the measurement of the Energy.

Something with 981N on a stand is being passive to gravitational acceleration - there is one acceleration...gravitational potential moving from above and downward as it pushes on the object if the object is still.

If you lift it up against gravity, you expend energy to overcome gravity's downward push on the object. The acceleration of the object upwards is irrelevant when it comes to determining the amount of energy needed to lift it as it can take you 1 second or 1 year, the joules needed to lift it to a certain height is the same no matter the time. The force because of gravity pushing the object down just tells you what you have to overcome. You can of course accelerate the object upwards but again, it doesn't change the energy to reach a certain height.

[Aaron]

still not an analogy

Hi Aaron.
Let me give another example:
Let's say you want to help the hungry people in Africa, so you load 100 KG of rice on your truck.

You drive 100 KM to the first village,unload your rice and tell the people they can take 10 KG. The remaining you load on your truck again.
and you drive 90 KM to the next village. Here again you unload the 90 KG tell the people they can take 10 KG and you upload the remaining 80 KG, and be on on your way to the next village 70 KM away.
etc..
At the end of the day you have travelled about 550 KM and visited 10 villages;

So what is your claim:

a. You gave 100 kg of rice to the people
b. You gave 550 KG of rice to the people. (what you offloaded)
c. You gave 1100 KG to the people. (total of what you up- and offloaded).
d. Work done is 38,500 KJ and COP=10.
e. People who claim they only received 10 KG are liers?
f. None of the above.
g. all of the above.

Please state your answers.

If you visited 10 villages and gave 10kg to each one, you gave away 100kg of rice - and you did it in a very low efficiency way by unloading the whole thing each time.

This is not an analogy to the energy/cop examples. If you want to talk about work done to load the truck then unload the truck, that is a different issue, you're probably doing work to load the truck AND unload the truck meaning gravity isn't helping you very much unless there is a slide that the rice goes down before you only give 10kg away and lift the rest back onto the truck.

[Ben2503]

In your wiki definition, it gives you an example right there...

The work done by a constant force of magnitude F on a point that moves a displacement (not distance) s in the direction of the force is the product,
For example, if a force of 10 newtons (F = 10 N) acts along a point that travels 2 metres (s = 2 m), then it does the work W = (10 N)(2 m) = 20 N m = 20 J. This is approximately the work done lifting a 1 kg weight from ground to over a person's head against the force of gravity. Notice that the work is doubled either by lifting twice the weight the same distance or by lifting the same weight twice the distance.

The force needed to lift an object is the mass of the object x the gravitational acceleration.

It is NOT the sum of those two - what sum... F and s? That is force x distance, which is a product - not a sum.

In the wiki example it's a vector with a direction and a magnitude. Which makes sense.

In order to lift an object, you first have to overcome the gravity force. That means that the resulting (or summed force) is 0.

[Ben2503]

If you visited 10 villages and gave 10kg to each one, you gave away 100kg of rice - and you did it in a very low efficiency way by unloading the whole thing each time.

This is not an analogy to the energy/cop examples. If you want to talk about work done to load the truck then unload the truck, that is a different issue, you're probably doing work to load the truck AND unload the truck meaning gravity isn't helping you very much unless there is a slide that the rice goes down before you only give 10kg away and lift the rest back onto the truck.

According to your previous model of "work", the work done was gravity*mass*distance of the rice moved. thus approximately 385,000 KJ.
to make the picture complete: the rice has a caloric potential energy of 14,090 KJ per kg. This means the 100 KG have a potential energy of 1,409,000.

What will be the COP??

[Ben2503]

If you keep the $100 changing hands and it keeps buying more stuff, that $100 can theoretically purchase a combined total of trillions of dollars over time... it is not an analogy.

This proves it is a 100% analogy with energy.

[Hrothgar]

Death and the other thing...

Oh yeah TAXES!
A. $100 is the purchasing power
B. Taxes on each purchase is loss of purchasing power on each transaction.
C. Items purchased per transaction combined with tax loss for that transaction equals a regauge segment
D. Total perceived value of all purchases made after the government takes so much in taxes there isn't enough left to feasibly make a purchase compared to the perceived value of the $100 is your COP.

[Aaron]

learn the difference

In the wiki example it's a vector with a direction and a magnitude. Which makes sense.

In order to lift an object, you first have to overcome the gravity force. That means that the resulting (or summed force) is 0.

You are completely lost in falsehoods in all 3 examples - you need to learn the basics first because you are not making very much sense - you are not understanding the difference between force and work.

Lifting an object takes work - POSITIVE WORK!

FORCE IS NOT WORK. Please learn that! You are not summing anything to zero. Work is not being done on the object by gravity because it just sitting there standing still. When you lift the object, you are doing work because it is moving a distance.

When an object is on the ground with a certain weight, that is just a force, that is not work. You are lifting an object, which is WORK - that means force x distance. You are ERRONEOUSLY disregarding that fact that when you lift the object, you are actually doing WORK, you are not just applying a force!

You claim it sums to zero when in reality, gravity and the object is just mass x gravity....but when you lift the object, you have mass x gravity x distance. (mg vs mgh) If you call that summing to zero, then you don't seem to understand this subject or basic multiplication.

[Ben2503]

Cop=-5

Lifting an object takes work - POSITIVE WORK!

FORCE IS NOT WORK. Please learn that! You are not summing anything to zero. Work is not being done on the object by gravity because it just sitting there standing still. When you lift the object, you are doing work because it is moving a distance.

When an object is on the ground with a certain weight, that is just a force, that is not work. You are lifting an object, which is WORK - that means force x distance. You are ERRONEOUSLY disregarding that fact that when you lift the object, you are actually doing WORK, you are not just applying a force!

Exactly! You're finally getting there, I knew you could do it!!
Lifting an object is Positive work.
work=force times distance.
So the work done by the gravity is opposite thus 'negative'.


work done by Aaron = lifting the mass (or giving the rice; or paying the $$$)
work done by the gravity = dropping the mass (returning part of the rice; give the change).
Losses are the caused by drag etc.. (people take some of the rice; taxes?)


So the next question is: who is right??

answer: depends upon the situation.
a. If you have to pay somebody because he has to move stuff to the top of a hill. You most likely will not pay him for the work done by stuff that has rolled down and had to be moved up again.
So you will say we gave 100 KG of rice to the Africans; or we spend $100 on gifts.

b. if you're in the business of selling 'work', like electricity companies (banks, politicians, etc), you will claim the total work. You would say "we gave 550 KG of rice to the African people"; or "we moved 1100 KG or rice through Africa" or "we generated millions of dollars with your small investment of $100"


How useful is this 'work'???

Answer: Not very. It is mostly confusing. Most of the processes we are interested in, are about energy conversions, eg Chemical <-> electrical; Electric <-> mechanical; potential <-> kinetic; etc..

[Ben2503]

sleeping beauty

First:



Second:



We have to keep in mind that sun is moving above fixed Earth at a different speeds:

http://zaslike.com/files/73dx62d9cfevj2qbs1ia.jpg

http://www.zaslike.com/files/lc0s8a16a6fjzmi6sih5.jpg

It would overturn almost everything modern science had striven for in the past 500 years. Every career, every book, every sheepskin, including the fame and fortune that went along with them, would have been put in jeopardy if a non-moving Earth was found to be the best solution to MMX.

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert MichelsonArthur Eddington Bernard Jaffe

1. Sleeping people have their eyes closed
2. Dead people have their eyes closed.
thus all dead people are just sleeping.

or
1. my coat comes in a small plastic bag. So it fits in a small plastic bag.
2. I fit in my coat.

thus I fit in a small plastic bag.

[Aaron]

gravity isn't doing work then - misinformation

Exactly! You're finally getting there, I knew you could do it!!
Lifting an object is Positive work.
work=force times distance.
So the work done by the gravity is opposite thus 'negative'.

You are only fooling yourself.

When you are lifting something, gravity isn't doing any work.

[BroMikey]

Exactly! You're finally getting there, I knew you could do it!!

So the next question is: who is right??

answer: depends upon the situation.

How useful is this 'work'???

Answer: Not very. It is mostly confusing.

The point is that we are confused by conventional song and dance type of story problems like you just did.

Don't ignore the products of the reaction because it doesn't do what you want.

Instead redo the experiment in a new light if you could just understand.

This way if all of the energy and work is accounted for instead of manipulated you might find ways to redirect that energy you call worthless.

Who's right and I knew you could do it? That is ridiculous chatter. Aaron has known forever what he is talking about so remember that.

It is not about who is right, this is about the analytical observation of the experiment and how flawed conventional science is and how.

If we are making a mess at our schools with force, work, energy problems and definitions, how are we going to find good results.

Your statement "Depends" is so typical of the gov/teaching. Never giving a real answer.

Mike

[Ben2503]

Holistic views

The point is that we are confused by conventional song and dance type of story problems like you just did.

Don't ignore the products of the reaction because it doesn't do what you want.

Instead redo the experiment in a new light if you could just understand.

This way if all of the energy and work is accounted for instead of manipulated you might find ways to redirect that energy you call worthless.

Who's right and I knew you could do it? That is ridiculous chatter. Aaron has known forever what he is talking about so remember that.

It is not about who is right, this is about the analytical observation of the experiment and how flawed conventional science is and how.

If we are making a mess at our schools with force, work, energy problems and definitions, how are we going to find good results.

Your statement "Depends" is so typical of the gov/teaching. Never giving a real answer.

Mike

Hi Mike.
There is no such thing as "the one and only truth", I try to look at life, science and what have you, with an independent and open mind. The concept of 'work' was invented before the concepts of Potential and kinetic energy and has very limited practical use.
For me 'conventional' and 'new' science are two sides of the same coin. Like Yin and Yang; male and female; north and south; positive and negative.
The funny thing about 'new' science is that in time it becomes 'conventional'. It seems to me that, at this moment in time, we are making 'new' science by weeding out parts of the former 'new science'.

I make mistakes and I am biased, sure and so are you, Aaron, all the others on this forum and so was Einstein. That is what makes us all humans.
I respect Aaron and his knowledge very much, but that doesn't automatically mean I accept and agree on everything he says.

Time to move on!