Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 03-11-2002, 06:37 AM

Deimos,

Your example is similar to mine with the spring.
Actually yours may be more fundamental because the spring situation is a macroscopic manifestation of electric forrces in perfect balance.

An answer to either one of these situations would be rather interesting.

Baloo · 03-11-2002, 07:47 AM

HOLY SHIT! I just figured out what is confusing poor Corwin so much. Man, I can't believe it took this long for me to see the case that perfectly demonstrates the Corwin Effect. Imagine a rock on the ground. Now, in order to elevate that rock, we assume there is a need to add energy to it. But, can this be done with force alone (with no loss of energy from anywhere else in the system)? I mean, can we find a case where force and energy are shown to be one and the same thing? The surprising answer is: Yes! We've all seen it done. Right before our own eyes, we have seen force alone lift not just small piddly little rocks off the ground, but even much larger objects (like space ships). What force? you ask. Gravity? No. Electromagnetism? Nope. Nuclear forces? Not even. I'm referring, of course, to The Force. And as soon as Corwin finishes his training to become a Jedi, I think he'll be more than able to show us the errors of our ways - even if it's from a galaxy far, far away.

GunnerJ · 03-11-2002, 08:09 AM

Quote:

I hope that clears things up. It's possible that none of this is news to you and this confusion is just an artifact of the words we're using to attempt to explain our understanding of the concepts.

Yeah, that was it. Thanks!

BTW, demios, using that revolving smiley around the words "Corwin Mechanism" is the funniest thing I've seen in a while. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Edited to add: Baloo- Funny is the post you made, yes?

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Deimos · 03-11-2002, 10:35 AM

NOGO,

yep, both examples are fundamentally identical in that the electric field is the source of the restoring force. I'm trying to get Corwin to identify how bodies, or in this case, an individual atom 'stores' the energy which it's supposed to be receiving. I fear that a clear and concise answer will be a long time coming.

Thanks, Rimstalker, I was browsing some smilies and that one just jumped out at me

.

NOGO · 03-11-2002, 02:53 PM

Deimos,

I must admit that the revolving smiles hit the spot for me too. I don't usually use these symbols but I now see how effective they can be.

graden1 · 03-11-2002, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
<strong>

A constant input of energy, (from whatever source) is required for as long as that force is applied. In the spring that energy comes from the chemical bonds between the molecules that make up the spring, as well as the structure of the spring itself. In the case of a human pushing against a stationary wall, chemical energy from food is used in the muscles.</strong>

This is even better than the E/C forum! But I always like a little skepticism with my science; especially "alternative" theories. IF you don't mind my asking, MR. Corwin, where exactly did you study physics? Oops, maybe that should be DR. Corwin...could you tell us about your dissertation?

Grady

"I got yer funky shades right here...."

Corwin · 03-11-2002, 03:47 PM

I'm done. You lot keep congratulating yourselves. You keep on attacking anything you don't understand, then patting yourselves on the back when it works.... welcome to Hovinddom.

tronvillain · 03-11-2002, 04:03 PM

We understand perfectly that you have a limited grasp of physics. Oh, and congratulations everyone!

GunnerJ · 03-11-2002, 04:23 PM

Quote:

I'm done.

<Ding, ding, ding!> Come 'n' get it!

Quote:

You lot keep congratulating yourselves.

A good attempt at an English sentence, but, it just falls short of making snese. No worries, our mutual congratulations are a common way of celebrating when a load of crap is exposed for what it is.

Quote:

You keep on attacking anything you don't understand,

Unlike you, who simply presents assertions and never attempts to make them understood, much less backs them up with evidence...

Quote:

then patting yourselves on the back when it works....

Unlike you, who presents ideas that don't work, and then accuses everyone of close-mindedness when we don't swallow your demostratably absurd BS.

Quote:

welcome to Hovinddom.

...and we'll see you in Disneyuniverse. Hosta la vista, troll!

Mageth · 03-11-2002, 04:33 PM

I'm done. You lot keep congratulating yourselves. You keep on attacking anything you don't understand, then patting yourselves on the back when it works.... welcome to Hovinddom.

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, Corwin, it's that what you're saying isn't the way things work. If it was, you'd have evidence and formulas galore to present, which you do not.

Hmm...Covinddom...crackpot science...no evidence and/or misinterpreting the evidence...dodging questions and requests for evidence...unfounded assertions...accusing your opponents of some sort of conspiracy and blindness to the "truth"...claiming victory after an utter defeat...Hovinddom.

Synonyms, no?

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2002, 06:37 AM	#201
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Deimos, Your example is similar to mine with the spring. Actually yours may be more fundamental because the spring situation is a macroscopic manifestation of electric forrces in perfect balance. An answer to either one of these situations would be rather interesting.

03-11-2002, 07:47 AM	#202
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	HOLY SHIT! I just figured out what is confusing poor Corwin so much. Man, I can't believe it took this long for me to see the case that perfectly demonstrates the Corwin Effect. Imagine a rock on the ground. Now, in order to elevate that rock, we assume there is a need to add energy to it. But, can this be done with force alone (with no loss of energy from anywhere else in the system)? I mean, can we find a case where force and energy are shown to be one and the same thing? The surprising answer is: Yes! We've all seen it done. Right before our own eyes, we have seen force alone lift not just small piddly little rocks off the ground, but even much larger objects (like space ships). What force? you ask. Gravity? No. Electromagnetism? Nope. Nuclear forces? Not even. I'm referring, of course, to The Force. And as soon as Corwin finishes his training to become a Jedi, I think he'll be more than able to show us the errors of our ways - even if it's from a galaxy far, far away.

03-11-2002, 10:35 AM	#204
Deimos Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 97	NOGO, yep, both examples are fundamentally identical in that the electric field is the source of the restoring force. I'm trying to get Corwin to identify how bodies, or in this case, an individual atom 'stores' the energy which it's supposed to be receiving. I fear that a clear and concise answer will be a long time coming. Thanks, Rimstalker, I was browsing some smilies and that one just jumped out at me .

03-11-2002, 02:53 PM	#205
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Deimos, I must admit that the revolving smiles hit the spot for me too. I don't usually use these symbols but I now see how effective they can be.

03-11-2002, 03:47 PM	#207
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I'm done. You lot keep congratulating yourselves. You keep on attacking anything you don't understand, then patting yourselves on the back when it works.... welcome to Hovinddom.

03-11-2002, 04:03 PM	#208
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	We understand perfectly that you have a limited grasp of physics. Oh, and congratulations everyone!

03-11-2002, 04:33 PM	#210
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I'm done. You lot keep congratulating yourselves. You keep on attacking anything you don't understand, then patting yourselves on the back when it works.... welcome to Hovinddom. It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, Corwin, it's that what you're saying isn't the way things work. If it was, you'd have evidence and formulas galore to present, which you do not. Hmm...Covinddom...crackpot science...no evidence and/or misinterpreting the evidence...dodging questions and requests for evidence...unfounded assertions...accusing your opponents of some sort of conspiracy and blindness to the "truth"...claiming victory after an utter defeat...Hovinddom. Synonyms, no? [ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.