I did read your reply, I did think for a while, but I still disagree ;-) You insist on some _internal_ energy being spent while the object falls. Where would it come from when the object is an elementary particle such as an electron, would it lose mass or something? :-)
Michel P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put it on top or near the top (blind people friendly convention, they read the posts by text to speech software and don't want to hear all the old stuff they already know about -especially when it's lengthy- before getting to the new stuff, as one of them told me once on another mailing list) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > --- > > Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments > below (BTW could we be as concise as > possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff on > top whenever possible?), > --- > > > Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment. > > > > > Michel Jullian wrote: > --- > > you believe that potential energy in general (not > just magnetic, but also > gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just a > convenient concept, and there must be > some real energy underlying this concept, and you want > to know where this real energy > comes from. > > > > I believe on the contrary that potential energy is > as real as energy can be. Taking > gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no > cross-products, Curie points etc..), the > PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, _by > definition_, to the work that must be > done to lift it back up. If PE wasn't real there would > be no real counterpart to the real > work done when lifting the weight, as there would be > no counterpart to the kinetic energy > of the weight when it falls. > > Besides you can't replace PE by a _quantifiable_ > energy as you suggest (annihilated or > weakened electrons), because PE has an arbitrary zero. > We can't tell how much intrinsic PE > there is in the weight because we don't know on which > planet we are going to let it fall, > agreed? > --- > > > No offense intended, but it seems you are not grasping > the depth of my theory, as what you > say adds even more credence to my theory, which > dismisses the idea of PE; i.e., you don't > know how much PE you'll ever need. If you carefully > read this entire reply I believe you > could only agree with my theory in all honesty. > > Two iron atoms could have been created 1 micron apart, > which would constitute a certain > amount of PE. The iron atoms could have been created > in different solar systems, which > would constitute a certain amount of PE. The iron > atoms could have been created in > different galaxies, which would constitute a certain > amount of PE. The iron atoms could > have been created in different universes/big-bang (see > M-theory on beyond our big bang), > which would constitute a certain amount of PE. > > You are asking way too much from nature. I've written > far too many simulation programs to > know such an idea as PE is a nightmare for the simple > reason that you can ***add*** energy > to the system from nowhere. This is very clear and > simple in a simulation program. If you > want to add more energy to the system you simply > create two iron atoms that are even > farther apart and then allow them to accelerate toward > each other. :-( > > My theory simply states energy is simply moved from > one location to another. When the two > magnets accelerate toward each other it consumes > energy. And guess what, my theory is > already confirmed as much as we know two air core > electro-magnets do indeed consume energy > as they accelerate toward each other. > > Ah, and here's another surprising confirmation. :-) We > now have technology to create > electric fields on demand, which is in complete > agreement with my theory. Consider two > separated objects. One is negatively charged and the > other is positively charged. When > separated there exists an appreciably charged space, > which constitutes energy. We know > that it requires energy to charge space-- capacitors. > As the two objects accelerate > toward each other the net electric fields decrease, as > the negative & positive fields > cancel. :-) In a nutshell, we started with energy > that constitutes charged space, and we > ended up with "energy," the moving object. > > Lets see if the theory holds up to the opposite > situation-- two objects charged with the > same polarity. Again we initially have charged space. > It requires energy to force the two > objects closer together. This consumed energy goes in > the way of charged space, as the two > fields overlap. > > To top it all off, my theory is far simpler. In > physics we strive to find the most > fundamental theory. Your theory requires KE and PE. > My theory requires one, plain old > "energy." :-) > > I am sorry, but IMHO the evidence is overwhelming that > my theory is correct-- knock on > wood, lol. > > Think about it for a while. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 >
