tronvillain

Corwin:
Is this some sort of pathetic effort to make yourself feel better about having your views torn apart?

Corwin

Actually it's a response to the implication that I'm avoiding this or running away from it. It's saturday, I have a life. I'm not at work checking the board every few minutes. Good enough to salve the ol' conscience there? Or did I hit too close to a nerve?

tronvillain

Corwin:
Except that no one made that implication, unless you are referring to "It would be nice however if Corwin can answer my last post and in particular give us some references for energy transfers through gravity." It's quite a stretch to interpret that as implying that you are avoiding this or running away from it.

Did anyone expect you to be? No.

Good enough to salve the ol' conscience there? What? Anyway, you didn't hit a nerve, I just don't like personal attacks like "Do ANY of you have lives?" I generally prefer to go out on Friday nights myself.

Friar Bellows

All matter has rest energy. According to Corwinian Physics, that energy has to go somewhere, or else (according to the above paragraph) that matter will become a black hole.

So, everyone, keep an eye on the objects around you. Make sure they have some way to expel their rest energy, or you may have a problem on your hands. A big problem. A black hole problem.

GunnerJ

Well, I wasn't aware of that, but I thought that was what he was trying to say.

Well, again, that's the point I picked up from his posts.

NOGO

The fragility of the object was in answer to a comment make by Rimstalker.

I will repeat my post here so you understand what it is that I wish for you to answer.
I don't believe that a dismissive one liner will help your credibility. If you think that you have
a credible point you need to answer this in a serious manner.

Here is my original post.

You say that if you put something between the rock and the table it will be crushed.
Example: a peanut.
So you lift the rock and place a peanot on the table and let the rock fall. The rock will crush the peanut.
We all agree. I think? I certainly do.

Now the question is this which energy crushed the peanut?
a) the energy from the earth's gravitational field
b) the energy which you exerted when you lifted the rock off the table.

To answer this question I will propose an analogy.
You have a spring whose natural length is one foot.
If you attach a weight on the spring it will extend to say one and a half feet.
The force of gravity is offset by the spring extending to an appropriate length.
You pull the spring and extend it to two feet and let it go.
What happens?
The spring swings back and oscillates for a while until to comes to rest at one and a half feet.
While it oscillates it consumes energy (kinetic energy) and converts it into heat through friction and possibly, sound. This oscillation can also be used to crush a peanut.
Again, I believe that we can all agree thus far.
Now the question is this. Which energy crushes the peanut in this case?
a) energy from the spring
b) energy which you exerted while extending the spring

In both these cases you can repeat the events and crush as many peanuts as you want.
In both these cases the energy released is the same as the energy that you put in when you lifted the rock or extended the spring.
If you don't lift the rock high enough or if you don't extend the spring far enough then the peanut will not be crushed.

At one and a half feet the system does have some energy which it keeps since it return to this equilibrium.
The energy that crushes the peanut is the energy that you put in while extending the spring or lifting the rock.

To refute this you must show that even if the energy needed to lift the rock or extend the spring is too little to crush the peanut the peanut will be crushed anyway. Then you can theories that some other energy is involved.
Certainly crushing peanut demands quantities of energy which are measurable. No quantity of energy which is too small to measure can crush a peanut.

So conduct an experiment and show that the energy used to lift the rock is too little to crush the peanut yet the peanut is crushed anyway. If you can do this the whole world will be at you feet.

I am still interested in reading some scientific papers (research) that show the gravity exchanges energy.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

tronvillain

Rimstalker:

Ah. It's just that you said:

This isn't what I said in my reply:

It's just that I don't think that was what Corwin was trying to say. If that was what he was actually trying to say, he wouldn't think it supported his position.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Mageth

Sorry to butt in here...

IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, compressing something doesn't add heat to it; it increases its temperature.

I think poor Corwin's confusing pressure with compression and increase in temperature with heat generation. When you compress a gas, the compression increases the gas's thermal energy, and with that increase comes increases in pressure and temperature (not heat - temperature; the gas before compression stores the same amount of heat as after compression, as long as something else isn't adding heat to or removing heat from the gas during compression). When you stop compressing the gas, the thermal energy does not continue increasing, even though the gas is still at pressure. Otherwise a canister of compressed gas would generate heat, which it does not.

Note that the compression takes work, which is transferred to thermal energy. Maintaining the pressure does not take work (unless you assume the canister is performing work to keep the gas pressurized, which in a physics sense it is not).

Over time, the temperature of the gas decreases as heat is lost to the atmosphere until equilibrium is reached (assuming the atmosphere was originally cooler than the canister of compressed gas - otherwise the atmosphere would heat the canister).

What's left over is the potential energy of the compressed gas. That potential energy can be turned into kinetic energy by releasing a valve on the canister. Similar to removing the table from under the rock.

Similarly, the rock at the center of the earth experiences a rise in thermal energy only when being compressed (if it's compressed at all). The temerature of the rock increases, but no heat is added to the rock by the compression (note: friction in the rock might generate heat, but that's a different story, and a side effect of the compression).When it's no longer being compressed, thermal energy no longer increases, even though the rock is still "pressurized." Over time, the rock dissipates heat (upwards, thru the earth) and the temperature drops.

I'm no physics expert, but even I can understand this (and I hope I got it reasonably accurate - I'm sure I'll be corrected if not)

Corwin, does static electricity stored in a shirt in my drier generate heat? By your reasoning it should - something's keeping it there, and whatever that is must have to use energy to do so!

A couple of pages ago I believe someone asked you to show how much heat is produced in the table by the rock sitting on it (note that, although Corwin hasn't said such, in his system the table "pushing back" on the rock should heat the rock as well - that energy has to go somewhere!). You dodged by saying "I don't have the formula in front of me." If there is heat generated, any Physics 101 textbook should have the formula for producing an answer.

So, where the hell is the formula?

Put up or shut up.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

tronvillain

Uh, thermal energy is heat.

tronvillain

I'll try and rewrite some of what you said:
I think that works.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>