Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: Free energy, or not?

Expand Messages
• From: Eric Date: Tue Feb 1, 2005 4:16 am Subject: Re: Free energy, or not? ... Chaos has nothing to do with it. Consider the
Message 1 of 65 , Feb 1, 2005
• 0 Attachment
From: "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...>
Date: Tue Feb 1, 2005 4:16 am
Subject: Re: Free energy, or not?

>I couldn't have tread on eggshells more gingerly.
>
>Of course you are right in that the conservation laws are upheld.
>
>You are also right in knowing that there must be chaotic differences
>to both pushes.

Chaos has nothing to do with it.

Consider the orientation of the contact surface over the duration of
the "push". Resolve the force into components normal and parallel to
this surface. If you consider sliding motion along this surface, you
can even account for the work that's converted to heat via friction.
If you consider the rotation of the "pushee", and the possibility
that the moment arm length goes to zero before the desired amount of
momentum is imparted you can explain all the issues raised here
(somebody mentioned a glancing blow and the "efficiency" (sic) of the
push).

A free-body diagram and writing out the equations of motion works
wonders.

>Chaotic differences abound in anything more complicated than a
>perfect BB gently nudging a perfectly smooth wall (I did write a bit
>about chaos awhile back).

Even in impacts with highly plastic deformations, no chaos theory is
required. Consider elasticity, plasticity, hysteresis, adhesion,
changes in coefficient of friction with force/speed, etc. Nothing
we've talked about in the physical interactions of macro scale
physical bodies requires the introduction of chaos theory.
• ... The light is on. More information without geometry. Look, there are zillions of examples of information that is not dimensional or geometry related. ...
Message 65 of 65 , Feb 1, 2005
• 0 Attachment
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J" <jaemsjohn@y...> wrote:
>

> >
> > No, "information" is not geometry. My car is silver.
>
> that paint has a geometry that will interact with
> light.
>

The light is on. More information without geometry. Look, there are
zillions of examples of information that is not dimensional or
geometry related.

>
> > Information
> > without geometry. Two plus two is four. More
>
> two + two is 4.. 4 of what? what is the shape of 2,
> how do you know it is two?
>

Numbers as used here are conceptual. Maybe there are no "things" being
counted, only conepts. Maybe philosophies that fit a certain
description, maybe states of information available in a binary bit.
None of these are geometric.

> > information without
> > geometry. The light bulb uses 100 watts. Even more.
>

There you go, power is non-directional, it is the rate of energy over
time.

> > Mass has a location, but its size, etc, are really
> > only probabilities
> > at very small scales. A proton doesn't have a
> > "shape" in the
> > conventional sense.
>
> True it probably has shapes.. propbably waves
> interacting in patterns.. patterns are geometry
>

But these are probabilities over time. I know quantum mechanics isn't
easy, but at very small scales geometry isn't as concrete as it is at
our scales. Combining motion with position gets VERY fuzzy, in a
probablistic way. For example, atoms would not "look" like little
billiard balls, but would be better represented by foggy, wispy clouds
with no real hard shape. Those orbiting electrons do not follow paths
as we know them on our scales, but sort of exist with different
likelihoods at different places.

>
> >
> > Anyway, mass, too, is a scalar quantity. "Kilograms"
> > has no
> > directionality, so both sides of the equation,
> > e=mc^2, are scalar
> > (which is a good thing).
> >

Did you see that? Units of mass are also scalar quantities.

> > quantities). But integrate the a over time to get v
> > and you maintain
> > its directionality. But SQUARE the v, as in
> > E=0.5mv^2, and you lose
> > its vector. See, even if v was a negative number it
> > will square to the
> > same value. So energy cannot express direction.
>
> true and that seems wrong to me. It has to.. just
> because the equations cancel it out don't meant they
> are perfect.
>

It may seem wrong to you, but it isn't. The equations work on our
ordinary scales and, at relativistic scales, can be corrected to work.
The energy of a bowling ball rolling toward the pins has NO
directionality. The ball's momentum does, of course, but its energy
does not. It would have the same energy even if it was rolling away
from the pins at the same speed.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.