Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics derivations (analytically) without the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed reached by the ball in a pendulum released at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function of string length, this kind of stuff.
You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the wires are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going. Michel P.S. The confusion over the definition of "universe" is yours (and shared by all people talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I said the universe is all there is, by definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe as can be easily understood from such derived words as "universal". If you dislike the word, "nature" is fine for me too. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > 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? > > > Basically you're asking what sustains such particles. > To perhaps provide you with a > different POV, here's an analogy even though all > analogies are imperfect, but they server > to make a point. The electro-magnet represents the > particle. The source of power > (current source) that sustains the electro-magnet > would represent "Space." > > We agree energy is being moved from the battery when > two electro-magnets accelerate toward > each other in magnetic attraction. We agree such > energy is moved from the battery to KE > and an increase in B-field. In the case of permanent > magnets, we both agree that energy of > "some sort" is moving to the magnets in way of KE in > addition to a net increase in > B-field. You refer to such an energy source as PE. I > am pointing out very obvious > patterns in nature that indicates such energy is not > yet another different aspect. That > such PE is not yet another separate type. We see PE > popping its head in QM and Classical > equations. IMHO PE should *not* be some magical glue > to bond and balance mathematical > theories together. > > You might ask as to what patterns in nature am I > referring to. Anything from springs to > electro-magnets. Long ago people probably looked at > the spring and could only imagine > where such energy was being stored, where it was going > to and coming from. Today the > spring is no mystery. We know about atomic bonds. :-) > > When humanity discovers an electro-gravity coil then > do you truly believe it will require > *no* energy when objects accelerate toward such a coil > while it is on? We already know > what happens when the electro-magnet coil attracts > magnetic materials. It requires energy. > > > > > > BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a > property of the universe rather than of an > object. > > > That's exactly what you seem to believe. As two iron > atoms accelerate toward each other > we know it gains KE and a net increase in magnetic > field. You believe nature has a back > door of energy, figuratively speaking. A hidden > storage compartment that cannot be seen > or analyzed while in storage. Such a theory is fine > if one has nothing else, or until we > begin to perceive such aforementioned patterns in > nature, or until we analyze the > equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment, which we > call the electro-magnet. Also, such a > concept of PE is very ugly as far as simulation > programs are concerned. It's difficult > enough simulation known energy. > > > > > > BTW2, the universe is all that exists, by > definition. Parallel "universes" should be > called something else. > > > I believe you are confusing Omniverse or Multiverse > with the word "universe." You cannot > say the universe is all there is if you accept > parallel universes. It's just a definition > anyway, which I often call "all there is" as Nature, > but sometimes I prefer Omniverse. > > > > Regards, > Paul > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast > with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather >
