I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet?
BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property of the universe rather than of an object. BTW2, the universe is all that exists, by definition. Parallel "universes" should be called something else. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Hi, > > Michel Jullian wrote: > > I did read your reply, I did think for a while, but > I still disagree ;-) > > > > You insist on some _internal_ energy being spent > while the object falls. Where would it > come from when the object is an elementary particle > such as an electron, would it lose > mass or something? :-) > > > Those are items I addressed in a previous post. > Here's an outline though. Short answer > is we simply do not know what's inside the electron, > what causes and sustains the E-field, > the magnetic dipole moment, angular momentum, etc. > Such fields would normally disperse > and spread across space on their own accord. For now > it's called the electron and left at > that, but the quest still exists. > > > What we do know --> > > * The electron creates a magnetic field. > * A current loop creates a magnetic field. > > * The electron creates a magnetic dipole moment. > * A current loop creates a magnetic dipole moment. > > * The electron spin can be expressed in Ampere Meters2 > units. > * A current loop can be expressed in Ampere Meters2 > units. > > * An electron was created and will one day be > destroyed. > * A current loop was created and will one day be > destroyed. > > * Two attracting dipoles accelerating toward each > other consumes energy from the current > loop source. Two repelling dipoles decelerating toward > each other adds energy to the > current loop source. > * (still to be determined). > > > That's just B-field comparison. Top that off with the > fact that the same applies to the > E-field, as such energy comparisons work out nicely. > > And there are the difficulties with PE. Two iron > atoms created 1 micron apart have a > certain amount of PE. Two iron atoms created galaxies > apart have a certain amount of PE. > Two iron atoms created in different big-bang universes > as claimed by M-theory have a > certain amount of PE. Not to mention the idea that > are claiming nature somehow hides such PE. > > Present theory requires two forms of energy, KE and > PE. My theory simplifies and does > away with the idea of hidden PE. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > Michel > > > > P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put > it on top or near the top (blind > people friendly convention, they read the posts by > text to speech software and don't want > to hear all the old stuff they already know about > -especially when it's lengthy- before > getting to the new stuff, as one of them told me once > on another mailing list) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >> --- > >>> Paul, if I understand correctly your long > comments > >> below (BTW could we be as concise as > >> possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff > on > >> top whenever possible?), > >> --- > >> > >> > >> Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >> --- > >>> you believe that potential energy in general (not > >> just magnetic, but also > >> gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just > a > >> convenient concept, and there must be > >> some real energy underlying this concept, and you > want > >> to know where this real energy > >> comes from. > >>> I believe on the contrary that potential energy > is > >> as real as energy can be. Taking > >> gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no > >> cross-products, Curie points etc..), the > >> PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, > _by > >> definition_, to the work that must be > >> done to lift it back up. If PE wasn't real there > would > >> be no real counterpart to the real > >> work done when lifting the weight, as there would > be > >> no counterpart to the kinetic energy > >> of the weight when it falls. > >>> Besides you can't replace PE by a _quantifiable_ > >> energy as you suggest (annihilated or > >> weakened electrons), because PE has an arbitrary > zero. > >> We can't tell how much intrinsic PE > >> there is in the weight because we don't know on > which > >> planet we are going to let it fall, > >> agreed? > >> --- > >> > >> > >> No offense intended, but it seems you are not > grasping > >> the depth of my theory, as what you > >> say adds even more credence to my theory, which > >> dismisses the idea of PE; i.e., you don't > >> know how much PE you'll ever need. If you > carefully > >> read this entire reply I believe you > >> could only agree with my theory in all honesty. > >> > >> Two iron atoms could have been created 1 micron > apart, > >> which would constitute a certain > >> amount of PE. The iron atoms could have been > created > >> in different solar systems, which > >> would constitute a certain amount of PE. The iron > >> atoms could have been created in > >> different galaxies, which would constitute a > certain > >> amount of PE. The iron atoms could > >> have been created in different universes/big-bang > (see > >> M-theory on beyond our big bang), > >> which would constitute a certain amount of PE. > >> > >> You are asking way too much from nature. I've > written > >> far too many simulation programs to > >> know such an idea as PE is a nightmare for the > simple > >> reason that you can ***add*** energy > >> to the system from nowhere. This is very clear > and > >> simple in a simulation program. If you > >> want to add more energy to the system you simply > >> create two iron atoms that are even > >> farther apart and then allow them to accelerate > toward > >> each other. :-( > >> > >> My theory simply states energy is simply moved > from > >> one location to another. When the two > >> magnets accelerate toward each other it consumes > >> energy. And guess what, my theory is > >> already confirmed as much as we know two air core > >> electro-magnets do indeed consume energy > >> as they accelerate toward each other. > >> > >> Ah, and here's another surprising confirmation. > :-) We > >> now have technology to create > >> electric fields on demand, which is in complete > >> agreement with my theory. Consider two > >> separated objects. One is negatively charged and > the > >> other is positively charged. When > >> separated there exists an appreciably charged > space, > >> which constitutes energy. We know > >> that it requires energy to charge space-- > capacitors. > >> As the two objects accelerate > >> toward each other the net electric fields > decrease, as > >> the negative & positive fields > >> cancel. :-) In a nutshell, we started with energy > >> that constitutes charged space, and we > >> ended up with "energy," the moving object. > >> > >> Lets see if the theory holds up to the opposite > >> situation-- two objects charged with the > >> same polarity. Again we initially have charged > space. > >> It requires energy to force the two > >> objects closer together. This consumed energy goes > in > >> the way of charged space, as the two > >> fields overlap. > >> > >> To top it all off, my theory is far simpler. In > >> physics we strive to find the most > >> fundamental theory. Your theory requires KE and > PE. > >> My theory requires one, plain old > >> "energy." :-) > >> > >> I am sorry, but IMHO the evidence is overwhelming > that > >> my theory is correct-- knock on > >> wood, lol. > >> > >> Think about it for a while. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Paul Lowrance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Be a PS3 game guru. > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. > http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 >
