Physics

[Harut]

i'm taking a general physics course in college. at first it seemed that it was going to be a review of my middle school classes (from Armenia). as we progess, i don't learn anything new, but it's interesting how i interpret things compared to the past.

anyways...

 

here is what the issue is.

 

the prof was lecturing on Work and Energy today. she basically made a point that KE (Kinetic Energy) is a "stored work". and we all know that moving objects have KE.

 

so i raise this kind of question. i'll try to remember precisely what i said.

"You say that KE is "stored work". we know that work is result of some net force. and we also know that if there is net force other than zero than there is acceleration. so if an object is moving with constant velocity than the net force acting on it is zero. if net force is zero then there is no work and no KE. but we know that all moving objects have KE."

 

she went on to explain that the KE of the object with constant velocity is generated by the initial force that put the object in motion.

 

and i went on to question what she means by initial force. what if the object WAS in motion initially? how can we prove that the object was in stationary mode initially. what is the reason behind assuming that the object must be at rest at some beginning point in its lifespan?

 

she gave some wierd half-explanation, and i just didn't want to go on with more questions.

 

any comments? any explanation?

[Guest Fadi]

i'm taking a general physics course in college.  at first it seemed that it was going to be a review of my middle school classes (from Armenia).  as we progess, i don't learn anything new, but it's interesting how i interpret things compared to the past.

anyways...

 

here is what the issue is.

 

the prof was lecturing on Work and Energy today.  she basically made a point that KE (Kinetic Energy) is a "stored work". and we all know that moving objects have KE.

 

so i raise this kind of question. i'll try to remember precisely what i said.

"You say that KE is "stored work".  we know that work is result of some net force. and we also know that if there is net force other than zero than there is acceleration. so if an object is moving with constant velocity than the net force acting on it is zero. if net force is zero then there is no work and no KE. but we know that all moving objects have KE."

 

she went on to explain that the KE of the object with constant velocity is generated by the initial force that put the object in motion.

 

and i went on to question what she means by initial force. what if the object WAS in motion initially? how can we prove that the object was in stationary mode initially. what is the reason behind assuming that the object must be at rest at some beginning point in its lifespan?

 

she gave some wierd half-explanation, and i just didn't want to go on with more questions.

 

any comments? any explanation?

Harut, continue with that, and you will end up for the general relativity theory.

 

The object is in movement, because it is in our universe(I guess you were expecting a real answer ). What I mean by this, is that in our universe, everything is in movement in the first place, because of the big bang, a part of the energy comming from that big bang resulted of the movement of the objects in question. Here we are talking about forces applied to objects, of course refering to objects movements, and not energy in the microworlds of particules.

 

Now, the movement of an object in the universe, an object that go in a straight line, an that there is no new forces in action, there is no conversion of potential energy anymore. An object in space, when no new forces are involved, will continue in straignt line, and that theoritically as ever. Now take that deplacement, replace it by infinit as the absolute number, like if a force was applied, take the energy you found first from the "work" and replace the new value of displacement you know is(infinit), and you will find that the force that was applied to it would be infinit, a contradiction with your premis, since if infinit number of force was applied first, the object will go to the speed of light.

 

Before Seaphan and Azat jump on me telling that you have no right to do that, because there is no new forces, and no acceleration, I will tell that you have no right to do that. And the reason is simple, it is because the object that continue in straight line and never stop, there is no potentional energy that is converted to kinetic energy, there is only a simple total energy responsable of the movement, that is always the same, and by isolating you will find the force that "created" that amount of energy. In short, when an object is in movement in space, and that no new forces are concerned, when we talk of Kinetic energy, we also talk of total energy. And I am suprised that your teacher didn't tell you that.

 

Ah another thing, if an object is in movement, it is because a force was applied to it in the first place, without movement an object could not be in our universe, because of relativity, it would be eternel, and would unify past, present and future. Well, yes a force should be applied to the object, but the force was applied in this case before even that object existed That energy then existed, even before the object existed, then any objects in movement have this kinetic energy. Why ? Because before the big bang, there was no objects, only energy, the expplosion brought that force needed for the movement of the particules that just were created, and so on... this energy of movement was transmited from particules, to atoms, and the öbjects: they created.

Edited April 8, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Harut, the reason your teacher was not able to answer, I think, is because your question was outside of the subject. The law of conservation of energy states that in classical physics Kinetic and Potential Energy can convert into each other and that there is no loss or gain in total energy in a closed system. It doesn't say that if there is KE then there was necessarily force (or PE), or vice versa. That question is more related to other parts of physics or philosophy (if Domino says something then there is some philosophy involved ).

[Guest Fadi]

Harut, the reason your teacher was not able to answer, I think, is because your question was outside of the subject. The law of conservation of energy states that in classical physics Kinetic and Potential Energy can convert into each other and that there is no loss or gain in total energy in a closed system. It doesn't say that if there is KE then there was necessarily force (or PE), or vice versa. That question is more related to other parts of physics or philosophy (if Domino says something then there is some philosophy involved ).

Actually Sasun, I do not think it was out of subject, and is not philosophy. his teacher should have been able to answer the question, if she is a university teacher.

 

the point here is that the (1/2)mv^2 formula stat that kinetic energy is linked with speed, but there is two states, where the total energy is equal to one form of the energy and then the other... before the acceleration, that is Potential energy, then at the end of the accelaration to the end, that is Kinetic energy. This formula applies everytime, and everywhere in space. If the formula get an energy, then it is energy, no matter if the object was always in movement or not. Harut question was that, if the objects was always in movement, how can we tell a forces put it in movement, therfore, there is any energy. Any physic teacher to college level would know answering that question, if she can't then maybe she is not in her place. In order that an object be in movement, there should be a force that was applied to it. Imagine that you have many rocks you trow in the space, you gave an amount of force to those rocks, and they are in movement in the space, now suppose that those rocks in future will compose a said object... when this would happen, the object in question would be in movement, and that would mean that the object in question was always in movement. But the reason is that the little rocks that have composed the objects were as well in movement, and they were in movement because you trowed those rocks and applied a force to them.

 

This is exactlly what is happening during the big bang, a big amount of energy just exploded, and then particules were formed, those particules consumed this amount of "potential movement"energy then it was transfered to the atoms they created, and those attoms, the gases, then when an important concentration of atoms were together to the point that gravitational forces were enough strong to make them go with each others and permit them all to link with each others, from Vandervall forces, and other forces etc... and finally creat the molecule in question that in its turn will be in movement, for the simple reason that this energy of movement is Kinetic energy that is equal to the total energy was transfered from the subatomic particules, to the particules, etc... untill the object was formed.

 

So the formula of Kinetic energy is right, and works always without expetions, in the microworld there is other phenomenon in action.

Edited April 8, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, if I am not mistaken, Harut's question was in the realm of classical physics (I would think so because it is a general physics course that he is taking, and this is a US undergraduate school). I know very well what you were trying to explain. But strictly from the point of view of classical physics, there is simply no explanation why objects in the universe move. We know that when the velocity changes that means there is a force, absolutely. We know that when we apply a certain force to an object and stop applying any force, the object will move with a constant speed, therefore it will have a constant kinetic energy and no potential energy (we do not count the internal energies of the object). But what we do not know, strictly speaking, is that if an object is moving at a constant speed, what is the cause of its movement? Maybe it always moved? So here we are already ouside of classical physics. There is simply no proof that there was an original force.

The Big Bang theory has NOT been proven, it is only a hypothesis. There are other theories as well. Harut's question is about the law of conservation of energy, which in no way tries to explain how any object came into movment.

[Guest Fadi]

Domino, if I am not mistaken, Harut's question was in the realm of classical physics (I would think so because it is a general physics course that he is taking, and this is a US undergraduate school). I know very well what you were trying to explain. But strictly from the point of view of classical physics, there is simply no explanation why objects in the universe move. We know that when the velocity changes that means there is a force, absolutely. We know that when we apply a certain force to an object and stop applying any force, the object will move with a constant speed, therefore it will have a constant kinetic energy and no potential energy (we do not count the internal energies of the object). But what we do not know, strictly speaking, is that if an object is moving at a constant speed, what is the cause of its movement? Maybe it always moved? So here we are already ouside of classical physics. There is simply no proof that there was an original force.

The Big Bang theory has NOT been proven, it is only a hypothesis. There are other theories as well. Harut's question is about the law of conservation of energy, which in no way tries to explain how any object came into movment.

Sasun, the Big Bang theaory is almost a certainty, and have been even proven with spectrometres, on the ligh frequencies studies.

 

As for what it is causing it, this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, but rather is a part of classical physic, Newtonian laws predict and recognise that. The variation delta of speed is 0, when an object does not change speed and continue in the same direction, while the Kinetic energy of an object that has no potention energy is equal to the total of the energy. So there is nothing causing the movement when this movement is happening, the movement was caused first when a force was applied to it.

 

The best way of seeing that is to ask yourself, why the object should stop ? Because if the object stop, the variation delta of speed is not 0, during the stoping process if you change its speed, the variation is not 0 anymore during that change, so what causes the object to change its speed is the force applied to it.

 

Like I said, an object in our universe can not be static, and the why of that question is not part of classic physic but relativistic physic, Newtonian classical physic answer to the question with Newtons laws, from his own laws, an object will move on and on, simply because there is no forces that will stop it. There is no explanation needed here, an explanation would be needed if the object were to stop without reason when no forced would be applied to it. Why the object should stop in the first place ? Because stoping will suggest a variation of speed, and a variation of speed would mean an exterior forces applied to it.

 

More then that, since this Kinetic energy is equal to the total energy, the laws of conservation of energy stat that nothing is lost, so this kinetic energy being equal to the total energy, it should be kept, if kept then the object should be moving again and again and again... because it has this kinetic energy that is equal to the total energy, and that this total energy could not be lost, because the only way that this "mecanical"energy is lost is when it is transfered to another object, that means when it touches another, and by contact, the other object take a part of it, and during the little moment where the energy is transfered, the variation delta speed of the 2 objects changes, untill a part of the Kinetic energy of one that is its total energy, is converted for a little fraction of second(in fact its a limit, that is 0) to the potential energy of the other that is at that time its maximal energy(added with the kinetic energy that it already had), then this new energy the other object recieve, the potential is converted to kinetic etc... all that is classical mecanic physic, that any student learn in their first physic courses. This is why I said that his teacher should be able to explain it.

Edited April 8, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, in the limits of classicaly physics, here is another way to make my point: how do you know that all KE was converted from PE? Maybe there was always both types of energy? If you accept the Big Band theory, the in the beginning there was only PE.

 

You are saying the Big Bang is almost a certainty. That is the question (almost). What about the bouncing universe theory, which says that the universe always existed, it just periodically expands and contracts? Right now, it is in the period of expanding. I don't know actually that experiment that you mentioned, but I guess since it has to do the frequencies of the light it could also support the bouncing theory. Does it?

[Guest Fadi]

Domino, in the limits of classicaly physics, here is another way to make my point: how do you know that all KE was converted from PE? Maybe there was always both types of energy? If you accept the Big Band theory, the in the beginning there was only PE.

 

You are saying the Big Bang is almost a certainty. That is the question (almost). What about the bouncing universe theory, which says that the universe always existed, it just periodically expands and contracts? Right now, it is in the period of expanding. I don't know actually  that experiment that you mentioned, but I guess since it has to do the frequencies of the light it could also support the bouncing theory. Does it?

The puncing universe theory, I believe on, since most of my theories are based on it, but I still believe that that started after a big bang.

 

As for how do we know there was only a PE first, that would be like saying there was a movement even before the universe. No ? Because the two form of energy in mecanical phsycis are or K or P. We have one or the other, or all together, one increasing the other decreasing. We don't have much choice, have we ?

Edited April 8, 2003 by Fadi

[Harut]

As for what it is causing it, this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, but rather is a part of classical physic, Newtonian laws predict and recognise that. The variation delta of speed is 0, when an object does not change speed and continue in the same direction, while the Kinetic energy of an object that has no potention energy is equal to the total of the energy. So there is nothing causing the movement when this movement is happening, the movement was caused first when a force was applied to it.

i know all that.

 

but why do we assue that there was an initial force that moved that object?

[Guest Fadi]

As for what it is causing it, this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, but rather is a part of classical physic, Newtonian laws predict and recognise that. The variation delta of speed is 0, when an object does not change speed and continue in the same direction, while the Kinetic energy of an object that has no potention energy is equal to the total of the energy. So there is nothing causing the movement when this movement is happening, the movement was caused first when a force was applied to it.

i know all that.

 

but why do we assue that there was an initial force that moved that object?

Simply because Newton said so. O.K, O.K, Just jocking. It is all in the definition of movement in physic, and what it is. Movement presupposes that there was a force that caused that movement. Its innevitable, one time or other, a force should have put that thing in movement.

Edited April 8, 2003 by Fadi

[Guest Fadi]

Of dammit, I just answered my post, and have not posted it as an answer, but as report that post.

 

I think Garo will have many reports by me like that because I will be mistaken and report the post rather then answering it.

 

Well, here I will retype what I said.

 

Harut, were you more saying why this should be the cases ? If you say that, then Sasun is right, it would not be classical mechanic physic, and I would excuse for having said your teacher is not in her place. Because my above answer was about classical physic. We only suppose that a force was responsable, by reverting from the energy, by isolating the mass, and then replacing it to find the force. From that, it would suggest that there was a force at first. But again that is classical physical(of course little bit extended because we use energy to isolate the mass and replace it to find the force)

Edited April 9, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, after you refused to believe me, I thought maybe I have forgotten some things in physics. So I called with this question to my old classmate, who unlike me continued in the field of physics and got PhD. He didn't understand exactly what I wanted to know, which probably means how unimportant this question is from the point of view of applied, non-academic physics. But after discussing with him, here is one more point that I remembered. An object moving at a constant speed is the same as a non-moving object. So if you are fair, you should say that there was a force that made the object not move, that is to stay still.

 

Anyway, I don't understand the way you do. You are saying

It is all in the definition of movement in physic, and what it is. Movement presupposes that there was a force that caused that movement. Its innevitable, one time or other, a force should have put that thing in movement.

I disagree, this is more like what you wish was true Newton only said that if you apply force then a movement with changing speed will follow. If you do not apply force, the object will move(or stay still) according to its inertia. But he never said that if an object is moving (or not moving) with intertia then there was an initial force. Of course, it is quite possible, and we humans would certainly expect that there was a force. But the precise nature of physics is that it does't make such a claim without proof. Obviously, it does not say that it is not possible either. If I say that there is a certain object in the universe that has been moving at a constant speed forever without any initial force, Newtons laws would say that is fine ( it is not against the Newtons laws)

[Guest Fadi]

Domino, after you refused to believe me, I thought maybe I have forgotten some things in physics. So I called with this question to my old classmate, who unlike me continued in the field of physics and got PhD. He didn't understand exactly what I wanted to know, which probably means how unimportant this question is from the point of view of applied, non-academic physics. But after discussing with him, here is one more point that I remembered. An object moving at a constant speed is the same as a non-moving object. So if you are fair, you should say that there was a force that made the object not move, that is to stay still.

 

Anyway, I don't understand the way you do. You are saying

It is all in the definition of movement in physic, and what it is. Movement presupposes that there was a force that caused that movement. Its innevitable, one time or other, a force should have put that thing in movement.

I disagree, this is more like what you wish was true Newton only said that if you apply force then a movement with changing speed will follow. If you do not apply force, the object will move(or stay still) according to its inertia. But he never said that if an object is moving (or not moving) with intertia then there was an initial force. Of course, it is quite possible, and we humans would certainly expect that there was a force. But the precise nature of physics is that it does't make such a claim without proof. Obviously, it does not say that it is not possible either. If I say that there is a certain object in the universe that has been moving at a constant speed forever without any initial force, Newtons laws would say that is fine ( it is not against the Newtons laws)

Sassoun, consider that Isaac Newton had Euclidian systems in his mind. No he never said that, but for an Euclidian system he had, we are forced to conclude that.

 

If you use the formulas of force and speed derived from Newtons force formula, and isolate the mass and speed from that energy, and apply them to thise, no matter if you consider the object in a perpetual movement, you are forced to use that perpetual speed that is constant, as a variation to replace it on the formula to find the force. And if you do that, you are forced to place an arbitrary v0 = 0. Thats Classical physic 100 % Then from that you conclude that this principale in movement, by the equation dervived from speed and force, you will always be able to tell the orginal forces, by isolating the mass and the actual speed, so yes Classical physics from the fundamental Euclidian physic formulas they provide would indicate a starting force. Its a kind of the limit, it can not be tuched by physic, but if you apply the formulas to a perpetual moving object, no matter if you believe or not, it was always moving, you will still be able to find the force that caused that movement, because you will be forced to place the arbitrary v0 = 0, as the Euclidian starting point, and therfore end up with a variation equal to the speed itself, and from it, replace it in Newtons law, and find the force.

[Guest Fadi]

Domino, after you refused to believe me, I thought maybe I have forgotten some things in physics. So I called with this question to my old classmate, who unlike me continued in the field of physics and got PhD. He didn't understand exactly what I wanted to know, which probably means how unimportant this question is from the point of view of applied, non-academic physics. But after discussing with him, here is one more point that I remembered. An object moving at a constant speed is the same as a non-moving object. So if you are fair, you should say that there was a force that made the object not move, that is to stay still.

 

Anyway, I don't understand the way you do. You are saying

It is all in the definition of movement in physic, and what it is. Movement presupposes that there was a force that caused that movement. Its innevitable, one time or other, a force should have put that thing in movement.

I disagree, this is more like what you wish was true Newton only said that if you apply force then a movement with changing speed will follow. If you do not apply force, the object will move(or stay still) according to its inertia. But he never said that if an object is moving (or not moving) with intertia then there was an initial force. Of course, it is quite possible, and we humans would certainly expect that there was a force. But the precise nature of physics is that it does't make such a claim without proof. Obviously, it does not say that it is not possible either. If I say that there is a certain object in the universe that has been moving at a constant speed forever without any initial force, Newtons laws would say that is fine ( it is not against the Newtons laws)

Sassoun, consider that Isaac Newton had Euclidian systems in his mind. No he never said that, but for an Euclidian system he had, we are forced to conclude that.

 

If you use the formulas of force and speed derived from Newtons force formula, and isolate the mass and speed from that energy, and apply them to thise, no matter if you consider the object in a perpetual movement, you are forced to use that perpetual speed that is constant, as a variation to replace it on the formula to find the force. And if you do that, you are forced to place an arbitrary v0 = 0. Thats Classical physic 100 % Then from that you conclude that this principale in movement, by the equation dervived from speed and force, you will always be able to tell the orginal forces, by isolating the mass and the actual speed, so yes Classical physics from the fundamental Euclidian physic formulas they provide would indicate a starting force. Its a kind of the limit, it can not be tuched by physic, but if you apply the formulas to a perpetual moving object, no matter if you believe or not, it was always moving, you will still be able to find the force that caused that movement, because you will be forced to place the arbitrary v0 = 0, as the Euclidian starting point, and therfore end up with a variation equal to the speed itself, and from it, replace it in Newtons law, and find the force.

And that is exactly why I said to Harut, that if he was asking about the why of the question. And if it is so, then the answer would be an I don't know I just know that as a starting point, we should consider v0 = 0, because if those objects have moved for ever, and that even before the existance of the Universe, then this movement will not in fact be movement, by will be a v0 = 0. So even if you consider in the Eucledian system that v0 = 0, even then this 0 could be interprated as a movement itself, and this is again why I asked Harut if the question was rather a why.

[Sasun]

Ehh, Domino, you are so stubborn but I will crush you

 

You said,

you are forced to place an arbitrary v0 = 0

 

That is not true, nobody forces you to do that. You can use v0=constant, and x0=0, or whatever.

 

Your opinion, again

I just know that as a starting point, we should consider v0 = 0, because if those objects have moved for ever, and that even before the existance of the Universe, then this movement will not in fact be movement, by will be a v0 = 0

Newtons laws do not make an assumption about the creation of the universe. They just assume that the universe exists, that's all. Not that it was created at some point or not created.

 

Speaking of Newton, did you know that in his life he has done more metaphysical work than science work? He has done a huge amount of research to find a secret code in the Bible, but has not found anything. Nowadays, some Jewish people claim that they have found such code. But they are using computers, of course, which Newton didn't have. Not surprisingly, most important 'messages' that they have found is about Jewish people and Israel, and some world events like landing on the moon or JFK assasination. I read an article several years ago in the Guardian (I think) and seems like many people are taking it seriously. Actually, at the time I also took it seriously.

[Guest Fadi]

Ehh, Domino, you are so stubborn  but I will crush you   

 

You said,

you are forced to place an arbitrary v0 = 0

 

That is not true, nobody forces you to do that. You can use v0=constant, and x0=0, or whatever.

 

Your opinion, again

I just know that as a starting point, we should consider v0 = 0, because if those objects have moved for ever, and that even before the existance of the Universe, then this movement will not in fact be movement, by will be a v0 = 0

Newtons laws do not make an assumption about the creation of the universe. They just assume that the universe exists, that's all. Not that it was created at some point or not created.

 

Speaking of Newton, did you know that in his life he has done more metaphysical work than science work? He has done a huge amount of research to find a secret code in the Bible, but has not found anything. Nowadays, some Jewish people claim that they have found such code. But they are using computers, of course, which Newton didn't have. Not surprisingly, most important 'messages' that they have found is about Jewish people and Israel, and some world events like landing on the moon or JFK assasination. I read an article several years ago in the Guardian (I think) and seems like many people are taking it seriously. Actually, at the time I also took it seriously.

Well yes I am stubborn. But I will crush you.

 

The definition of speed relies on the fact that on the space referential, objects space position changes more or less per time compared one to another.

 

If every objects were to go at the same speed, then speed would not exist. This is where Newtons physic suggest what I say, because it is classical physic, and those for, the referential has to have the possibility of the starting point that is 0.

 

Speed is seen as a changing of position in the system of referential. From point A, to point B, and that, no matter if there was a big bang, or the way the universe was created. If one object goes faster then the other, and has the same masse as the other, you could not tell the other object(the slower one) has a speed if you can not compare with a slower object that could be used as reference(I am not refering to a relative referential system, where the slower could be considered as having a speed that is opposit to the direction of the other, that is said to move faster). So the speed = 0, will be given to the object that has the slowest speed(again in a system, where we do not cosider the relativism of movement), a bases that would be served as the system of reference, because those object that would have the slowest speed, even if speed there is, would be indicated as the v0 = 0, it sound contradictory. And the only way that one could ensure that this object in fact does not move, would be to know its Kinetic energy that would be equal to the total, and by knowing that again, we would be forced to conclude that it has a movement and compare it with again the possible slowest object that will be at speed v0 = 0, and again finally conclude that there was a force that has put him in movement.

 

And the reason why why Newton has never admited that clearly even if he was forced to do it, since he has based all his systems on Euclidien references, is because he was a stubborn metaphysicist, and yes I know his fancy theories with the Torah and the so-called key to decode it. I don't buy those things. Sound like Ensteins Alien theories. Newton had a believe in god that prevented him to admit and starting point of a force applied at that starting point, because of his methaphysical believes of the Ether, the mecanical world. It was his delusions during the manical phases(it is said that he suffered from bipolar disorder), and his formulas of unification of the future past and present and the key to decipher them from the Torah.

 

BTW, I never said that I agree with what I wrote above, I said that mechanical classic physic will be forced to admit such.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Fadi

[Guest Fadi]

Ah I found a way how to explain what I mean.

 

Imagine that many objects have the same mass, in order to replace the m variable as a constant. Those objects each ones goes to different speed, imagine there is a huge amount of those objects.

 

Statistically, due to this very large amount of object, there will be always the possibility that one object goes faster then the other, suggesting a higher kinetic energy, and suggesting that a higher force was applied to it first. Therfore, suggesting a force was applied always, because of the existance of different kinetic energy, this differences between those objects would be forced to suggest that all those objects that will always find at least one different then themselves, have been applied to a force in order to have a different kinetic energy.

[Sasun]

Domino, you are not very clear. From what I understand, you seem to forget always to fix your counting system and stick to it every time you calculate KE. You can't fix one system where speed is 0, calculate the KE which is 0, then fix another system where speed is not 0, calculate the KE which is not 0, compare and say, hey, you see the KE is different, therefore there was a force. Because you are comparing different systems, you have no right to do that (unless you are located in a Domino-Universe). That is why you are getting these strange and contradictory results

 

By the way, the Big Bang theory would be more supportive of creationist version of the universe. That would mean that at some point God appied a huge amount of energy in the middle of emptyness, and universe resulted with all its laws, time, space and all kinds of things that you can find in the universe. Otherwise, where did the initial energy come from?

 

P.S. What is the Einsteins alien theory? I never heard of it.

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, the reason I changed the reference was to show that wathever you take one or the other, you will be forced to suppose that v0 = 0. Because or there is no slower referential, you will be forced to fix the 0, to that slowest one, and then compared to it, and as well the fact that objects don't move at the same speed, will be forced to claim they have different level of Kinetic energy, therfore, different forces were applied to them. Or you just fix the referential point as 0, when Kinetic energy when it is equal to total is 0. And again, you will be forces, since every objects don't go at the same speed, to recognise that they do not have the same Kinetic energy, again therfore they were applied to different quantity of force, if different then always existing.

 

As for the big bang, yes it would, better it could support creationist theories. But in the time of Newton, those theories were not attested, because of the lack of modern physics. For newton, it was not important that if in fact objects were moving or not, or if always forces should have been applied in the first place, because this theory of every object in the Universe in movement was even not of a concern. Newton believed that everything was mechanic, that light was a result of the vibration of the mechanical world of the Ether, then speed if there was at the starting point or not, made no difference for Newton, because there was no any conception at that time of what energy really was, a key ingredient for the hypotheses of the big-bang. So Newton never has gone so far, because his methaphysical believes, were that the universe was a product of gid manifestation, a manifestation that existed for eternity, and that since for him this god was eternel, so was its manfiestation in the Universe. Newton had many fancy and ridiculous metaphysical believes. He believed in astrology, and that those again are kind of codes to decipher human that were just a consequences of god manifestation in eternity, therefore past present and future from the sublim parameter could be exposed by some sort of key.

 

In fact, I could talk of thise for long, since like you refered Newton did more researchs on those things then he did on mechanical physics.

 

About Einstein, I hope you did not believed in that ? I say that because he is claimed to be an alien, from some funny kids, type Einstein and alien you will find your answer. There was as well funny metaphysical believes by Einstein, but we could cover this in another topic, because I wan't to concentrate about Newton now.

[Sasun]

Sasun, the reason I changed the reference was to show that wathever you take one or the other, you will be forced to suppose that v0 = 0. Because or there is no slower referential, you will be forced to fix the 0, to that slowest one, and then compared to it, and as well the fact that objects don't move at the same speed, will be forced to claim they have different level of Kinetic energy, therfore, different forces were applied to them. Or you just fix the referential point as 0, when Kinetic energy when it is equal to total is 0. And again, you will be forces, since every objects don't go at the same speed, to recognise that they do not have the same Kinetic energy, again therfore they were applied to different quantity of force, if different then always existing.

Domino, you are making the same point as before, that if an object is moving that means there was a force.

You are saying, in a system there are 2 objects, one is moving at a constant speed, one is not. The total energy of the first one is 0, and total energy of the second one is not 0. Then you conclude that a force has been applied to the second object. This is what I don't agree. I say, we don't know if a force has been applied. (A force could have been applied, or the object has been in that state before). But what we certainly know is that a force can be created from the movement of it, in this specific fixed system of reference, that would be converted from the energy of movement(KE).

With the same logic you could say that a force has not been applied to the first object (now I am repeating what I said before).

 

As to Newtons idea that our universe is the manifestation of God, this is absolutely correct. The ultimate degree of this manifestation is man. But you are right that a Big Bang theory or anything like that didn't exist at the time of Newton. Just imagine that at that time there was very little knowledge of science, and that came from ancient Greeks which itself was not science but rather metaphysical concepts. To discover Newtons laws only having what he had at his disposal was a huge discovery. I am inclined to think that he would not be able to make those discoveries without belief in God. I also believe that the law that would connect past, future and present that he was looking for in the Bible does exist (and not only in the Bible), but it is not coded that should be deciphered, it is simply written in words but you shouldn't understand everything literally. Why? This is a whole new subject, and I know you don't believe in God so we can discuss only if you want to

[Guest Fadi]

" But what we certainly know is that a force can be created from the movement of it, in this specific fixed system of reference, that would be converted from the energy of movement(KE)."

 

Thats exactlly the main point I was trying to bring, the force that could be created is from the total energy, and this creation will come from the potential forces that will exist during the transfer of forces. This proves what I was trying to say.

 

If a forces can be created from the Kinetic energy, it is only because this object will be faced with an exterior object, an exterior parametter, this kinetic energy will produce the potential energy that the other object will recieve. That directlly suggest that a force existed in the first object, because the new one recieved a part of it.

 

Energy do not creat forces, the forces exist as a potential forces to be exploited as a movement.

 

 

 

 

Ah, and about my believes, I am not really an athe, but rather an agnoistic.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Now I understand you better

 

That directlly suggest that a force existed in the first object, because the new one recieved a part of it.

 

Energy do not creat forces, the forces exist as a potential forces to be exploited as a movement.

 

This is not physics, this is philosophy and it is interesting. One could argue that force doesn't exist. Only energy exists which manifests intself as force. We know that there is a law of conservation of energy, but no law of conservation of force. This works against your point. But at the time of Newton it was not known, so yes you could argue your point. But then somebody could argue the second point. We can always define movement and potential movement of mass instead of energy. So KE is (acting)movement and PE is potential movement, so assumeing we only know Newtons laws we can talk about the same issue without referring to energy which Newton didn't use. So, if you follow this logic, movement doesn't die away. It converts into potential movement (when the objects hits a wall), then converts into another form of movement (bounces back and/or results in increased movement of the molecules of the wall and the object and causes wave movements of the air(sound), etc.) As you can see, there is no force involved. So, Domino, you can't fool me, movement is superior to force Now I am inventing an anti-Domino philosophy - there is no force in the universe, there is only movement and potential-movement. So called "force" is a Domino conspiracy

 

P.S. I view agnosticism as a slightly upgraded/honest version of atheism.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Sasun

[Guest Fadi]

Now I understand you better

 

That directlly suggest that a force existed in the first object, because the new one recieved a part of it.

 

Energy do not creat forces, the forces exist as a potential forces to be exploited as a movement.

 

This is not physics, this is philosophy and it is interesting. One could argue that force doesn't exist. Only energy exists which manifests intself as force. We know that there is a law of conservation of energy, but no law of conservation of force. This works against your point. But at the time of Newton it was not known, so yes you could argue your point. But then somebody could argue the second point. We can always define movement and potential movement of mass instead of energy. So KE is (acting)movement and PE is potential movement, so assumeing we only know Newtons laws we can talk about the same issue without referring to energy which Newton didn't use. So, if you follow this logic, movement doesn't die away. It converts into potential movement (when the objects hits a wall), then converts into another form of movement (bounces back and/or results in increased movement of the molecules of the wall and the object and causes wave movements of the air(sound), etc.) As you can see, there is no force involved. So, Domino, you can't fool me, movement is superior to force Now I am inventing an anti-Domino philosophy - there is no force in the universe, there is only movement and potential-movement. So called "force" is a Domino conspiracy

 

P.S. I view agnosticism as a slightly upgraded/honest version of atheism.

Buy what I say, buy what I say.

 

 

Actually I think I may be able to convince you.

 

The movement theory, of the total movement at the starting point equal to the end movement, that is based on the movement law of mv, proves my point. And Yes I do believe that there is conservation of forces, but that is not for sure classical physics.

 

Now, to prove you I am right, I will give you some examples. Have you heard of the way of propulsions that was hypothised by the NASA, using Sun light that would propulse an object ? First, it appears to be the conversion of energy to forces. But it only appears, but is not. Froce and energy are consequences of each others. When you heat something, and that by doing such you increase the energy of the molecules and their movement, the forces applied to the electrons, and then to the molecules itself is exactlly the same speed as the increase of energy, there is no transfer time between those two. I mean, when you heat something, you higher the energy of the molecules, and increase the movement, those forces increases created those not happen after a transmission of energy, but exactlly at the same time. I said above somewhere that during the big bang, this big explosion created that force, something comming from the energy, but I believe that I forgot to say, that that does not change the fact that the force existed in the same moment as the explosion of the energy, and that we can not claim that this energy existed before the force, simply because before that moment there was neither a distinct space dimention, neither time, so if there was no time, neither one or the other could come first.

 

I think, that this rather is an evidence enought to say that, even if one could believe or not of the existance of the big bang, we are still forced to conclude that forces is conserved always, like the conservation of movement.

 

I am sure that you will tell me that you can prove otherwise by refering me to friction, but I will answer you no. When there is friction, there is a transfert of forces between the two objects, things gases whatever... then the losses by heat does not prove that no conservation of forces exist, to the contrary, the production of heat proves that there is a conservation of forces, I know that is on the limit of physics, but think about that, the reason why this heat exist, is because you have exited those molecules, and has forced the electrons to change their quantum levels, this heat will then just be transfered, not only as heat, but as well as this movement of transfert and potential forces to be exploited untill it touches another particul, and transfert its potential forces.

 

So now, is then forces not conserved ?

 

Another way to prove that each object moving has a potential force waited to be exploited, the force that has been transfered to it previously. Imagine that you have an object that is going slower(when I say slower, I again ignore relativism, or lets suppose it is slower, by considering it has a lower Kinetic energy), the one going faster touches the other, does the one being touched not recieved a forces then ? We suppose that those two objects are of the same masses, and ignore the action reaction, we just take a look at the fact that the object that was going slower increased its movement, and its potential force to be exploited. Now, can you not then claim that the object moving faster had more forces ? And how do you explain that we can find the forces applied to the slowest object that made it go faster ? Therfore the object in question that has gone faster had a force, and the only way that it could have any again, would be that it recieved it during the same kind of transfer.

 

I chalange you to find me one cases where forces is not conserved. BTW, you have no right to chose one of the 4 fundamental forces, and tell me they don't, because they are, based on the mass and the nature of the particule in question.

 

BTW, why would you limit yourself with religion ?

[Sasun]

Domino, I am losing you again, or maybe I am just tired. It would help if you could clarify what you mean here

BTW, you have no right to chose one of the 4 fundamental forces, and tell me they don't, because they are, based on the mass and the nature of the particule in question.

 

So now you ran away from classical physics But its OK, I am onto you

Give me sometime to understand, some things are not clear in your post. If you can edit it to make it more clear, tomorrow when my head is fresh I will read again.

 

If you stayed in classical physics, namely mechanics, I would counter-challenge your challenge and say that I don't recognize that there is such a thing as force, I only know movement and mass, prove me that there is force, and you would be unable to do that. But you are smart so you ran away

 

BTW, why would you limit yourself with religion ?

Yes, why would I? The answer is that I don't. I expand myself through religion.

But I know what you mean. You mean religious dogmas limit people, to which I agree. But I would add that it really depends on the person, some people do not feel that dogma limits them. Either way, dogma is a very small part in religion, it is the form of the religion. The essence is not dogma, and that is what I personally seek, not the form.

[Guest Fadi]

OK, I will answer you tomorow, as I should go to sleep now.

 

As for the force, bring me your head, I will prove you that force exist, you will feel it.