my problem with einstein

einstein's thingy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (except under impossible circumstances), we can agree on that right?

so, kinetic energy is a form of energy right?

and as an object enters earths gravitational field it accelerates right?

and as an object accelerates it gains kinetic energy right?

can you see where i'm going with this?

gravity causes things to accelerate without transferring energy from somewhere else. so in essence, it is causing more kinetic energy in the universe and ultimately allows for the creation of energy. an orbit is a good example. thanks to my good friend named newton, I know that the inertial energy of the earth should cause it to move in a straight line unless a force (which requires energy) acts upon it.

so why does the earth orbit the sun? because an invisible and magical force named gravity acts upon it causing it to change direction continuously. Why? because it feels like it.

an object falling has potential energy, not so much kinetic

einstein's thingy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (except under impossible circumstances), we can agree on that right?

so, kinetic energy is a form of energy right?

and as an object enters earths gravitational field it accelerates right?

and as an object accelerates it gains kinetic energy right?

can you see where i'm going with this?

gravity causes things to accelerate without transferring energy from somewhere else. so in essence, it is causing more kinetic energy in the universe and ultimately allows for the creation of energy. an orbit is a good example. thanks to my good friend named newton, I know that the inertial energy of the earth should cause it to move in a straight line unless a force (which requires energy) acts upon it.

so why does the earth orbit the sun? because an invisible and magical force named gravity acts upon it causing it to change direction continuously. Why? because it feels like it.

Einstein did not propose the conservation of energy.

As an object approaches the speed of light lengths shrink and mass decreases as well. Kinetic Energy doesn't depend solely on velocity. KE= 1/2 mv^2

When an asteroid is in free fall potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy. When the asteroid hits the earth kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy. Energy is never created. It merely changes forms.

einstein's thingy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (except under impossible circumstances), we can agree on that right?

so, kinetic energy is a form of energy right?

and as an object enters earths gravitational field it accelerates right?

and as an object accelerates it gains kinetic energy right?

can you see where i'm going with this?

gravity causes things to accelerate without transferring energy from somewhere else. so in essence, it is causing more kinetic energy in the universe and ultimately allows for the creation of energy. an orbit is a good example. thanks to my good friend named newton, I know that the inertial energy of the earth should cause it to move in a straight line unless a force (which requires energy) acts upon it.

so why does the earth orbit the sun? because an invisible and magical force named gravity acts upon it causing it to change direction continuously. Why? because it feels like it.

It is simply a conversion of potential to kinetic energy. There is a finite amount of potential energy in the universe, and therefore only so much kinetic energy can be gained from this. Energy is conserved.

dont argue with the stein! lets be honest hes cleverer then the loons on this website! Einstein was coooooooooooooooool!

the conversion should be impossible though.

once again I point you too my good friend newton who said a thing will continue at the same velocity unless a force acts upon it.

the only force converting that potential energy to kinetic energy is gravity. in fact, the only reason it has potential energy is because of gravity.

does any object in the universe have 0 potential energy? and more importantly, think of an orbit. ideally an orbit can continue indefinetely, which means the force would be applied indefinetely, meaning energy would be converted indefinetely meaning:

inifinite energy.

impossible

einstein's thingy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (except under impossible circumstances), we can agree on that right?

so, kinetic energy is a form of energy right?

and as an object enters earths gravitational field it accelerates right?

and as an object accelerates it gains kinetic energy right?

can you see where i'm going with this?

gravity causes things to accelerate without transferring energy from somewhere else. so in essence, it is causing more kinetic energy in the universe and ultimately allows for the creation of energy. an orbit is a good example. thanks to my good friend named newton, I know that the inertial energy of the earth should cause it to move in a straight line unless a force (which requires energy) acts upon it.

so why does the earth orbit the sun? because an invisible and magical force named gravity acts upon it causing it to change direction continuously. Why? because it feels like it.

It is possible to argue the world is completely stationary and that everything else moves.

the conversion should be impossible though.

once again I point you too my good friend newton who said a thing will continue at the same velocity unless a force acts upon it.

the only force converting that potential energy to kinetic energy is gravity. in fact, the only reason it has potential energy is because of gravity.

does any object in the universe have 0 potential energy? and more importantly, think of an orbit. ideally an orbit can continue indefinetely, which means the force would be applied indefinetely, meaning energy would be converted indefinetely meaning:

inifinite energy.

impossible

An orbit is not infinite energy. It is 0 net acceleration. No object has 0 potential energy, all objects will gain kinetic energy as they move towards each other. Every object started out at the same point and the big bang imparted potential energy to them when it expanded them apart.

correct me if i'm wrong but the definition of "acceleration" is:

"a change in velocity."

and the definition of velocity is

A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed and whose direction is the body's direction of motion.

so, as the direction changes, there is acceleration.

the force gravity applies on an object requires energy that is not being transferred from anywhere. thus it creates energy.

correct me if i'm wrong but the definition of "acceleration" is:

"a change in velocity."

and the definition of velocity is

A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed and whose direction is the body's direction of motion.

so, as the direction changes, there is acceleration.

the force gravity applies on an object requires energy that is not being transferred from anywhere. thus it creates energy.

I was speaking of circular acceleration. Gravity is simply the bend in space time that is providing tension.

Hello friends.I'm cristiano from spain.Nice to meet you all.
__________________________
gelato
better search engine rankings

In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the gravitational field itself is an objective reality possessing some energy, which is negative As two point masses move in the gravitational field caused by them, their kinetic energy + the energy radiated as electromagnetic waves is at the expense of the energy of the initial gravitational field.

However, working with the energy of a point mass in any non-quantum theory is dubious, since the energy of the electromagnetic field of a point charge or of the gravitational field of point mass is infinite. So, the difference between the initial and final energies of the gravitational field is a difference of two infinities and this is an undefined quantity. There are systematic methods worked out in Quantum Field Theory that give a prescription as to how to perform this subtraction, which are known under a common name of regularization. Another way to think about it is to treat the masses as uniform spheres of some non-zero radius. Then the divergences disappear and one can take the limit of zero radius in the end result.

the conversion should be impossible though.

once again I point you too my good friend newton who said a thing will continue at the same velocity unless a force acts upon it.

the only force converting that potential energy to kinetic energy is gravity. in fact, the only reason it has potential energy is because of gravity.

does any object in the universe have 0 potential energy? and more importantly, think of an orbit. ideally an orbit can continue indefinetely, which means the force would be applied indefinetely, meaning energy would be converted indefinetely meaning:

inifinite energy.

impossible

ucm (uniform circular motion) explains this. an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside unopposed force. likewise, an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside unopposed force. the only non-negligible force acting upon a satellite (or any orbiting celestial body) is gravity, which pulls the orbiting body towards the earth. since the object is already traveling tangent to the object being orbited (initial velocity), the pull of gravity is perpendicular to the direction of the orbiting body's travel, therefore the only acceleration done is a change in direction rather than speed. the orbiting object "falls" in a path that creates a large circular path around the earth. no infinite energy...

In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the gravitational field itself is an objective reality possessing some energy, which is negative As two point masses move in the gravitational field caused by them, their kinetic energy + the energy radiated as electromagnetic waves is at the expense of the energy of the initial gravitational field.

However, working with the energy of a point mass in any non-quantum theory is dubious, since the energy of the electromagnetic field of a point charge or of the gravitational field of point mass is infinite. So, the difference between the initial and final energies of the gravitational field is a difference of two infinities and this is an undefined quantity. There are systematic methods worked out in Quantum Field Theory that give a prescription as to how to perform this subtraction, which are known under a common name of regularization. Another way to think about it is to treat the masses as uniform spheres of some non-zero radius. Then the divergences disappear and one can take the limit of zero radius in the end result.

I don't understand this. my humble apologies

can we agree that it takes energy to change an objects direction?

given a grid with the following specifications:

the sun is the center (0,0,0)
the earth is always at 0 height along the z-axis
X and Y axis meet perpendicular and move out through these points: X through the point at which earth is at solstice and Y through equinox.

given this grid, one can plot the earths (or any objects) movement

look here:
asteroid forgeblah (nonexistant) is hurtling through space in a single, linear direction. it's path will take it 100,000 miles from the sun when, on it's current path, it should continue. after a time, it comes in close enough proximity to the sun that one of three things happens.
1)it enters orbit around the sun
2) it changes direction and flies off
3) it changes direction and flies into the sun

there. no matter what happens, energy has come into existence through gravity.

situation #2

imagine that the universe stops moving, and friction is eliminated.

if I lay down on the ground my potential energy is 0 correct?

if I exert force on the ground, I begin moving up correct?

than as I move upward, according to newton I should continue upward until a force acts upon me.

the only reason I would fall back to the earth is gravity. this gravity must be a force. the force must exert energy. where does the energy come from? you tell me.


either way, it seems to me gravity is impossible

Quote from: bridget on May 20, 2009, 09:06:15 PM

In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the gravitational field itself is an objective reality possessing some energy, which is negative As two point masses move in the gravitational field caused by them, their kinetic energy + the energy radiated as electromagnetic waves is at the expense of the energy of the initial gravitational field.

However, working with the energy of a point mass in any non-quantum theory is dubious, since the energy of the electromagnetic field of a point charge or of the gravitational field of point mass is infinite. So, the difference between the initial and final energies of the gravitational field is a difference of two infinities and this is an undefined quantity. There are systematic methods worked out in Quantum Field Theory that give a prescription as to how to perform this subtraction, which are known under a common name of regularization. Another way to think about it is to treat the masses as uniform spheres of some non-zero radius. Then the divergences disappear and one can take the limit of zero radius in the end result.

I don't understand this. my humble apologies

can we agree that it takes energy to change an objects direction?

given a grid with the following specifications:

the sun is the center (0,0,0)
the earth is always at 0 height along the z-axis
X and Y axis meet perpendicular and move out through these points: X through the point at which earth is at solstice and Y through equinox.

given this grid, one can plot the earths (or any objects) movement

look here:
asteroid forgeblah (nonexistant) is hurtling through space in a single, linear direction. it's path will take it 100,000 miles from the sun when, on it's current path, it should continue. after a time, it comes in close enough proximity to the sun that one of three things happens.
1)it enters orbit around the sun
2) it changes direction and flies off
3) it changes direction and flies into the sun

there. no matter what happens, energy has come into existence through gravity.

situation #2

imagine that the universe stops moving, and friction is eliminated.

if I lay down on the ground my potential energy is 0 correct?

if I exert force on the ground, I begin moving up correct?

than as I move upward, according to newton I should continue upward until a force acts upon me.

the only reason I would fall back to the earth is gravity. this gravity must be a force. the force must exert energy. where does the energy come from? you tell me.


either way, it seems to me gravity is impossible

Gravity is a force, a force was acted upon you.
Newton's law does not say energy must act upon you, does it? No.

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetic forces.
You believe in one, but not the other? How is this possible.
By your reasoning the electromagnetic forces acting upon your computer monitor are converting electromagnetic forces into photonic energy by powering your monitor. Electromagnetic forces are doing nothing more than transferring energy, tranferring electrons between atomic nuclei.
The same goes for Gravity, you could say something has an infinte amount of potential energy, gravity is doing nothing more than converting/transferring that potential energy into kinetic energy. In order for something to have 0 potential energy it must not exist, an atom has the potential energy of what a couple megatons? When the force of gravity acts upon an object it is converting energy, not creating nor destroying it.

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetic forces.

No.

You believe in one, but not the other? How is this possible.
By your reasoning the electromagnetic forces acting upon your computer monitor are converting electromagnetic forces into photonic energy by powering your monitor. Electromagnetic forces are doing nothing more than transferring energy, tranferring electrons between atomic nuclei.
The same goes for Gravity, you could say something has an infinte amount of potential energy, gravity is doing nothing more than converting/transferring that potential energy into kinetic energy. In order for something to have 0 potential energy it must not exist, an atom has the potential energy of what a couple megatons? When the force of gravity acts upon an object it is converting energy, not creating nor destroying it.

I assume you mean gravitation, but no matter.  While you are at it, can you tell us where gravitation gets its energy from?  Because if you prove the existence of gravitons, I think there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

All objects started at the same point. Then the blast of the big bang gave them energy to separate, in order to conserve this energy potential energy is created. It is the gravitational energy possible thanks to not all matter/energy occupying the same point in space.

Potential energy does not violate conservation of energy, you are simply stupid and do not understand the concept. It isn't a forums job to teach you, read a fucking book.

My main problem with Einstein, along with Roosevelt, Darwin & others, married their first cousins.

OK, we shall assume that Gravity is flawed, which would make your Dark Energy theory plausible...

Q: "What about gravity?"

A: Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as gravity. General relativity uses this concept to explain the equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity.

...except it has a flaw. How does Dark Energy affect only celestial bodies? How does Dark Energy work? Where did Dark Energy come from? Not only that but seeing as to how All celestial bodies are accelerating constantly that would imply that at this very second we are going around faster and faster. By this theory of Universal Acceleration you suggest that objects are constantly accelerating, meaning that we should be getting closer and closer to the speed of light.

OK, we shall assume that Gravity is flawed, which would make your Dark Energy theory plausible...

Q: "What about gravity?"

A: Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as gravity. General relativity uses this concept to explain the equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity.

...except it has a flaw. How does Dark Energy affect only celestial bodies? How does Dark Energy work? Where did Dark Energy come from? Not only that but seeing as to how All celestial bodies are accelerating constantly that would imply that at this very second we are going around faster and faster. By this theory of Universal Acceleration you suggest that objects are constantly accelerating, meaning that we should be getting closer and closer to the speed of light.

Thank you for not reading the thread at all. Now go grab your two best beds, flip a bar stool over, and you can all share a seat.

Thank you for not reading the thread at all. Now go grab your two best beds, flip a bar stool over, and you can all share a seat.

No, it's fine, you can have that seat. =]

OK, we shall assume that Gravity is flawed, which would make your Dark Energy theory plausible...

Q: "What about gravity?"

A: Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as gravity. General relativity uses this concept to explain the equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity.

...except it has a flaw. How does Dark Energy affect only celestial bodies? How does Dark Energy work? Where did Dark Energy come from? Not only that but seeing as to how All celestial bodies are accelerating constantly that would imply that at this very second we are going around faster and faster. By this theory of Universal Acceleration you suggest that objects are constantly accelerating, meaning that we should be getting closer and closer to the speed of light.

FE works regardless of whether or not dark energy exists

Gravity is a force, a force was acted upon you.
Newton's law does not say energy must act upon you, does it? No.

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetic forces.
You believe in one, but not the other? How is this possible.
By your reasoning the electromagnetic forces acting upon your computer monitor are converting electromagnetic forces into photonic energy by powering your monitor. Electromagnetic forces are doing nothing more than transferring energy, tranferring electrons between atomic nuclei.
The same goes for Gravity, you could say something has an infinte amount of potential energy, gravity is doing nothing more than converting/transferring that potential energy into kinetic energy. In order for something to have 0 potential energy it must not exist, an atom has the potential energy of what a couple megatons? When the force of gravity acts upon an object it is converting energy, not creating nor destroying it.

there is a difference. the electromagnetic forces in my computer monitor are powered by the laptop, in turn by the wall outlet, in turn by the coal powerplant. coal comes from fossilized plants, these plants got their energy from the sun. the sun releases energyfrom burning stuff.

gravity creates energy.I understand the potential energy argument, up until the infinite amount of potential energy becomes kinetic energy. (in the form of an orbit) or until force is applied without a change in net potential energy (the meteor flies off at the same speed)

Quote from: MrAdict on May 21, 2009, 09:36:06 PM

Gravity is a force, a force was acted upon you.
Newton's law does not say energy must act upon you, does it? No.

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetic forces.
You believe in one, but not the other? How is this possible.
By your reasoning the electromagnetic forces acting upon your computer monitor are converting electromagnetic forces into photonic energy by powering your monitor. Electromagnetic forces are doing nothing more than transferring energy, tranferring electrons between atomic nuclei.
The same goes for Gravity, you could say something has an infinte amount of potential energy, gravity is doing nothing more than converting/transferring that potential energy into kinetic energy. In order for something to have 0 potential energy it must not exist, an atom has the potential energy of what a couple megatons? When the force of gravity acts upon an object it is converting energy, not creating nor destroying it.

there is a difference. the electromagnetic forces in my computer monitor are powered by the laptop, in turn by the wall outlet, in turn by the coal powerplant. coal comes from fossilized plants, these plants got their energy from the sun. the sun releases energyfrom burning stuff.

gravity creates energy.I understand the potential energy argument, up until the infinite amount of potential energy becomes kinetic energy. (in the form of an orbit) or until force is applied without a change in net potential energy (the meteor flies off at the same speed)

Actually i could go simpler with the electromagnetic forces.
Take two magnets, a north magnet and a south magnet, they attract, alas one magnet is attracted to the other, instantly converting potential energy into kinetic energy. AMAZING!!
Same thing with a generator, the coal used to power those power plants, they produce fire, which is used to produce steam from water, which turns a wheel, which spins a turbine in a generator, which is a series of magnets used to generate electricity, alas you have converted the potential energy in the coal and converted it into electromagnetic energy. AMAZING!!

Gravity does not produce energy, simply converts it.
And orbits, i would not say they have infinite kinetic energy, the have a set amount, all it is is all of an orbiting object's potential energy converted into kinetic energy, not infinite, if it was infinite it would fly away, but alas it does not. Gravity does not give energy, simply converts it, but i doubt you know or even believe in "Round Earth" Physics.

P.S. I also await for your rebuttle  this is an interesting conversation/arguement