Michel Jullian wrote: > Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics derivations (analytically) without > the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed reached by the ball in a pendulum released > at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function of string length, this kind of stuff.
I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is computer software. Computers are best at mathematics, speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software has no such magical PE. What I've described here at vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience what I've experienced through simulations. For example, it is well known that the electron is expressed in Ampere-Meter^2. Therefore what else are you going to use to simulate electron spin? Well, it turns out such current-loops form a magnetic dipole moment in space. Furthermore two current-loops rotate facing each other while accelerating toward each. Last, but not least, there exists opposing induced voltage on the current-loops, which consumes energy from such current-loops. The amount of energy consumed from such current-loops equals the gained KE and increase in field. There's no real way getting around it in terms of simulation. That completely eliminates the need for such PE. :-) Quite frankly I know of no other way of simulating electron spin, unless I tell the computer "Hey, ignore all reasons why, but just make this particle magically create a magnetic field in the shape of a dipole moment. > You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the > wires are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop would not consume any energy to keep > the current going. That's an odd statement since it is 100.00000% incorrect. :-) No offense intended, but I need to spend less time in discussion, since recently and oddly enough I'm getting odd emails (not from any known person at vortex) asking repetitive questions that appear to merely dissipate my time. It's consuming half my day. Michel, it is called induced voltage, and I assure you such induced voltage exists. If we have two wire loops facing each other with current flowing the same rotational direction there will be a force attracting the two wire loops toward each other. As the wire loops accelerate toward each other there are more so-called magnetic lines entering/cutting each wire loop. That is where the induced voltage comes from, and such induced voltage ***opposes*** the current in the wire. Power consumed is induced voltage times the direct current. Regards, Paul Lowrance > Michel > > P.S. The confusion over the definition of "universe" is yours (and shared by all people talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I said the universe is all there is, by definition: > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe > as can be easily understood from such derived words as "universal". If you dislike the word, "nature" is fine for me too. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> I didn't understand your reply, would the >> elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a >> neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards >> a planet? >> >> >> Basically you're asking what sustains such particles. >> To perhaps provide you with a >> different POV, here's an analogy even though all >> analogies are imperfect, but they server >> to make a point. The electro-magnet represents the >> particle. The source of power >> (current source) that sustains the electro-magnet >> would represent "Space." >> >> We agree energy is being moved from the battery when >> two electro-magnets accelerate toward >> each other in magnetic attraction. We agree such >> energy is moved from the battery to KE >> and an increase in B-field. In the case of permanent >> magnets, we both agree that energy of >> "some sort" is moving to the magnets in way of KE in >> addition to a net increase in >> B-field. You refer to such an energy source as PE. I >> am pointing out very obvious >> patterns in nature that indicates such energy is not >> yet another different aspect. That >> such PE is not yet another separate type. We see PE >> popping its head in QM and Classical >> equations. IMHO PE should *not* be some magical glue >> to bond and balance mathematical >> theories together. >> >> You might ask as to what patterns in nature am I >> referring to. Anything from springs to >> electro-magnets. Long ago people probably looked at >> the spring and could only imagine >> where such energy was being stored, where it was going >> to and coming from. Today the >> spring is no mystery. We know about atomic bonds. :-) >> >> When humanity discovers an electro-gravity coil then >> do you truly believe it will require >> *no* energy when objects accelerate toward such a coil >> while it is on? We already know >> what happens when the electro-magnet coil attracts >> magnetic materials. It requires energy. >> >> >> >> >>> BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a >> property of the universe rather than of an >> object. >> >> >> That's exactly what you seem to believe. As two iron >> atoms accelerate toward each other >> we know it gains KE and a net increase in magnetic >> field. You believe nature has a back >> door of energy, figuratively speaking. A hidden >> storage compartment that cannot be seen >> or analyzed while in storage. Such a theory is fine >> if one has nothing else, or until we >> begin to perceive such aforementioned patterns in >> nature, or until we analyze the >> equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment, which we >> call the electro-magnet. Also, such a >> concept of PE is very ugly as far as simulation >> programs are concerned. It's difficult >> enough simulation known energy. >> >> >> >> >>> BTW2, the universe is all that exists, by >> definition. Parallel "universes" should be >> called something else. >> >> >> I believe you are confusing Omniverse or Multiverse >> with the word "universe." You cannot >> say the universe is all there is if you accept >> parallel universes. It's just a definition >> anyway, which I often call "all there is" as Nature, >> but sometimes I prefer Omniverse. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
