The forces inherent in energy
Joseph Humming
our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
forces?
In this universe matter, so-called, was formed. Even now we still
haven't unravelled the complexity of the process. Is this matter the
only form of matter possible, the only form that would survive? Is
this matter - literally - the material expression of the forces
inherent in energy?
Over considerable time this matter was routed by its own inherent
forces into the universe we know. Is this, in essence, the only kind
of universe possible? Is it, in essence, a natural expression on a
broad canvas of the forces inherent in energy?
On one, at least, of the entities formed by this process something
called life was formed. Even today we hardly grasp the complexity of
it - not merely the mechanisms of replication, respiration etc but the
programmed purpose. Did such richness arise by chance? Or is the
universe a vast seeding-ground? Is it a theatre where energy naturally
seeks, or finds, expression for its own inherent forces?
And eventually life found intelligent expression - entirely natural,
of course; completely connected with the past; but finally capable of
uncovering all of the above. What is the natural expression of this
new creature? To move out along all the possible dimensions of
discovery; to know and to utilise all the forces inherent in
energy...?
And this was a fraught process. New forces - religion, art, constant
reorganisation etc - attended every phase. Change on demand was always
possible: we could constrain, compel, convince, concoct as required.
But eventually - today - a simulacrum of our potential has been
reached in many places. In such places we are free, knowledgeable and
prosperous. We assume this is enough, taking our success for granted.
But there is - I suggest - an absence of context: we live for today
and are devoid of any broader sense of our existence as a species. How
do we change this? None of the former options are now possible. Our
freedom and our knowledge is now a given. We may not compel or
concoct. Also, the homoginisation forced on the indiviual who wishes
to thrive in our newly-free world has deprived us of one of the great
forces for insight in the past, the eccentric viewpoint of the
oddball, so called.
Joseph Humming
Mitchell Coffey
I was thinking the same thing just the other day.
Sarah Fatimah Palin
Robert Carnegie
I think the answer to most of your questions is "yes". Also, E = m c
squared.
Kermit
Cites?
Kermit
Joseph Humming
So...if the answer to most of my questions is yes, why do we continue
to believe in palpable falsehoods? Why do we not have a sense of the
uniqueness and the potential of the human species? Why do we focus so
narrowly on rights and benefits when we have such a deep spiritual
need for meaning?
Just asking.
Joseph Humming.
>
> - Show quoted text -
gregwrld
Really cool on green bud...
gregwrld
Dwib
Are you comparing, for example, gravitational forces to societal
forces?
Dwib
Joseph Humming
No. Gravity is part of the packet of material forces that fashioned
the universe. Society has its own forces and tensions. My subject,
really, is the fact that every phase of that "trippy" little process
eventually leaves a legacy that facilliates the next phase.
J. J. Lodder
> Underlying all is an extraordinary energy. This energy gives rise to
> our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> forces?
Our universe does not contain net energy,
Jan
Joseph Humming
Meaning?
J. J. Lodder
noctiluca
> Underlying all is an extraordinary energy. This energy gives rise to
> our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> forces?
It was the formalization of the inherent energetic potential,
actualized into a matrix encompassing all the vicissitudes of time
dependent probabilities.
> In this universe matter, so-called, was formed. Even now we still
> haven't unravelled the complexity of the process. Is this matter the
> only form of matter possible, the only form that would survive? Is
> this matter - literally - the material expression of the forces
> inherent in energy?
Instantiation of the material universe must be perceived externally as
the disequilibrium of cause via effect, and vice versa. Thus when we
consider so-called *substance* we must understand the ramifications of
energy cum embryonic matter within the bounds of the perception effect
(most scientists refer to this as "consciously experiencing").
> Over considerable time this matter was routed by its own inherent
> forces into the universe we know. Is this, in essence, the only kind
> of universe possible? Is it, in essence, a natural expression on a
> broad canvas of the forces inherent in energy?
What else?
> On one, at least, of the entities formed by this process something
> called life was formed. Even today we hardly grasp the complexity of
> it - not merely the mechanisms of replication, respiration etc but the
> programmed purpose. Did such richness arise by chance? Or is the
> universe a vast seeding-ground? Is it a theatre where energy naturally
> seeks, or finds, expression for its own inherent forces?
Energy must follow least-resistance laws to the fate mapped upon it by
initial morphogenic fields (i.e., e.g., b.s., the time-reversed
causality of perception). The fractally branching possibilities of
this wave equation some refer to as "reality" requires wave guides.
Our quantum spirituality potentiates the nascent matter.
> And eventually life found intelligent expression - entirely natural,
> of course; completely connected with the past; but finally capable of
> uncovering all of the above. What is the natural expression of this
> new creature? To move out along all the possible dimensions of
> discovery; to know and to utilise all the forces inherent in
> energy...?
To discover the perfect pizza.
> And this was a fraught process. New forces - religion, art, constant
> reorganisation etc - attended every phase. Change on demand was always
> possible: we could constrain, compel, convince, concoct as required.
> But eventually - today - a simulacrum of our potential has been
> reached in many places. In such places we are free, knowledgeable and
> prosperous. We assume this is enough, taking our success for granted.
> But there is - I suggest - an absence of context: we live for today
> and are devoid of any broader sense of our existence as a species. How
> do we change this? None of the former options are now possible. Our
> freedom and our knowledge is now a given. We may not compel or
> concoct. Also, the homoginisation forced on the indiviual who wishes
> to thrive in our newly-free world has deprived us of one of the great
> forces for insight in the past, the eccentric viewpoint of the
> oddball, so called.
Preservation of eccentricity is a reasonable start. But I think if we
consider transgressing those boundaries, in essence moving towards a
transformative hermeneutics of quantum human actualization we might
eventuate the possibilities inculcated into pre-human matter by the
formative singularity, the so-called Big Bang.
Or maybe not. What the hell do I know?
RLC
> Joseph Humming
Desertphile
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> Underlying all is an extraordinary energy.
No.
> This energy gives rise to our universe.
What energy, exactly, are you talking about?
> Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> forces?
What "these forces?" You do understand that energy is not a force,
yes?
(Other insane shit deleted)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> > Jan
> Meaning?
Which word in "Our universe does not contain net energy" do you
not understand?
Mike Duffy
news:krs1f4h3tr5ls57rm...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 8:33 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>> > Our universe does not contain net energy,
>> Meaning?
> Which word in "Our universe does not contain net energy" do you
> not understand?
I'm guessing, of course, since it was not my question. But probably the
word "net", since the universe obviously contains energy.
"Net" implies a difference between energy of two distinct systems,
junctures, whatever. Since the universe is by definition singular, I am
also at a loss to understand what you mean by "net".
Kermit
> Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote innews:krs1f4h3tr5ls57rm...@4ax.com:
I have only one bank balance, and luckily it has a net balance that's
positive.
Positive and negative energy in our universe balances out to zero.
Maybe.
Kermit
J. J. Lodder
The universe also contains negative energies,
in particular gravitational potential energy.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 11, 4:12 pm, Mike Duffy <resp...@newsgroup.only> wrote:
> > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote innews:krs1f4h3tr5ls57rm
> >
> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Oct 11, 8:33 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > >> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > >> > Our universe does not contain net energy,
> > >> Meaning?
> > > Which word in "Our universe does not contain net energy" do you
> > > not understand?
> >
> > I'm guessing, of course, since it was not my question. But probably the
> > word "net", since the universe obviously contains energy.
> >
> > "Net" implies a difference between energy of two distinct systems,
> > junctures, whatever. Since the universe is by definition singular, I am
> > also at a loss to understand what you mean by "net".
>
> I have only one bank balance, and luckily it has a net balance that's
> positive.
>
> Positive and negative energy in our universe balances out to zero.
> Maybe.
Indeed. The matter is not simple.
However, all claims that our universe 'obviously' contains energy
(and hence needs a creator) are mistaken,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Very good.
Have you considered submitting to a post-modernist journal?
Jan
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 8:33 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > Underlying all is an extraordinary energy. This energy gives rise to
> > > > our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> > > > the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> > > > forces?
>
> > > Our universe does not contain net energy,
>
> > > Jan
>
> > Meaning?
>
> Precisely what it says,
>
> Jan
Useful answer, Jan! I would have preferred, though, if you had
explained to mean the relevance of the universe supposedly having no
"net energy" to the original posting. And what does net energy mean
anyway? Clearly there is an absence in my knowledge. Please take me
out of my misery:-)
Joseph not Humming
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > Underlying all is an extraordinary energy.
>
> No.
>
> > This energy gives rise to our universe.
>
> What energy, exactly, are you talking about?
>
> > Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> > the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> > forces?
>
> What "these forces?" You do understand that energy is not a force,
> yes?
I think if you reread - and I hope you do, many times :-) - you will
see that I wrote the "forces inherent in energy". This does not
suggest that energy itself fits the definition of a force - but since
energy is the begetter of everything and since "everything" includes
the forces we know then these forces must somehow be inherent in
energy
>
> (Other insane shit deleted)
>
> --http://desertphile.org
Joseph Humming
> noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 4:52 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > Underlying all is an extraordinary energy. This energy gives rise to
> > > our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> > > the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> > > forces?
>
> > It was the formalization of the inherent energetic potential,
> > actualized into a matrix encompassing all the vicissitudes of time
> > dependent probabilities.
I take it that means yes? It does rather...what's the
word?...dessicate(?) the nature of reality, does it not?
>
> > > In this universe matter, so-called, was formed. Even now we still
> > > haven't unravelled the complexity of the process. Is this matter the
> > > only form of matter possible, the only form that would survive? Is
> > > this matter - literally - the material expression of the forces
> > > inherent in energy?
>
> > Instantiation of the material universe must be perceived externally as
> > the disequilibrium of cause via effect, and vice versa. Thus when we
> > consider so-called *substance* we must understand the ramifications of
> > energy cum embryonic matter within the bounds of the perception effect
> > (most scientists refer to this as "consciously experiencing").
Hmmm
>
> > > Over considerable time this matter was routed by its own inherent
> > > forces into the universe we know. Is this, in essence, the only kind
> > > of universe possible? Is it, in essence, a natural expression on a
> > > broad canvas of the forces inherent in energy?
>
> > What else?
I think the question I was trying to ask there was whether the
universe was/is a direct and inevitable expression of the forces
inherent in energy; and then whether life is another direct and
inevitable expression of these same forces; and then whether we are
similar; and if so...what can/should we expect a creature such as us
to create or produce. Is there a next step? Is there another
inevitable outcome of the forces inherent in energy?
>
> > > On one, at least, of the entities formed by this process something
> > > called life was formed. Even today we hardly grasp the complexity of
> > > it - not merely the mechanisms of replication, respiration etc but the
> > > programmed purpose. Did such richness arise by chance? Or is the
> > > universe a vast seeding-ground? Is it a theatre where energy naturally
> > > seeks, or finds, expression for its own inherent forces?
>
> > Energy must follow least-resistance laws to the fate mapped upon it by
> > initial morphogenic fields (i.e., e.g., b.s., the time-reversed
> > causality of perception). The fractally branching possibilities of
> > this wave equation some refer to as "reality" requires wave guides.
> > Our quantum spirituality potentiates the nascent matter.
>
> > > And eventually life found intelligent expression - entirely natural,
> > > of course; completely connected with the past; but finally capable of
> > > uncovering all of the above. What is the natural expression of this
> > > new creature? To move out along all the possible dimensions of
> > > discovery; to know and to utilise all the forces inherent in
> > > energy...?
>
> > To discover the perfect pizza.
That's already been done. Aldo's in Viareggio is the place to go to
find it.
>
> > > And this was a fraught process. New forces - religion, art, constant
> > > reorganisation etc - attended every phase. Change on demand was always
> > > possible: we could constrain, compel, convince, concoct as required.
> > > But eventually - today - a simulacrum of our potential has been
> > > reached in many places. In such places we are free, knowledgeable and
> > > prosperous. We assume this is enough, taking our success for granted.
> > > But there is - I suggest - an absence of context: we live for today
> > > and are devoid of any broader sense of our existence as a species. How
> > > do we change this? None of the former options are now possible. Our
> > > freedom and our knowledge is now a given. We may not compel or
> > > concoct. Also, the homoginisation forced on the indiviual who wishes
> > > to thrive in our newly-free world has deprived us of one of the great
> > > forces for insight in the past, the eccentric viewpoint of the
> > > oddball, so called.
>
> > Preservation of eccentricity is a reasonable start. But I think if we
> > consider transgressing those boundaries, in essence moving towards a
> > transformative hermeneutics of quantum human actualization we might
> > eventuate the possibilities inculcated into pre-human matter by the
> > formative singularity, the so-called Big Bang.
Would you care to elaborate on this paragraph? Transgressing what
boundaries? What is a "transformative hermeneutics of quantum human
actualization"?
>
> > Or maybe not. What the hell do I know?
>
> Very good.
> Have you considered submitting to a post-modernist journal?
>
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 11, 10:43 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 8:33 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > > Underlying all is an extraordinary energy. This energy gives rise to
> > > > > our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> > > > > the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> > > > > forces?
> >
> > > > Our universe does not contain net energy,
> >
> > > > Jan
> >
> > > Meaning?
> >
> > Precisely what it says,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Useful answer, Jan!
Indeed, reread it thrice, and memorize it.
> I would have preferred, though, if you had
> explained to mean the relevance of the universe supposedly having no
> "net energy" to the original posting.
There is no 'extraordinary energy underlying all'.
> And what does net energy mean anyway?
Zero, nil, niente, nothing,
Jan
noctiluca
Preparing a paper at this very moment for submission to the "Sokal
Text."
> Jan
Timberwoof
<a246bfc8-5969-42a5...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> I think if you reread - and I hope you do, many times :-) - you will
> see that I wrote the "forces inherent in energy". This does not
> suggest that energy itself fits the definition of a force - but since
> energy is the begetter of everything
What does that mean?
> and since "everything" includes
> the forces we know then these forces must somehow be inherent in
> energy
Well, no, you're trying to create physical facts out of dubious semantic
relationships.
Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
distance.
Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Timberwoof
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> The universe also contains negative energies,
> in particular gravitational potential energy.
What does that mean? In what way, other than arbitrary signs of algebra,
is gravitational potential energy "negative"?
Timberwoof
<f680b129-666a-481e...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > Preservation of eccentricity is a reasonable start. But I think if we
> > > consider transgressing those boundaries, in essence moving towards a
> > > transformative hermeneutics of quantum human actualization we might
> > > eventuate the possibilities inculcated into pre-human matter by the
> > > formative singularity, the so-called Big Bang.
>
> Would you care to elaborate on this paragraph? Transgressing what
> boundaries? What is a "transformative hermeneutics of quantum human
> actualization"?
He's yanking your chain.
Several years ago a physicist used a computer program to generate text
that sounded like stuff commonly published in lit-crit magazines but was
utterly devoid of meaning. The editors of the magazine and many other
writers fawned all over it, raving about its deep insights and obvious
sophistication. The physicist then published what he had really done,
including the program he had written. The dupes fell into two camps:
some said they thought all along something was fishy about the article
and others said they didn't believe that the program had written it.
Joseph, I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your first post and
thought, "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm also sure
I'm not the only one who read your response to this fluffery and had his
suspicions confirmed.
Your best course of action now is to get yourself a high school textbook
on physics and learn its contents. Alternatively, read a book on the
subject, such as Cal Tech professor Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces."
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 10:43 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 11, 8:33 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Underlying all is an extraordinary energy. This energy gives rise to
> > > > > > our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable expression of
> > > > > > the forces inherent in energy? Was it a natural expression of these
> > > > > > forces?
>
> > > > > Our universe does not contain net energy,
>
> > > > > Jan
>
> > > > Meaning?
>
> > > Precisely what it says,
>
> > > Jan
>
> > Useful answer, Jan!
>
> Indeed, reread it thrice, and memorize it.
Good!
>
> > I would have preferred, though, if you had
> > explained to mean the relevance of the universe supposedly having no
> > "net energy" to the original posting.
>
> There is no 'extraordinary energy underlying all'.
But of course there is. Mein Gott, man, take away that energy and the
whole thing folds. Energy is the word we use for whatever power or
force or...energy (!) that keeps ther whole thing going. But it's
there.
>
> > And what does net energy mean anyway?
>
> Zero, nil, niente, nothing,
So, I take it, the word net is superfluous theere. Well, at least that
answers a few questions.
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> In article
> <a246bfc8-5969-42a5-bbe8-f7db25537...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > I think if you reread - and I hope you do, many times :-) - you will
> > see that I wrote the "forces inherent in energy". This does not
> > suggest that energy itself fits the definition of a force - but since
> > energy is the begetter of everything
>
> What does that mean?
anyway. The universe did not come from nothing. So what did it come
from? I use the word energy but all the time I'm aware that this is a
word with a particular definition. You might have a word for whatever
it was that caused the universe to come into existence...?
>
> > and since "everything" includes
> > the forces we know then these forces must somehow be inherent in
> > energy
>
> Well, no, you're trying to create physical facts out of dubious semantic
> relationships.
anything. I'm trying to connect in a causal fashion whatever it was -
force, power, energy etc - that brought our universe into existence
with what followed afterwards.
>
> Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> distance.
Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
Stranger and stranger!
>
> Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
Yes, sir!
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1iop1y6.1pp...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > The universe also contains negative energies,
> > in particular gravitational potential energy.
>
> What does that mean? In what way, other than arbitrary signs of algebra,
> is gravitational potential energy "negative"?
In the sense of the law of conservation of energy,
which doesn't allow for 'arbitrary signs',
Jan
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> In article
> <f680b129-666a-481e-98d3-c6f721415...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Preservation of eccentricity is a reasonable start. But I think if we
> > > > consider transgressing those boundaries, in essence moving towards a
> > > > transformative hermeneutics of quantum human actualization we might
> > > > eventuate the possibilities inculcated into pre-human matter by the
> > > > formative singularity, the so-called Big Bang.
>
> > Would you care to elaborate on this paragraph? Transgressing what
> > boundaries? What is a "transformative hermeneutics of quantum human
> > actualization"?
>
> He's yanking your chain.
I thought he might be - but didn't want to do him the discourtesy of
assuming so.
>
> Several years ago a physicist used a computer program to generate text
> that sounded like stuff commonly published in lit-crit magazines but was
> utterly devoid of meaning. The editors of the magazine and many other
> writers fawned all over it, raving about its deep insights and obvious
> sophistication. The physicist then published what he had really done,
> including the program he had written. The dupes fell into two camps:
> some said they thought all along something was fishy about the article
> and others said they didn't believe that the program had written it.
>
> Joseph, I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your first post and
> thought, "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm also sure
> I'm not the only one who read your response to this fluffery and had his
> suspicions confirmed.
And what does "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" mean?
This guy - me - doesn't claim to know anything about the minutiae of
particle physics etc. But I'm not talking about such things. I'm
trying to get a bead on the nature of existence. You guys - presuming
YOU know what you're talking about - have uncovered the various forces
and energies that underpin the universe. I don't understand the
technicalities and the math of such things. I just take their
existence for granted. But there must be considerable space beyond
these technicalities: implications about the nature of existence, for
example. The scientist will be very careful about definitions etc.
There must be room for someone else to build on the scientist's work.
I'm not talking about mystical speculation here.I'm talking about
implications that may be drawn from the work of science. In this
regard, while most modern and post-modern speculation insists on the
chance or arbitrary nature of existence etc I seek to establish - or
at least assert - that the energy that is the cause, or the source, of
everything is not at all arbitrary.
J. J. Lodder
Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
Jan
Joseph Humming
Well now, what possible use is a formula like that to me? The forces
and energies that underpin the universe doubtless are modulated by a
host of potentialities and constraints, all expressed by formula and
equation, some as neat as the one above, most not. I take this as
read. What I would like to ferret out is a truth behind those
formulae. I claim, rightly or wrongly, that each successive phase in
the universe's development and in our evolution is an expression or a
manifestation of the forces and potential inherent in the previous
phase. Now, jumping quite some distance I see, or say, that we as a
species possess a particular potenial, one vested in our intelligence
and emotional armoury, I ask how this potential will express itself. I
adduce the concept of Humanisation, i.e. the globalised expression of
human potential. Nothing mystical here, merely(!) the gradual advance
of humankind along many dimensions of discovery...the planet itself,
means of transport, means of communication, means of social
management, technological advances, agriculture, advance of knowledge,
clarification of rights and duties and agreement on same, development
of a sense of our capacity as a species and of a role commensurate
with that capacity......
Joseph Humming
>
> Jan
Timberwoof
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1iop1y6.1pp...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > The universe also contains negative energies,
> > > in particular gravitational potential energy.
> >
> > What does that mean? In what way, other than arbitrary signs of algebra,
> > is gravitational potential energy "negative"?
>
> In the sense of the law of conservation of energy,
> which doesn't allow for 'arbitrary signs',
Hunh? That makes no sense.
Timberwoof
<de76a9e1-e872-4367...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 1:59 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > There is no 'extraordinary energy underlying all'.
> But of course there is. Mein Gott, man, take away that energy and the
> whole thing folds. Energy is the word we use for whatever power or
> force or...energy (!) that keeps ther whole thing going. But it's
> there.
Joseph, the words energy, force, and power have very specific meanings,
and the way you freely interchange them indicates that you probably
don't know what they mean.
Joseph is correct: There is no 'extraordinary energy underlying all'.
The energy that underlies all is well understood. What do you mean by
extraordinary energy?
Timberwoof
<205e6528-83aa-4c5f...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
Which part did you not understand?
> This guy - me - doesn't claim to know anything about the minutiae of
> particle physics etc. But I'm not talking about such things. I'm
> trying to get a bead on the nature of existence. You guys - presuming
> YOU know what you're talking about - have uncovered the various forces
> and energies that underpin the universe. I don't understand the
> technicalities and the math of such things. I just take their
> existence for granted. But there must be considerable space beyond
> these technicalities:
Well, that's what gets you into trouble. You can't be bothered to learn
the simple high-school stuff that physicists are talking about, and you
try to sweep your lack of understanding under the carpet by trivializing
it as "technicalities". But the title of the thread attracts anyone with
an interest in physics and they, naturally, answer your questions in
that semantic space ... partly by explaining that the questions you pose
don't make any sense.
> implications about the nature of existence, for
> example. The scientist will be very careful about definitions etc.
> There must be room for someone else to build on the scientist's work.
> I'm not talking about mystical speculation here.I'm talking about
> implications that may be drawn from the work of science.
I don't understand the intent of the sentence "There must be room for
someone else to build on the scientist's work." It could be taken to
reinforce the previous sentence, for the only way that anyone can build
upon previous work is to accurately understand it, or it could be taken
to try to contradict it, in that scientists' careful use of words may
make it impossible for someone with looser requirements of diction to
use that work to his philosophical ends.
It turns out it may mean the first thing, for you deny mysticism and you
want to draw implications....
> In this
> regard, while most modern and post-modern speculation insists on the
> chance or arbitrary nature of existence etc I seek to establish - or
> at least assert - that the energy that is the cause, or the source, of
> everything is not at all arbitrary.
Oh, so you're a philosopher trying to make use of the terminology of
physics to say things that feel good without necessarily understanding
the words you're using.
You appear to be saying that although particle interactions are governed
by rules of probability, the energy that mediates those interactions is
not. Well, I've got unhappy news for you. Particles are inseparable from
their energetic interactions. For instance, mass is defined by how much
gravitational force it generates; electrical charge is defined by how
much electrical and magnetic force it generates. Without an
understanding of the forces that define how particles work, you have no
understanding of the particles.
> > Your best course of action now is to get yourself a high school textbook
> > on physics and learn its contents. Alternatively, read a book on the
> > subject, such as Cal Tech professor Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces."
And then you should read his book, "Six not-so-Easy Pieces."
Timberwoof
<450bd8eb-b234-4ef8...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
Well, since you don't understand the distinctions between force, energy,
and power, there is no way you can make sense of any answer that
particle physics might give you.
Yet in another post you wrote
> I seek to establish - or
> at least assert - that the energy that is the cause, or the source, of
> everything is not at all arbitrary.
> > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> > distance.
>
> Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
> Stranger and stranger!
Well, that's correct. Energy is not a force.
> > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
>
> Yes, sir!
You must have been asleep during most of it. You're using the words
force, energy, and power as though they mean "something that makes
things move". But as I wrote, and as you either didn't learn or forgot
from high school physics, they are not the same, and speaking as though
they were will only frustrate the physicists here.
I think philosophers should concentrate on creating a philosophy of
culture and ethical behavior that everyone can understand and
incorporate into their lives. A friend of mine opined that the last
philosophy that any lay person can understand is Nietzche's and Ayn
Rand's. That philosophy has poisoned American business ethics and thus
led this culture into the trouble it's in. What philosophers have
written since then is dense, turgid, impenetrable prose that uses a
different set of underlying definitions than anyone else uses and isn't,
for most people, distinguishable from computer-generated cut-up. It is
useless as a foundation for society. In short, you've failed.
I don't think that glossing over the technicalities of particle physics
in order to explain some fundamental feel-good property of existence is
going to solve that problem. It will only annoy the physicists.
Timberwoof
<d70b4b64-6cf6-428d...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:25 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> > > > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> > > > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> > > > distance.
> >
> > > Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
> > > Stranger and stranger!
> >
> > > > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
> >
> > > Yes, sir!
> >
> > Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
>
> Well now, what possible use is a formula like that to me? The forces
> and energies that underpin the universe doubtless are modulated by a
> host of potentialities and constraints, all expressed by formula and
> equation, some as neat as the one above, most not. I take this as
> read. What I would like to ferret out is a truth behind those
> formulae.
Many physicists have stated (well, two of them at any rate: Richard
Feynman and Roger Penrose) that unless one understands the equations,
one does not understand the physics.
> I claim, rightly or wrongly, that each successive phase in
> the universe's development and in our evolution is an expression or a
> manifestation of the forces and potential inherent in the previous
> phase.
This is the conclusion of a very early chapter in Roger Penrose's book,
"The Road to Reality." Penrose expresses this explicitly as the movement
of a particle from one moment to the next. I wonder why you bring
evolution into the picture. Do you mean evolution of species? Since that
is governed by the behavior of particles, you are correct to include it,
but I suspect that you're glossing something over.
> Now, jumping quite some distance I see, or say, that we as a
> species possess a particular potenial, one vested in our intelligence
> and emotional armoury, I ask how this potential will express itself.
None of which has anything to do with particle physics. The
interrelationships between the scales of fields of study (physics,
chemistry, biochemistry, biology, psychology, sociology) are not
sufficiently well-defined that a world-class understanding of particle
physics can shed a minutia of light on the subjects you listed.
[
> I
> adduce the concept of Humanisation, i.e. the globalised expression of
> human potential. Nothing mystical here, merely(!) the gradual advance
> of humankind along many dimensions of discovery...the planet itself,
> means of transport, means of communication, means of social
> management, technological advances, agriculture, advance of knowledge,
> clarification of rights and duties and agreement on same, development
> of a sense of our capacity as a species and of a role commensurate
> with that capacity......
] = [ I give evidence for the existence of philosophy. ]
And this meandering of yours, suddenly conflating the "the universe's
development", "evolution" and "human potential", is exactly what I was
writing about in my other post on philosophy. Okay, so what?
Please develop a useful modern philosophy. We need a good[1] one. I
don't know where to start making one. I do know that playing semantics
with the terminology of particle physics isn't it.
[1] Comprehensible, comprehensive, compassionate, convincing...
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 12, 9:25 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> > > > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> > > > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> > > > distance.
> >
> > > Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
> > > Stranger and stranger!
> >
> > > > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
> >
> > > Yes, sir!
> >
> > Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
>
> Well now, what possible use is a formula like that to me?
None whatsoever, it seems. [snip more babble]
It folows that you are just making noises
without having any idea of what the words you are using mean.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> In article
> <d70b4b64-6cf6-428d...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:25 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
> >
> > Well now, what possible use is a formula like that to me? The forces
> > and energies that underpin the universe doubtless are modulated by a
> > host of potentialities and constraints, all expressed by formula and
> > equation, some as neat as the one above, most not. I take this as
> > read. What I would like to ferret out is a truth behind those
> > formulae.
>
> Many physicists have stated (well, two of them at any rate: Richard
> Feynman and Roger Penrose) that unless one understands the equations,
> one does not understand the physics.
A forteriori, the physics is nothing but the equations,
as said long ago by Heinrich Hertz.
There is no need to understand them either,
just know how to solve them,
Jan
--
"Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations." (Hertz)
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1ioptjr.w7i...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1iop1y6.1pp...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > >
> > > > The universe also contains negative energies,
> > > > in particular gravitational potential energy.
> > >
> > > What does that mean? In what way, other than arbitrary signs of algebra,
> > > is gravitational potential energy "negative"?
> >
> > In the sense of the law of conservation of energy,
> > which doesn't allow for 'arbitrary signs',
>
> Hunh? That makes no sense.
I have just become rich.
I decided to change the arbitrary sign of my debts
(nothing but a bookkeeping convention you know)
and add them to my assets,
Jan
Joseph Humming
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <de76a9e1-e872-4367-8b93-0d3eba372...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 1:59 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > There is no 'extraordinary energy underlying all'.
> > But of course there is. Mein Gott, man, take away that energy and the
> > whole thing folds. Energy is the word we use for whatever power or
> > force or...energy (!) that keeps ther whole thing going. But it's
> > there.
>
> Joseph, the words energy, force, and power have very specific meanings,
> and the way you freely interchange them indicates that you probably
> don't know what they mean.
Actually, Timberwoof, these words have many meanings. Scientists may
have definitions
buut in general use the words are far more fluid.
>
> Joseph is correct: There is no 'extraordinary energy underlying all'.
> The energy that underlies all is well understood. What do you mean by
> extraordinary energy?
Something happened...what is the estimate now?...12.7 billion years
ago (but, of course, that'll change as scientists increase their
knowledge) which caused a vast effusion of energy/matter. This
effuision continues. A century ago we had a particular conception of
the size of the universe. Now we know that it is much larger and
continuing to expand. We take so much for granted. Our increasing
information seems to carry no weight. It just is. By any standards the
enengy which brought about and which now underpins the universe is an
extraordinary energy. To define something - as you do - is not to
reduce its complexity and its vastness.
Joseph Humming
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <205e6528-83aa-4c5f-92d9-183279f87...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
I don't agree with that last statement. Probably I wouldn't, would I?
I accept the laws of physics in their totality - but it is surely
bizarre to suggest that all reflection and all effort to draw
conclusions from these laws is barred. The particles that form matter
do their own thing. We may do our thing - which is to see how we may
best find value for ourselves in the universe the particles create.
>
> > implications about the nature of existence, for
> > example. The scientist will be very careful about definitions etc.
> > There must be room for someone else to build on the scientist's work.
> > I'm not talking about mystical speculation here.I'm talking about
> > implications that may be drawn from the work of science.
>
> I don't understand the intent of the sentence "There must be room for
> someone else to build on the scientist's work." It could be taken to
> reinforce the previous sentence, for the only way that anyone can build
> upon previous work is to accurately understand it, or it could be taken
> to try to contradict it, in that scientists' careful use of words may
> make it impossible for someone with looser requirements of diction to
> use that work to his philosophical ends.
"Building on the scientists' work" could mean either adding to the sum
of knowledge that the scientists have already discovered or drawing
implications from these discoveries. In the context of these postings
it clearly means the latter.
>
> It turns out it may mean the first thing, for you deny mysticism and you
> want to draw implications....
>
> > In this
> > regard, while most modern and post-modern speculation insists on the
> > chance or arbitrary nature of existence etc I seek to establish - or
> > at least assert - that the energy that is the cause, or the source, of
> > everything is not at all arbitrary.
>
> Oh, so you're a philosopher trying to make use of the terminology of
> physics to say things that feel good without necessarily understanding
> the words you're using.
What's a philosopher? Do you have to be employed by a philosophy dept.
to be a philosopher? The only question that's of any value here is
whether what I am saying adds to the human sum of understanding of our
place on the planet or in the cosmos as a whole. You haven't addressed
that once - so far.
>
> You appear to be saying that although particle interactions are governed
> by rules of probability, the energy that mediates those interactions is
> not. Well, I've got unhappy news for you. Particles are inseparable from
> their energetic interactions. For instance, mass is defined by how much
> gravitational force it generates; electrical charge is defined by how
> much electrical and magnetic force it generates. Without an
> understanding of the forces that define how particles work, you have no
> understanding of the particles.
I'm not saying a single one of these things. What I am saying is made
clear in my 9-25 posting last night.- to the effect that human history
is a gradual working out of human potential. The only relevance of all
this science-discourse to that statement is my claim that the course
of the universe to date bears witness to the same expression of
potential - from energy to the universe, to matter, to the cosmos as
we know it, to life, to intelligent life...In so saying I hope to add
directionality and a context to our efforts. If this constitutes "nice
things" so be it.
>
> > > Your best course of action now is to get yourself a high school textbook
> > > on physics and learn its contents. Alternatively, read a book on the
> > > subject, such as Cal Tech professor Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces."
>
> And then you should read his book, "Six not-so-Easy Pieces."
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> In article
> <450bd8eb-b234-4ef8-9c4e-f279804f8...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Whose "you" here? Me...I've failed? That's the kindest thing anybody
has ever said to me.
Let me reintroduce what i wrote last night:
"I
adduce the concept of Humanisation, i.e. the globalised expression of
human potential. Nothing mystical here, merely(!) the gradual advance
of humankind along many dimensions of discovery...the planet itself,
means of transport, means of communication, means of social
management, technological advances, agriculture, advance of
knowledge,
clarification of rights and duties and agreement on same, development
of a sense of our capacity as a species and of a role commensurate
with that capacity...... "
Nothing directly philosophical here, you'll agree. But what it - and I
- hope to do is to provide a context for human endeavour so we will
see what we are doing - and may do - on this planet. In fact, in many
senses - though not all - my efforts are anti-philosophical. I see
our affairs down the years marshalled and guided by creations of the
mind; by necessity and circumstance too, of course, but mainly by
quite arbitrary religious, political and social theories. What I
suggest is - of course - also a theory, but it is based, I hope, on a
more concrete sense of our place and our potential on the planet.
>
> I don't think that glossing over the technicalities of particle physics
> in order to explain some fundamental feel-good property of existence is
> going to solve that problem. It will only annoy the physicists.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
Joseph Humming
> Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > In article <1ioptjr.w7it1o1tx03...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,> > > Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <1iop1y6.1ppcw3p5uw6...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > > > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > > > > The universe also contains negative energies,
> > > > > in particular gravitational potential energy.
>
> > > > What does that mean? In what way, other than arbitrary signs of algebra,
> > > > is gravitational potential energy "negative"?
>
> > > In the sense of the law of conservation of energy,
> > > which doesn't allow for 'arbitrary signs',
>
> > Hunh? That makes no sense.
>
> I have just become rich.
> I decided to change the arbitrary sign of my debts
> (nothing but a bookkeeping convention you know)
> and add them to my assets,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You guys just carry on now agreeing with each other. Leave the world
to me :-)
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> In article
> <d70b4b64-6cf6-428d-8194-c18d7df86...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Yeah, Penrose stole it from me :-)
Penrose expresses this explicitly as the movement
> of a particle from one moment to the next. I wonder why you bring
> evolution into the picture. Do you mean evolution of species? Since that
> is governed by the behavior of particles, you are correct to include it,
> but I suspect that you're glossing something over.
>
> > Now, jumping quite some distance I see, or say, that we as a
> > species possess a particular potenial, one vested in our intelligence
> > and emotional armoury, I ask how this potential will express itself.
>
> None of which has anything to do with particle physics. The
> interrelationships between the scales of fields of study (physics,
> chemistry, biochemistry, biology, psychology, sociology) are not
> sufficiently well-defined that a world-class understanding of particle
> physics can shed a minutia of light on the subjects you listed.
Not if you accept - as I'm sure you do - Penrose's (and my) contention
that each phase in the process that led to us is nought but an
expression of the potential inherent in the previous phase.
>
> [
>
> > I
> > adduce the concept of Humanisation, i.e. the globalised expression of
> > human potential. Nothing mystical here, merely(!) the gradual advance
> > of humankind along many dimensions of discovery...the planet itself,
> > means of transport, means of communication, means of social
> > management, technological advances, agriculture, advance of knowledge,
> > clarification of rights and duties and agreement on same, development
> > of a sense of our capacity as a species and of a role commensurate
> > with that capacity......
>
> ] = [ I give evidence for the existence of philosophy. ]
>
> And this meandering of yours, suddenly conflating the "the universe's
> development", "evolution" and "human potential", is exactly what I was
> writing about in my other post on philosophy. Okay, so what?
Sorry, old chap, I'm not conflating them. I'm including them in a list
of what we as a species may discover. May, and in fact, already have
in many instances.
>
> Please develop a useful modern philosophy. We need a good[1] one. I
> don't know where to start making one. I do know that playing semantics
> with the terminology of particle physics isn't it.
But I haven't been doing that. You have! You've hammered this particle
thing to death. All I'm seeking to do is establish a continuity in the
various phases that led to us.
>
> [1] Comprehensible, comprehensive, compassionate, convincing...
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.- Hide quoted text -
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> In article <1iop1y6.1pp...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > The universe also contains negative energies,
> > in particular gravitational potential energy.
> What does that mean? In what way, other than arbitrary signs of algebra,
> is gravitational potential energy "negative"?
Hold a book at rest above the floor and then let go. As the book falls,
its kinetic energy increases. Total energy is conserved, though, because
its gravitational potential energy decreases.
Now, suppose the book and the floor (or the Earth) start out very far
apart. Their gravitational interaction is very small, so any sensible
definition of the gravitational potential energy will say that it is also
very small. Now, drop the book again. As it falls, its kinetic energy
will increase, and if it falls for a long enough time, its kinetic energy
will increase a lot. To balance this, the gravitational potential energy
will have to decrease a lot. But since the gravitational potential energy
started out very small, the only way for it to decrease is for it to become
negative.
The actual convention is that when two objects are infinitely far apart,
their gravitational potential energy is zero. Given this, any finite
gravitational potential energy must be negative -- you have to add
positive kinetic energy to pull objects apart to get the gravitational
potential energy down to zero.
In Newtonian gravity, this is a bit arbitrary, since the choice of what
you call "zero energy" is a convention. Even there, though, gravitational
potential energy has to sometimes be negative, unless it's defined to
always be infinite. In general relativity, you can be a little more precise,
since all energy, including gravitational potential energy, gravitates.
There is a different ambiguity in defining energy in general relativity
(coming from the fact that gravitational energy can't be localized),
but all consistent definitions that I know of say that the total energy
of a spatially closed universe is zero.
(Of course, we don't know whether our universe is spatially closed.)
Steve Carlip
Joseph Humming
> Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@infernonospamsoft.com> wrote:
> > In article <1iop1y6.1ppcw3p5uw6...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
That would be total net energy, would it not? And maybe these
definitions are too limiting? And maybe the whole is far more the sum
of all the defined parts? I speak - of course - as a layperson. So,
maybe I should just shut up and allow those who know tell me there's
no energy in the universe...?
Timberwoof
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Intuitively it feels as though something's
wrong in it, though... To get that far away, something would have had to
accelerate a lot for a long time, expending kinetic energy in exchange
for potential energy. And that's what we get back if it starts to fall
again. So I wondered where the energy came from to put things
"infinitely" far apart. I think the answer is in the Big Bang, which did
that. So is the energy really negative? As you describe it, it seems to
have more to do with accounting than actual negative energy.
J. J. Lodder
> That would be total net energy, would it not? And maybe these
> definitions are too limiting? And maybe the whole is far more the sum
> of all the defined parts?
Then you have to give up the law of conservation of energy first.
Have you started working on a perpetuum mobile yet?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Thanks for the explanation. Intuitively it feels as though something's
> wrong in it, though... To get that far away, something would have had to
> accelerate a lot for a long time, expending kinetic energy in exchange
> for potential energy. And that's what we get back if it starts to fall
> again. So I wondered where the energy came from to put things
> "infinitely" far apart. I think the answer is in the Big Bang, which did
> that. So is the energy really negative? As you describe it, it seems to
> have more to do with accounting than actual negative energy.
Conservation laws -are- a matter of bookkeeping,
Jan
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
Right. That's the point. To pull things apart, you have to use energy --
energy goes into the system. But once they're far enough apart that
they don't interact any more, the total energy is essentially zero. You've
added energy to a system and ended up with zero. That's only possible
if the energy started out negative.
> [...] As you describe it, it seems to
> have more to do with accounting than actual negative energy.
Most of the idea of energy *is* accounting. Particular forms of energy
-- kinetic energy, say, or heat, or the energy of sunlight -- have fairly
intuitive physical meanings. But the reason they're all lumped together
as "energy" is, basically, for accounting, for keeping track of the fact
that one form of energy can become another, but the total remains
constant. As in any accounting, you can't have credits without debits.
You drop a book and it gains energy? Then some other form of energy
has been lost. And once you recognize that some form of energy can
decrease, there's not much to stop it from going negative.
To be sure, if accounting were all that was involved, there would be
no way to set an "absolute zero" of energy. Accounting just looks at
changes. In Newtonian physics, this translates into the statement that
only energy differences are physically meaningful; you can always shift
what you call "zero energy" without changing anything.
But that's not quite all that's involved. The other ingredient is E=mc^2.
Energy contributes to mass, to inertia, and this is measurable. For
example, the mass of a helium nucleus is less than that of two protons
and two neutrons, and the difference is just E/c^2, where E is the
(negative!) binding energy.
We can observe in the lab that nuclear and electrstatic binding energies
are really negative, in the sense that they descrease inertial mass. We
can't yet test gravitational binding energy in the lab -- gravity is too
weak -- but we have lots of astrophysical tests. The enormous energy
emitted by a quasar, for example, is almost certainly balanced by the
negative binding energy of matter falling into the central black hole.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Oct 13, 9:18 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > There is a different ambiguity in defining energy in general relativity
> > (coming from the fact that gravitational energy can't be localized),
> > but all consistent definitions that I know of say that the total energy
> > of a spatially closed universe is zero.
> That would be total net energy, would it not?
"Total" and "net" mean the same thing here.
> And maybe these definitions are too limiting?
They're what "energy" means in physics. If you want to use the word
to mean something else, that's fine. But to have a discussion, you
need to let us know what it is you *do* mean.
Suppose you had written in your first post,
Underlying all is an extraordinary gribble. This gribble gives
rise to our universe. Was this chance? Or was it an inevitable
expression of the gumblebobs inherent in gribble? Was it a
natural expression of these gumblebobs?
Would you have expected an answer? Using words like "energy" and
"force" in ways that seem completely different from the conventional
definitions is not so different.
Steve Carlip
Joseph Humming
Thanks for the reply, Steve.
I have to defer to your knowledge re definitions. And yet - to me -
everything you say is counter-intuitive. To say, as you and others
say, that there is no energy in the universe flies in the face of
everything we observe and experience. Perhaps, the dichotomy lies with
the word energy. Or, indeed, with all these words, force, power etc.
Within the atom particles move; atoms move; molecules move; meteorites
move; planets move; solar systems move; galaxies move...and not only
are they moving in relaltion to each other they are also moving within
the context of an expanding universe. What makes everything move? You
- or I - can adduce gravitational attraction, strong and weak forces
etc etc...but these surely combine to impart a dynamism to the matter
that constitutes the universe? To say there is no net energy is not
relevant, strictly speaking. It is, as you say, an accounting
exercise, one incorporating vast energies which may be said to cancel
each other out. But the vast energies remain....
And in any case the events and the process I depicted in my initial
posting did occur. The universe began, matter as we know it was
formed, the cosmos as we know it was shaped, life emerged etc. Maybe
these events can be reduced to the actions of particles working in a
zero-energy universe. But from the point of view of humans these evnts
constirute the backdrop and the backstory to our existence. Saying
that they owe nothing to energy, as properly defined, may be true but
is hardly useful (to us). Maybe a new discourse is required, one that
describes and evaluates how our consciousness and our insistence on
the reality of of our experience could survive such a sterile
background. But - to be honest and blunt - I don't believe that
sterility. I believe that your definitions negate the reality of our
experience. I ask again whether they are too limiting? Orthodoxy can
be limiting - and wrong. Maybe there is a live matter, so called, in
the universe - along with the dark matter - which explains what we all
experience. You won't allow me use the word energy. You've taken it
away and wrapped it in thin string. You've tamed the tiger!!!!
Joseph Humming
Joseph Humming
Citizens of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your
beliefs, your sympathies, your animosities and your demands!
Anyway, what's the bizarre theory here? That human history moves in
peculiar ways? That our style, as it were, our standard mode of
behaviour, is couched in the quantities listed above? We apprehend
existence. We see it though the prism of our own conceptions. Lacking,
or deficient in, knowledge down the years we needed the firm grasp of
our own creativity.
But now knowledge has come, not knowledge of everything but knowledge
of most things. We may now make an assessment of the human condition
based not on assertion, conjecture and belief but on a calm appraisal
of the facts. So saying, we can see that, in evolutionary terms, we
are an immense creature with immense potential. We can also see that
we have fulfilled most of that potential - we have colonised the
planet, we have learned to utilise its resources, we have committed to
knowledge the nature of these resources, we have uncovered our own
past and the past of the planet and of the universe itself.
But we are not impressed by these skills. They mean nothing to us. We
think we are an appalling creature. Indeed, we oscillate between self-
hate and the search for gratification. How do we change this
situation? How do we from move from an insistence that value must be
created by us to one where value resides in our gradual recognition
and realisation of our own potential.....?
Joseph Humming
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 14, 10:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation. Intuitively it feels as though something's
> > > wrong in it, though... To get that far away, something would have had to
> > > accelerate a lot for a long time, expending kinetic energy in exchange
> > > for potential energy. And that's what we get back if it starts to fall
> > > again. So I wondered where the energy came from to put things
> > > "infinitely" far apart. I think the answer is in the Big Bang, which did
> > > that. So is the energy really negative? As you describe it, it seems to
> > > have more to do with accounting than actual negative energy.
> >
> > Conservation laws -are- a matter of bookkeeping,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Citizens of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your
> beliefs, your sympathies, your animosities and your demands!
[snip more rubbish]
Even the united citizens of the world
cannot violate conservation of energy
by a single erg.
> Anyway, what's the bizarre theory here?
Your idea that they perhaps could,
Jan
Joseph Humming
The Sadness of Scientists!!!!!
Who's talking about ergs, Erghead? I never mentioned the critters. I'm
talking about the way humans behave. Can you not do conversations
about humans? Y'know, they're the people who stare out at from from
the mirror. Well, maybe not in your case... Anyway, my theory is
that human activity since the beginning of our time on the planet has
been mediated by products of the human mind - beliefs, ideas,
aspirations, art etc etc. Of course, physical fact obtrudes - climate-
change, natural disaster, crop-failure, invasion, epidemics etc. In
most - though not all - cases these interruptions merely result in an
altered set of mind-products, then off we happily go again like ants
clambering over leaves. Meanwhile, the salient facts of our situation
- gifted form of life utilising intelligence to establish a
commensurate global existence - are ignored. Even the most intelligent
of our species - yes, dare I say it, the SCIENTISTS - cannot for one
instant forsake the attraction of their particular mind-creation to
look at the broader picture....
Joseph Humming
>
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
Earle Jones
<710df817-6f4e-43c6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> That would be total net energy, would it not? And maybe these
> definitions are too limiting? And maybe the whole is far more the sum
> of all the defined parts? I speak - of course - as a layperson. So,
> maybe I should just shut up and allow those who know tell me...
*
Sounds like something worth trying.
earle
*
Joseph Humming
> In article
> <710df817-6f4e-43c6-a03b-3b41e0ffb...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Yeah, tomorrow...maybe...or next qweek, perhaps...
J. J. Lodder
Guesss you don't know them.
Doesn't matter, any unit will do.
> I'm talking about the way humans behave.
Yes, you chnaged the subject because you got lost completely
on your original one.
And take your chat to somewhere where it's on topic please,
Jan
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ohh, who's the big baby now? Because I don't know what an erg is I'm
banished from this Group? An erg is a unit of work, so what? Knowledge
is instantly accessible these days, so what? The main thrust of my
postings is about human potential. The "science bit" is designed to
give it, and us, a provenance. And as regards being banished from thre
group because of my lack of scientific pedigree...what about the fools
who clutter the group with anti-semitic, racist, creationist nonsense?
I suggest you save your ire for them, Jan. In the meantime, you might
once, even once, focus on the thrust of my postings.
Joseph Humming
Desertphile
<timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a246bfc8-5969-42a5...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > I think if you reread - and I hope you do, many times :-) - you will
> > see that I wrote the "forces inherent in energy". This does not
> > suggest that energy itself fits the definition of a force - but since
> > energy is the begetter of everything
>
> What does that mean?
Jack shit.
> > and since "everything" includes
> > the forces we know then these forces must somehow be inherent in
> > energy
> Well, no, you're trying to create physical facts out of dubious semantic
> relationships.
>
> Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> distance.
>
> Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
Eneregy is the ability to perform work; forces convert one formof
energy into another, and they bind the matter in the universe
together. Forces are not "inherent in energy."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
Lodder) wrote:
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> > > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> > > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> > > distance.
> >
> > Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
> > Stranger and stranger!
> > >
> > > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
> >
> > Yes, sir!
> Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
Force = mass times distance. "Joseph Humming"appears to be using
wildly substandard meanings to the word.
> Jan
J. J. Lodder
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:25:47 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder) wrote:
>
>> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
>> > > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
>> > > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
>> > > distance.
>> >
>> > Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
>> > Stranger and stranger!
>> > >
>> > > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
>> >
>> > Yes, sir!
>
>> Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
>
>Force = mass times distance. "Joseph Humming"appears to be using
>wildly substandard meanings to the word.
>
F = m dv/ dt = ma.
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:51:22 -0700, Timberwoof
>
> > In article
> > <a246bfc8-5969-42a5-bbe8-f7db25537...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > > I think if you reread - and I hope you do, many times :-) - you will
> > > see that I wrote the "forces inherent in energy". This does not
> > > suggest that energy itself fits the definition of a force - but since
> > > energy is the begetter of everything
>
> > What does that mean?
>
> Jack shit.
>
> > > and since "everything" includes
> > > the forces we know then these forces must somehow be inherent in
> > > energy
> > Well, no, you're trying to create physical facts out of dubious semantic
> > relationships.
>
> > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> > distance.
>
> > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
>
> Eneregy is the ability to perform work; forces convert one formof
> energy into another, and they bind the matter in the universe
> together. Forces are not "inherent in energy."
So where do forces come from? And what forces, or energies, gave rise
to the universe? Thought I'd ask the easy questions first :-)
>
> --http://desertphile.org
Robert J. Kolker
Yup. We are the baddest smartest apes In The Monkey House.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> F = m dv/ dt = ma.
>
Let p be momentum. Then F = dp/dt both classically and relativistically.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Who's talking about ergs, Erghead? I never mentioned the critters. I'm
> talking about the way humans behave. Can you not do conversations
> about humans? Y'know, they're the people who stare out at from from
> the mirror. Well, maybe not in your case... Anyway, my theory is
> that human activity since the beginning of our time on the planet has
> been mediated by products of the human mind - beliefs, ideas,
> aspirations, art etc etc. Of course, physical fact obtrudes - climate-
> change, natural disaster, crop-failure, invasion, epidemics etc. In
> most - though not all - cases these interruptions merely result in an
> altered set of mind-products, then off we happily go again like ants
> clambering over leaves. Meanwhile, the salient facts of our situation
> - gifted form of life utilising intelligence to establish a
> commensurate global existence - are ignored. Even the most intelligent
> of our species - yes, dare I say it, the SCIENTISTS - cannot for one
> instant forsake the attraction of their particular mind-creation to
> look at the broader picture....
>
A true, but unoriginal position.
Bob Kolker
J. J. Lodder
A forteriori: F = ma both classsically and relativistically,
Jan
Earle Jones
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 10:09 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 14, 10:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. Intuitively it feels as though
> > > > > > something's wrong in it, though... To get that far away, something
> > > > > > would have had to accelerate a lot for a long time, expending
> > > > > > kinetic energy in exchange for potential energy. And that's what
> > > > > > we get back if it starts to fall again. So I wondered where the
> > > > > > energy came from to put things "infinitely" far apart. I think the
> > > > > > answer is in the Big Bang, which did that. So is the energy really
> > > > > > negative? As you describe it, it seems to have more to do with
> > > > > > accounting than actual negative energy.
> > >
> > > > > Conservation laws -are- a matter of bookkeeping,
> > >
> > > > > Jan
> > >
> > > > Citizens of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your
> > > > beliefs, your sympathies, your animosities and your demands!
*
Workers of the world -- Unite!
You have nothing to lose but your balls -- and chains!
--Karl Marx
Earle Jones
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:25:47 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Why don't you define for us what you mean by 'force' and 'energy'? Most
> > > > people here understand 'force' to mean something that causes a particle
> > > > with mass to change its velocity and 'energy' as a force applied over a
> > > > distance.
> > >
> > > Another correspondent has just informed me that energy is not a force.
> > > Stranger and stranger!
> > > >
> > > > Have you taken basic high school or freshman college physics classes?
> > >
> > > Yes, sir!
>
> > Then you might have remembered that force = energy/distance,
>
> Force = mass times distance. "Joseph Humming"appears to be using
> wildly substandard meanings to the word.
*
Isaac Newton and I disagree: Force = mass x acceleration.
NOTE: The above is only true in the case of constant mass.
More precisely, Force = the time derivative of momentum:
F = d(momentum) / dt
Momentum = mass x velocity
Therefore:
F = d (mv) / dt
= m dv/dt + v dm/dt
for constant mass dm/dt = zero
and
F = m dv/dt = ma
Newton went to a helluva lot of trouble to invent the calculus so he
could show the above -- probably around 1680.
earle
*