tronvillain

Fine. You can use a different definition of energy than everyone else in the world.

tronvillain

I think this thread goes a little way towards explaining Corwin's belief in cold fusion.

GunnerJ

Amazing. After being asked to point out where Friar said that the energy "just disapears," you accuse ME of saying it.

Perhaps you'd like to attack the actual positions of people on this board rather than what you'd like them to be. Or was your pitiful preformance on the circ thread par for the course with you?

On second thought, keep those cool shades on: when combined with your posts, they give you the sort of "cool" that Zack Moris from my brother's favortie TV show has: superficial and ultimately used to cover up a vacuum of ignorance.

GunnerJ

Well, he did lose his cool in that post. Wait, he never had it to begin with...

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

tronvillain

Corwin:
As Friar Bellows points out, a joule is equivalent to a newton*metre. Don't you remember the equation W = Fd?

By definition, one is the unit for energy, and the other is the unit for force. In other words, they are not both energy - it's as simple as that. I suggest you stop calling force energy until you show us a definition under which it is.

It is exerting a downwards force, specifically 19.6 N, and it has a constant potential energy, specifically 39.2 J. The question "possibly you could explain where all that energy GOES?" is meaningless since there is no energy going anywhere, hence my question "What energy?"

Corwin

Y'all do me a favor....

Go out and fill up a 50 gallon drum with water.

Now deadlift it over your head.

NOW tell me it doesn't have energy.

Corwin

And the term is 'newton-meter.' I can see how you would have thought I was dividing, wasn't intending to express that. (And/or isn't divided either.)

tronvillain

Corwin:
It took energy to lift it, and it now has more energy than it did before. So? This does nothing to support your postition.

NOGO

This is not a good analogy. Dropping somthing does produce kinetic energy which is then changed to other types of energies.

However if you consider pressure alone then you have the following situation. Any large building puts a lot of pressure on the ground below it.
Can we expect that this alone will produce heat?
Will the ground heat up from the pressure on it?

If it did and the source of this heat is the pressure then over time the pressure should diminish since it turns to heat. If the pressure diminishes over time then the weight of the building must necessarily diminish.

The conclusion from this is that everything just disintegrates to heat under its own pressure.

Interesting theory. I can tell you that no current theory in physics will support this.

Corwin

Tron....
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

And yes, a building will produce some heat. It's not much, and since it's so close to the surface (compared to the center of the earth) it radiates off quickly.