TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Problems/Closing the Political Discussion/Debate Forum
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Where is it getting that energy to excite the space around it? Shouldn't there be some kind of energy decay as a result of this? Otherwise you could say that energy is being generated from no energy.

The very existance of the object is creating energy. When the object dissapears, the gravitational energy dissapears also. In a way, that energy is part of the object, because mass itself is a different manifestation of energy. That energy is stationary and it's not radiating into surrounding area, that's why the objects don't decay. The complete mechanics of it have not yet been completely understood, and I'm not a physics major either so I can't tell you more, although most recent research seems to be on the verge of realizing how it works. I'll look more into it when I have time and try to present a more detailed explanation.

quote:

electricity, or, say, gamma rays, can be detected quite easily (try sticking a finger in the power socket - no! wait! don't slo'mo'!), wheras gravity cannot. we can only c its effects (objects moving). not sure... and there's also the fact that occrider mentions: gravity does not decay. any physics geeks about who can help us out?

Electricity can't be detected that easily also. When slo'mo sticks his finger in a power socket, he'll only notice a huge burst of electrons coming into his body which will in turn disturb his neural electric impulses. But the force that's behind it is just as obscure and undetectable as gravity. So you see electricity in the same way you see gravity, you see the effect of the force on the object, but you can't see the force itself.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The very existance of the object is creating energy. When the object dissapears, the gravitational energy dissapears also. In a way, that energy is part of the object, because mass itself is a different manifestation of energy. That energy is stationary and it's not radiating into surrounding area, that's why the objects don't decay. The complete mechanics of it have not yet been completely understood, and I'm not a physics major either so I can't tell you more, although most recent research seems to be on the verge of realizing how it works. I'll look more into it when I have time and try to present a more detailed explanation.

Hmmm I may review my physics to learn about the issue as well. But you say that the existence of the object creates energy that is stationary and does not radiate into the surrounding area and therefore does not decay. Doesn't that violoate the second law of thermodynamics whereby entropy always increases? Also, remembering back to my school days, I thought that energy always flows from areas of high density to areas of low density. Doesn't gravity violate that as well?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Electricity can't be detected that easily also. When slo'mo sticks his finger in a power socket, he'll only notice a huge burst of electrons coming into his body which will in turn disturb his neural electric impulses. But the force that's behind it is just as obscure and undetectable as gravity. So you see electricity in the same way you see gravity, you see the effect of the force on the object, but you can't see the force itself.

hmmm. i guess so. what about rays then? say infrared, or gamma? these can be seen, with the appropriate instruments.

quote:

Originally posted by NFA hmmm. i guess so. what about rays then? say infrared, or gamma? these can be seen, with the appropriate instruments.

Yes I'm pretty sure that they are well understood and can be measured. Geiger counter for instance. It's funny how things progressed from closing the forum to Iraq to absolute truth to electricity and gamma rays. Kinda like the 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Hmmm maybe I'll start up the 7 degrees of Iraq ...

quote:

Hmmm I may review my physics to learn about the issue as well. But you say that the existence of the object creates energy that is stationary and does not radiate into the surrounding area and therefore does not decay. Doesn't that violoate the second law of thermodynamics whereby entropy always increases? Also, remembering back to my school days, I thought that energy always flows from areas of high density to areas of low density. Doesn't gravity violate that as well?

I might have used a wrong expression. It's not real energy surrounding the object, it's a field. That field is something like potential energy. Thermodynamical energy is basically kinetic energy, so it is dispersable. Potential energy exists, but doesn't disperse. When you hold up a rock, it has gravitational potential energy which wants to pull it towards the eart centre, but it doesn't have a kinetic energy which is actually moving the rock. The transfer of potential energy into kinetic energy is being blocked by you. Same with electrons, if you keep one away from a proton, it will want to get near it, but it can't because you're keeping it from doing so. An object in empty space is generating a field of potential gravitatioanl energy which would act upon any object that gets near. But until an object does so, it is just an empty potential. Think of a highly charged iron ball. It is charged with potential electric energy, but if it's floating in empty space, you don't see it. But when you get another metal ball near it, a spark will occur, and the potential energy of the electric field will get transfered into kinetic energy which separates electrons from atoms and forces them to flow through empty air towards the object with lesser potential. The electrons don't know that a new object appeared near them, they just felt attraction towards the direction of the new object. The new object disrupted the field in a way the field got weaker in its vicinity. And the electrons followed the way towards weaker point in the field. But if the charged ball was to be left alone, its field of potential energy would never decay.

Current research suggests that there might be subatomic photon-like particles called gravitrons that infact make up the gravitational field. Those particles would act in sort of reversed kinetic way in a sense they attract an object they hit towards the direction they hit it from. It hasn't been proven, though.

quote:

hmmm. i guess so. what about rays then? say infrared, or gamma? these can be seen, with the appropriate instruments.

They are also regular dispersable electromagnetic energy. Dispersable energy can be directly measured, potential field energy can't.

quote:

It's funny how things progressed from closing the forum to Iraq to absolute truth to electricity and gamma rays.

Yes, I'm thinking the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I might have used a wrong expression. It's not real energy surrounding the object, it's a field. That field is something like potential energy. Thermodynamical energy is basically kinetic energy, so it is dispersable. Potential energy exists, but doesn't disperse. When you hold up a rock, it has gravitational potential energy which wants to pull it towards the eart centre, but it doesn't have a kinetic energy which is actually moving the rock. The transfer of potential energy into kinetic energy is being blocked by you. Same with electrons, if you keep one away from a proton, it will want to get near it, but it can't because you're keeping it from doing so. An object in empty space is generating a field of potential gravitatioanl energy which would act upon any object that gets near. But until an object does so, it is just an empty potential.

When you describe this field as being similiar to potential energy I'm assuming that this field doesn't exhibit all the properties of potential energy then. Or does it? What I'm getting at is that if it is potential energy then when an object is captured by the gravity of another object then that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy correct? However if that is the case then doesn't that imply a decrease in potential energy? But we both know that gravity remains constant so is there any kind of energy conversion taking place at all? Theoretically couldn't we harness gravity's power to gain an unlimited source of energy?

quote:

When you describe this field as being similiar to potential energy I'm assuming that this field doesn't exhibit all the properties of potential energy then. Or does it? What I'm getting at is that if it is potential energy then when an object is captured by the gravity of another object then that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy correct? However if that is the case then doesn't that imply a decrease in potential energy? But we both know that gravity remains constant so is there any kind of energy conversion taking place at all? Theoretically couldn't we harness gravity's power to gain an unlimited source of energy?

Hmm, let me see my physics book...
It's not quite the same. The field is being generated by the object, while the potential energy is a manifestation of that field accumulated in another object that entered the field.

We couldn't harness gravity's power to get unlimited energy, though. Let's say you have two objects in space, one being much larger. When the smaller one starts falling, you have a decrease in potential energy and an increase in kinetic energy. When the smaller object reaches the center of the mass its potential energy is reduced to 0, while its kinetic energy is increased to the maximum. The maximum kinetic energy in the center is equal to maximum potential energy when the object started moving. You can transfer the potential energy to kinetic energy and therefore use it. But when the object gets to the center, its potential energy is lost. The only way to regain that energy back is to get the object back to the same place in the field, and therefore increase its potential energy. But you can't do that without using the energy yourself, because now you are working against the field. The amount of energy you used to get it back is the same you gained when it fell. In reality, you'd have additional energy losses (friction, etc), so you'd end up losing more energy than gaining in the process.

Here is the fault in your statement: You overlooked that when the object gains kinetic energy it starts moving. And since it started moving it got to a different place where the field is stronger, and its potential energy is weaker. In other words, when you hold a rock in your hand, it does push your hand downwards, but if you let it fall, you only get a finite amount of energy. It won't keep falling forever, as it won't keep pushing your hand forever unless you keep holding it. And if you don't let it fall, you don't get any energy from it, infact you only use up your energy to keep countering the potential energy the rock has.

Oi ... this is starting to make my head hurt. I don't know enough about field theory to continue any further ... haha I'll just take your word for it that the laws of thermodynamics still hold true. Especially since I'm sure that much smarter people than I have already analyzed the issue.

ah yes, it's all coming back...
been a long time since i was at school.

responding to some previous issues...

i think what you guys mean by an absolute truth is actually called an analytical truth... which does exist. an analytical truth is a proposition that is self-evidently true, such as: no bachelors are married, all squares have 4 sides, or as arbiter said, 1 + 1 = 2. in contrast to analytical truths (or analytical falsities) there are synthetic truths (and falsities) which require us to go out into the world and see if they are true, such as: i am over 6 feet tall. however, truth is an objective property, independant of people's thoughts or beliefs. a proposition can either be true, or false, never both.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.