 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008An attraction field never loses its energy - Why ??!!
Any attraction field never loses its energy- in an ordinary attraction process it does WHY ???? TIA Y.Porat --------------------- > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Y.Porat > --------------------- The field does not contain energy, it is the separartion of the attracted objects that contains it. Uwe Heyek. > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > > in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Uwe Heyek. ----------------- ????? can a field make a force along some distance ?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------ >>> Any attraction field never loses its energy- >>> in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > can a field make a force along some distance ?? Exactly, at the expense of the separation. Uwe Hayek.  SignatureAls ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd. -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige. > >>> Any attraction field never loses its energy- > >>> in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ------------------ if force time distance for you WORK?? ---------- TIA Y.Porat --------------- >>>>> Any attraction field never loses its energy- >>>>> in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > if force time distance for you > WORK?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work Quote Main article: work (thermodynamics) The SI unit of work is the joule (J), which is defined as the work done by a force of one newton acting over a distance of one meter. Unquote Uwe Hayek. SignatureAls ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd. -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige. > >>>>> Any attraction field never loses its energy- > >>>>> in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > by a force of one newton acting over a distance of one meter. > Unquote ------------------ so if a magnet attracts a piece of iron along one meter does it do work ?? work needs energy so does that magnetic field that did work lost that amount of work from its overall work potential ?? (from its energy 'arsenal' ) ??? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- > Uwe Hayek. > > -- > Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een > andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd. > -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige. ---------------- whats that supposed to be ?? Y.P --------------------------------- >>>>>>> Any attraction field never loses its energy- >>>>>>> in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > (from its energy 'arsenal' ) ??? No, from the work supllied when you separated them. Look at it as stretching a spring between the objects you separate. Uwe Hayek. > TIA > Y.Porat [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Y.P > --------------------------------- > >>>>>>> Any attraction field never loses its energy- > >>>>>>> in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > No, from the work supllied when you separated them. -------------------- and if i keep it not separated?? did it (the field ) -- lost energy ?? let me 'advance' you a bit with parroting ie to the level of other (more 'sophisticated' ) parrots lets talk about **virtual photons ** TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- > Look at it as stretching a spring between the objects you separate. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Y.P > > --------------------------------- Y.Porat A rubber string works best for relative thinking on gluons Bert > Y.Porat A rubber string works best for relative thinking on gluons > Bert ---------------------- does a rubber string has 10 percent mass and 90 percent witches on brooms ???? (:-) ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- Y.Porat Witches ??? But it fits well with attraction getting stronger over distance Go figure Contra to the inverse square law Bert > Y.Porat Witches ??? But it fits well with attraction getting stronger > over distance Go figure Contra to the inverse square law Bert ----------------- the facts that you mentioned are right but the explanations ?? virtual photons is virtual physics 1 90 [ercent of the nucleid 9Proton Neutron) ) is unknown yet so presenting it as known is a harmful lie and crime against advance of science !! 2 no messenger that moves in straight lines can make any attraction force . 3 until now **no attration force** is properly physically explained .**and understood ** so presenting it as known is a harmful crime against advance of science (and human resources !!) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------- Y.Porat Virtual photons have a force that can be measured. They are not detected as we like to detect,but are there. Go figure Bert Y. Porat Dont know about witches on brooms or fairies on needle points. I do know the strong force gets stronger with distance,and so does pulling on a rubber band. It fits Bert > Y. Porat Dont know about witches on brooms or fairies on needle points. > I do know the strong force gets stronger with distance,and so does > pulling on a rubber band. It fits Bert wrong!! the strong force does not get stronger with distance!! it gets stronger and suddenly disappear quit in a very short additional distance and that exactly is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES TO THINK ABOUT !! (the secretes of any attraction force lie just at this point !!!)) why ???!!! TIA Y.Porat ------------------ “ Any attraction field never loses its energy -- in an ordinary attraction process it does. WHY ? ? ? ”, you asked. Because it's a hyperstatic hyperstructure. ( i.e. 4-D, nearly impossible to visualize ). The Earth's orbit is 4-D hyperstraight, hyperstatic, not 3-D curved. Nothing is acausal .. randomness is ignorance, nothing more. > " Any attraction field never loses its energy -- > in an ordinary attraction process it does. WHY ? ? ? ", you asked. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nothing is acausal .. randomness is ignorance, nothing more. Jeff, I have left you alone for nearly two years and you are still coming out with nonsense. Why is that? Have you genuinely been unable to take your knowledge of the subject even an inch further? If that is the case, you may want to think about why that is... Did you ever discover the reason behind why the universe is described as having three spatial dimensions? You're Mother Goose ? Phineas T. Puddleduck ? All the evidence suggests General Relativity is right; i.e. intrinsically, irregardless of what is or isn't known, nature is 4-D static. And there's no evidence to counter it. Put more simply: nature can't be acausal, randomness can't be anything but ignorance. “ This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve the debate on whether the world is three-dimensional or four-dimensional. The argument advanced in the paper is that if the world were three-dimensional the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly the experiments confirming them would be impossible. ”. -- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? ” Petkov ( 2005 ) Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/ > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Y.Porat > --------------------- copyright for the above question 19-07-2008 ???? Y.Porat ----------------------------------- > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > > in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Y.Porat > ----------------------------------- Matter's EM field is also Electromagnetic energy density. Electricty is a repulsive force. Mitch Raemsch > Any attraction field never loses its energy- That's right. > in an ordinary attraction process it does Such as what? Where do you suppose the energy goes? > WHY ???? > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ------------------- see my answers to others you are of course welcome to join in TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------------- > > WHY ???? > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > see my answers to others It doesn't "cost" energy for one object to interact with another. For fundamental particles, there is no loss at all, though there is an interaction. For *composite* objects that interact with each other, some of the energy of the interaction can be turned into *internal* energy, such as thermal energy or internal vibrations. But even in this case, there isn't any energy lost or consumed. Some of it is just converted into other forms. > you are of course welcome to join in > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > WHY ???? > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > this case, there isn't any energy lost or consumed. Some of it is just > converted into other forms. ----------------- thanks but still not deep to scratch it i s knwon experimentally that say a steel magnet is attracting say one piece of iron 'at no cost' of of its further ability ie later it can do the same job exactly quantitatively the same job. now it i snot self understandable i thinkk we all agree that the atraction action is done by some 'force messengers' morover those force messengers work continuously non stop at any fraction of second you like (btw they 'work in some cases only in some directions and in other cases of fierlds - in another direction) so let us save time and go to the next step we can guess that those messengers are 'fountained out and back !! whithout any lose of anyone of them or another posibilty no loss in their overall number in case there is a 'borrow and lend' process it is more reasonable that most of them come back after' fountained' out even if doing nothing (no any attraction job) now how does that 'fountain works ?? lets stop in that step TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- > > you are of course welcome to join in > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > WHY ???? > > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > now > how does that 'fountain works ?? Here is where one stops *imagining* for a moment and starts putting things in terms of testable predictions and then testing them. For example, IF what you IMAGINE were the case, then one could test this very simply. Take a magnet and two different pieces of metal. One piece of metal is geometrically small and doesn't take up much of the 3D space surrounding the magnet. Another piece of metal is geometrically more spread out and consumes much more of the 3D space surrounding the magnet. IF what you IMAGINE were the case, there would be more "leakage" of escaping particles in the first case than in the second case, and there would be noticeably faster weakening of the magnet in the first case compared with the second case over time. Now, I invite you to put that to experimental test. That is, DO it, and see if what you IMAGINE really turns out to be true. > lets stop in that step > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > > > WHY ???? > > > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > I invite you to put that to experimental test. That is, DO it, and see > if what you IMAGINE really turns out to be true. -------------------- you compleley ddint understand me or may be i am a poor explainer of my thoughts i dont say that any messenger is lost not in a big iron piece not in a small one and that is exactly the point (btw try not to be apriori hostile and try to go with me a long some way ie try to be a bit more tolearant and with a 'positive mode ' and so we might get somewher further i intend to do it a step by step because the issue is imho a bit more complicated than acustomed to be ) so lest start examining the possible properties of the attraction messengers : ie to analyse it more abstractly first 1 do we agree that th e attracttion force is done by messengers ?? if yes after such a messenger is shot out does it' control itself' or may be even after being shot there is still something else that goes on controlling it ?? 2 does those messengers move in straight lines more questions later btw i am not in hurry to answer about my opinion in order to let thinking and let other people to think and get in TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ > > > > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > 1 > do we agree that th e attracttion force is done by messengers ?? Yes. > if yes > after such a messenger is shot out > does it' control itself' or may be even after being shot > there is still something else that goes on controlling it ?? Neither. A cannonball doesn't control itself, nor is there anything else that is controlling it besides the laws of physics. > 2 > does those messengers move in straight lines Neither, as far as we know. The trajectories of a particle between A and B is undetermined, and in fact the only model that produces calculations that accurately match *measurements* is one that says that all paths -- straight, curved, and crooked -- are taken by the same particle between A and B. No model that has a unique straight trajectory or a unique curved trajectory between A and B has yet to produce *quantitatively accurate* predictions of the actually observed behavior. If you have a model that DOES have a unique trajectory between A and B and which you can show produces accurate numbers in calculations, then you are free to trot it out. But agreement on the "concept" of a unique trajectory between A and B is a completely empty and valueless exercise, as it has absolutely no predictive power and is therefore scientifically useless. > more questions later > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > > > > > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > else that is controlling it besides the laws of physics. > ---------------------- that question is too important to answer it too quick and it is a bit more complicated than you think !! let see what other people wil say about it ---------- > > 2 > > does those messengers move in straight lines [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is therefore scientifically useless. > ------------------------- imho it cannt be in straight lines !! (all other possibilities might be but not straight because if A is shooting a messenger to be straight line that messenger has momentum and momentum has direction the above momentum will push B instead of pulling it !! anyway lets again hear other opinions as well before we go on TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------- --------------- > > more questions later > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > else that is controlling it besides the laws of physics. > ------------------------------ a cannon ball is not like our case: the cannon ball is shot and after that is controlled by the gravitational field in our attraction force (say a magnet) we dont know about any exterior influence on our messenger if you say that even in the magnet case the gravitational force still exists we know that the gravitational force compared to the the magnetic force (field) is negligible !! so can we say that after being shot out the messenger has no other control but its own (net) initial properties 2 if you like we can decide to deal only with the case of no additional **external intervention** in the movement of the messenger TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------- > > 2 > > does those messengers move in straight lines [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------ ---------------- so from the lack of answers we may conclude that actually no one has a real answer to my OP question!! Y.Porat ------------------------ PD Best answer is this The field is locked inside the universe. It has accelerating expanding space to deal with Bert > PD Best answer is this The field is locked inside the universe. It has > accelerating expanding space to deal with Bert -------------------- if you mean by 'locked inside the universe' to some circular' fountain' 100 percent elastic process -- you are right expansion has nothing to do with it mine and your hight remained the same AFAIK) my hight even contracted about 2 centimeters with age (:-) ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > > PD Best answer is this The field is locked inside the universe. It has > > accelerating expanding space to deal with Bert [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Y.Porat > -------------------- The straight answer to your question is that the attraction field gets it's energy from the surrounding ambient thermal energy. The electrons/ positrons ring at their resonant frequency powered by random themal collisions. It is this ringing and the interaction of phased waves that creates the attractive forces. See: http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/electrostatic.html To test this theory, you could take a magnet and if it were possible to drop it to absolute zero (which is nearly impossible), you may see some loss of magnetic properties. Probably the closest thing we could do is dip a permanent magnet into liquid helium to see if the magnetic field is reduced. We already see some strange behavior with Bose- Einstein condensate which appears to be consistent with the atoms losing their charge properties and superfluid helium. Perhaps this is already evidence for this theory. So there is no "magic". There is no expanding space or locked up space energy, it merely the conversion of the ambient thermal energy by matter. The attraction is consuming (converting) energy that it gets from the surrounding environment. Is this not reasonable? And to be clear, in order to change the trajectory of any particle, a force must be applied. All forces require energy (in the form of particle movement) in order to act on a particle. This energy must come from somewhere, it cannot be "stored" in a potential field. So the magnet sticking on your refridgerator door is expending constant energy to stay attracted and it is getting that energy from the surrounding thermal energy. As long as there is plenty of surrounding energy, it will never run out. Simple huh? Of course, nobody will respond to this post, typically when I post the answer, this ends the discussion entirely for some strange reason. But I would challenge you to read and understand this explanation. fhumag On Jul 24, 7:04 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > PD Best answer is this The field is locked inside the universe. It has > > > accelerating expanding space to deal with Bert [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The straight answer to your question is that the attraction field gets > it's energy from the surrounding ambient thermal energy. The electrons/ -------------------- Hi Franklin surprise to you you said that no one will answer you and voila i answer and i even accept many of your understandings but not all of them (btw i lost my site that you once instructed me how and were to built it and i thank you for it anyway can youremind me in detailes how to do it again?? TIA now to our important and unprecedented discussion: i dont think that a fled gets its energy from heat around it it can work AFAIK (as far as i know) in colplete freezy vacum ------------------- > positrons ring at their resonant frequency powered by random themal > collisions. It is this ringing and the interaction of phased waves > that creates the attractive forces. See: ringing ??? moving naturally in a circle ?? i will see your site later now in the response phase it does not work ) ------------- > http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/electrostatic.html > > To test this theory, you could take a magnet and if it were possible > to drop it to absolute zero (which is nearly impossible), you may see > some loss of magnetic properties. Probably the closest thing we could > do is dip a permanent magnet into liquid helium to see if the magnetic if the freezing position is changing its inner structure that is anothe story do you claim that in allplaces in huivers that are close tozero temperature there is no atrraction force if yes i guess such masses or part of it would get lost in the endless universe morover all masses and conglomeration of masses would disinegrate at once !9if youthink for instance on the 'strong forces' !!! (i discuss and include in my op claim here-- the strong forces as well ) ---------------- ------------- > field is reduced. We already see some strange behavior with Bose- > Einstein condensate which appears to be consistent with the atoms > losing their charge properties and superfluid helium. Perhaps this is > already evidence for this theory. ------------------------ is there any experimental data to show a lose of energy of an attractionfield in a case of uncathastrophic eevnt? a process that does nor destroy the basic structure of the field maker ?? ---------------- > So there is no "magic". There is no expanding space or locked up space no lock up of cpace but 'lock out' of something else (:-) there must be some 'lock out ' ..... ---------- > energy, it merely the conversion of the ambient thermal energy by > matter. yes indeed tell me about it (:-) do you want to say that energy is **mass in movement** ?? (:-) ----------------------- The attraction is consuming (converting) energy that it gets > from the surrounding environment. Is this not reasonable? no i dont think if fits experimental knowledge unless someone will show me that -------- > And to be clear, in order to change the trajectory of any particle, a > force must be applied. here lies the dead dog not all particles !!! (:-) including some unknown ...... -------------- All forces require energy (in the form of > particle movement) in order to act on a particle. This energy must > come from somewhere, it cannot be "stored" in a potential field. So > the magnet sticking on your refridgerator door is expending constant > energy to stay attracted and it is getting that energy from the > surrounding thermal energy. As long as there is plenty of surrounding > energy, it will never run out. it must be tested experinetally . and if for instance it will be shwon that by deep preeze the magnet is not anymore a magnet but may be there at most ) was some change only in the density of the field ?? any way what are the experimental facts ?? and again i remind yiou that we deal with the stron attraction forces as well !! ------- ------------------ > Simple huh? not at all at least at this point on the long run it MUST BE SIMPLE or else it aould not last so long and vast !! ------------- > Of course, nobody will respond to this post, typically when I post the > answer, this ends the discussion entirely for some strange reason. But > I would challenge you to read and understand this explanation. > > fhumag ---------------- after getting out of the answer mode i will get into your link TIA and all the best Y.Porat ---------------------- > On Jul 24, 7:04 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > surprise to you > you said that no one will answer you You see, I shutdown yet another thread. No posts other than yours. Only you reply - what about PD, Tom, EMC?? I know you guys are out there. The discussion was quite lively until I post, then nothing.... What is up with that? Are you dumbfounded by an answer that could possibly make sense? It seems that people only post when they get a chance to ridicule. I would rather this be a place where people can collaborate on ideas rather than being a shooting gallery. > and voila > i answer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anyway can youremind me in detailes how to do it again?? > TIA How is it you keep losing your web site? Just goto www.geocities.com and sign up for a web site and use the pagebuilder tools to create your web site. That is where I keep my main science web site: http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html > now to our important and unprecedented discussion: > > i dont think that a fled gets its energy from heat around it > it can work AFAIK (as far as i know) > in colplete freezy vacum > ------------------- The problem is, you don't know, unless we perform some experiments. The attractive force can easily work in absolute zero because EM waves can still travel through such a region. We have superconducting magnets which operate at close to zero kelvin and they generate a magnetic field just fine. This is because the electrons which are moving in the electromagnents still have plenty of kinetic energy to run into other particles to cause them to resonate. I am thinking that perhaps the mechanism behind superconductivity at low temperatures may be because the surrounding atoms in the conductor lose some of their charge properties allowing the electrons to move more easily. In other words, superconductivity may happen due to a reduction in charge strength from the loss of ambient energy. This would make room temperature superconductivity a near impossibility since there would be no way to suppress the ambient kinetic energy. > > positrons ring at their resonant frequency powered by random themal > > collisions. It is this ringing and the interaction of phased waves [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > now in the response phase it does not work ) > ------------- No moving in a circle. I know you have some theories like that, but it is needlessly complex and requires some mechanism for restraining movement in a circle. Instead, think of a ringing bell. It's shape and mass determine the resonant frequency without restriction to how it rings. > >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/electrostatic.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do you claim that in allplaces in huivers that are close > tozero temperature there is no atrraction force Freezing does not change the inner structure. Think of a wind chime. If the wind stops, then it stops making sound. It doesn't change the structure of the chime. As I mentioned before a location can be at zero temperature and an attractive force can still move through it. But an attractive force cannot be generated by a mass particle if it is at zero temperature. But also remember we are talking about an extremely low temperature, one which does not naturally exist anywhere in the universe. > if yes > i guess such masses or part of it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (i discuss and include in my op claim here-- > the strong forces as well ) There are no such masses at zero temperature. The background radiation temperature is probably more than high enough to maintain the resonance frequencies of positrons and electrons. If you read the rest of my atomic theory on my web site, you can also see that I have completely eliminated the need for a strong force. There is no experiment that can show the strong force actually exists by direct experiment. We derive it's presence based upon our own assumptions and indirect observations. But is quite possible that it doesn't exist at all. The strong force has completely absurd properties being the strongest force but not felt outside of the nucleus. A force which gets stronger as particle get further apart. Just how is this all supposed to work? My work aims to reduce all non-contact attractive forces to be aspects of the electrostatic force. That is the ultimate simplication > ---------------- > -------------> field is reduced. We already see some strange behavior with Bose- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of the field maker ?? > ---------------- Just read what happens in to bose-einstein condensate http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html It says: "It is only at the special incredibly low temperatures needed for BEC that they lose their individual identities and coalesce into a single blob. Some people have called this a "super atom" for just that reason. " I would say that an atom could coalesce into a blob if the individual atoms lost their charge characteristics. I am surprised that after they coalesce that they just don't fuse together and stay that way when it is heated back up - or maybe they do since there is also some unexplained behavior when condensates are formed and heated. In any case, some very weird things happen at absolute zero which are unexplained in terms of known science. > > So there is no "magic". There is no expanding space or locked up space > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > do you want to say that > energy is **mass in movement** ?? (:-) Yes, I would say that energy is mass in movement. However, energy can be stored like if you compress a spring and then lock it so it cannot spring back. But eventually even this energy is released by putting mass into motion. I think all energy (chemical/nuclear) is stored in a similar manner. > ----------------------- > The attraction is consuming (converting) energy that it gets [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unless someone will show me that > -------- There is nothing to experimentally deny this and some experiments with BEC that confirm it. > > And to be clear, in order to change the trajectory of any particle, a > > force must be applied. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > attraction forces as well !! > ------- Maybe one day, I'll take a magnet to a liquid nitrogen demo to see if it loses its magnetic ability, or somebody out there can give it a try. If it turns out to be true, it would surely earn you a Nobel prize. > ------------------ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it MUST BE SIMPLE or else it aould not last so long > and vast !! Why do you not think it is simple? It is long lasting and vast because it comes from the long lasting and vast pool of ambient thermal energy. Did you have a better explanation? Your question is a very good one and a typical example of a question which conventional science cannot answer without invoking circular logic or just plain old magic. What could make more sense than the magnet extracting the energy from the environment and using it to generate an attractive force? Conservation of energy is neatly conserved. Makes too much sense doesn't it? I bet nobody replies to this post either. > ------------- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >fhumag > ---------------- > after getting out of the answer mode [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jul 26, 8:24 pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jul 24, 7:04 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > read more » ----------------------------------------- i read your links and i have some new understandings of it but before : now since we agree that energy is mass in motion and heat or thermal energy is as well mass in motion as energy )and it is photons and photons move in straight lines : now a question: how is it that all the heat that is transmitted all over the univers how is it that it does not get depleted** and lost **fo r our universe (while not meeting on its way any particle or mass to absorb it ) ???? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------- > On Jul 26, 8:24 pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why do you ask that question when your original question was why an attraction field doesn't lose energy? Have I answered your question sufficiently? I would say the answer to your question is trival by comparison to your first question. All heat is transmitted through collisions, it meets lots and lots of particles to do the transmission, so no mystery there. If I had a perfect thermos bottle, the heat in the bottle would never get depleted - it would still be hot even after years (assuming I did have such a perfect bottle). The universe does act as a perfect thermos bottle with all of kinetic heat energy constantly bouncing around, transferring and transforming into other forms of energy but never disappearing. On Jul 28, 8:29 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jul 26, 8:24 pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > your first question. All heat is transmitted through collisions, it > meets lots and lots of particles to do the transmission, ------------- you see 'lots of lots' is not enough!! it is just words and in physics we cant just hand wave not all the universe is full of masses or particles there ar e lots of intervals and as you say the number of collisions during billions of years and even much less than billions of years-- that part of it is sneaking between the masses provided that you keep in mind that HEAT IS PHOTONS AND PHOTONS MOVE IN STRAIGHT LINES!! no one except you climes that any photon emitted cannot escape between all th e masses in its way even if we think just about our galaxy it is not a 'thermus' as you say just because you say so !!! TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- so no mystery > there. If I had a perfect thermos bottle, the heat in the bottle would > never get depleted - it would still be hot even after years (assuming > I did have such a perfect bottle). The universe does act as a perfect > thermos bottle with all of kinetic heat energy constantly bouncing > around, transferring and transforming into other forms of energy but > never disappearing. > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > in an ordinary attraction process it does > > WHY ???? <<... small fractional values of r cause the 1/r3 term to become large. Conversely, for large values of r, the 1/r term may be orders of magnitude bigger than the others. This kind of reasoning results in the definition of three regions: the reactive near field, the radiating near field, and the far field. In the reactive near field, energy is stored in the electric and magnetic fields very close to the source but not radiated from them. Instead, energy is exchanged between the signal source and the fields. >> http://archive.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/1005/1005the_world.asp http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Sue... > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > > in an ordinary attraction process it does [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sue... ------------------------- i am talking *only* about the attraction field and its work ability and only the results of an attraction action of it the net attraction act it is obvious that if say rthe sun is radiating huge quantities of mass its gravitation will diminish in billions of years but my question is about if you take its mass neglecting (discounting)its radiation of mass that is not connected at all to the attraction action and test its attraction ability at the next attraction job .... in short why are attraction messengers never get lost (at least not as can be detected by experimets) (we never heard about a piece of a steel magnet that its magnetic field the next day is smaller than to day !!! even after doing attraction jobs today ) or another example if a Proton is keeping and electron next to it by attraction the magnitude of that attraction tomorrow is not less than today ! (iow there is conservation of charge of a particle why and ** how** ?? ) TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ > Any attraction field never loses its energy- Actually this is not true. An "attraction field" such as an electric field does not lose energy EXCEPT when it does work on an object. Why do you think conservation of energy has become an important part of physics? -- because it works. Tom Roberts > > Any attraction field never loses its energy- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tom Roberts ------------------ i dont mean the conservation of energy globally i mean conseravtion for that tested field of a specific mass one would suppose that if a field say of a magnetic mass or even a single particle or a single Atom is doing work on another mass it will cost loss of energy to the acting mass or object ie for doing work you have to pay with enrgy loss as for instance if your car is doing work you have to pay in loss of its energy resource 2 if you like we can put the question differently: why an attraction field **does not lose some of its attraction messengers after doing an attraction job??!! (you can guess that i have some answer (suggestion) for it but i would like others to get it step by step ) TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------- TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.