An attraction field never loses its energy - Why ??!!
Y.Porat
in an ordinary attraction process it does
WHY ????
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Hayek
The field does not contain energy, it is the separartion of the
attracted objects that contains it.
Uwe Heyek.
Y.Porat
-----------------
?????
can a field make a force along some distance ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Hayek
Exactly, at the expense of the separation.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi隴 naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Y.y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 10:01 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> Y.Porat wrote:
> >>> Any attraction field never loses its energy-
> >>> in an ordinary attraction process it does
> >>> WHY ????
> >>> TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ---------------------
> >> The field does not contain energy, it is the separartion of the
> >> attracted objects that contains it.
>
> >> Uwe Heyek.
>
> > -----------------
> > ?????
>
> > can a field make a force along some distance ??
>
> Exactly, at the expense of the separation.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
if force time distance for you
WORK??
----------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------
Hayek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work
Quote
Main article: work (thermodynamics)
The SI unit of work is the joule (J), which is defined as the work done
by a force of one newton acting over a distance of one meter.
Unquote
Jeff▲Relf
in an ordinary attraction process it does. WHY ? ? ? ”, you asked.
Because it's a hyperstatic hyperstructure.
( i.e. 4-D, nearly impossible to visualize ).
The Earth's orbit is 4-D hyperstraight, hyperstatic, not 3-D curved.
Nothing is acausal .. randomness is ignorance, nothing more.
Y.Porat
so if a magnet attracts a piece of iron along one meter
does it do work ??
work needs energy
so does that magnetic field that did work
lost that amount of work from its overall work potential ??
(from its energy 'arsenal' ) ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
> --
> Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
> andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
> -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
----------------
whats that supposed to be ??
Y.P
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
copyright for the above question 19-07-2008 ????
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Hayek
No, from the work supllied when you separated them.
Look at it as stretching a spring between the objects you separate.
Uwe Hayek.
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------
>> Uwe Hayek.
>>
>> --
>> Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi隴 naar een
Y.Porat
and if i keep it not separated??
did it (the field ) -- lost energy ??
let me 'advance' you a bit with parroting
ie to the level of other (more 'sophisticated' ) parrots
lets talk about
**virtual photons **
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
>
> Look at it as stretching a spring between the objects you separate.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------------
> >> Uwe Hayek.
>
> >> --
> >> Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat A rubber string works best for relative thinking on gluons
> Bert
----------------------
does a rubber string has
10 percent mass and 90 percent
witches on brooms ???? (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat Witches ??? But it fits well with attraction getting stronger
> over distance Go figure Contra to the inverse square law Bert
-----------------
the facts that you mentioned are right
but the explanations ??
virtual photons is virtual physics
1
90 [ercent of the nucleid 9Proton Neutron) ) is unknown yet
so presenting it as known is a harmful lie
and crime against advance of science !!
2
no messenger that moves in straight lines
can make any attraction force .
3
until now **no attration force**
is properly physically explained .**and understood **
so presenting it as known
is a harmful crime against advance of science
(and human resources !!)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Mitch Raemsch
Matter's EM field is also Electromagnetic energy density.
Electricty is a repulsive force.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
> Any attraction field never loses its energy-
That's right.
> in an ordinary attraction process it does
Such as what?
Where do you suppose the energy goes?
Sue...
> Any attraction field never loses its energy-
> in an ordinary attraction process it does
>
> WHY ????
<<... small fractional values of r cause the 1/r3
term to become large. Conversely, for large
values of r, the 1/r term may be orders of magnitude
bigger than the others. This kind of reasoning results
in the definition of three regions: the reactive
near field, the radiating near field, and the far field.
In the reactive near field, energy is stored in
the electric and magnetic fields very close to the
source but not radiated from them. Instead, energy
is exchanged between the signal source and the fields. >>
http://archive.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/1005/1005the_world.asp
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Sue...
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Tom Roberts
> Any attraction field never loses its energy-
Actually this is not true. An "attraction field" such as an electric
field does not lose energy EXCEPT when it does work on an object. Why do
you think conservation of energy has become an important part of
physics? -- because it works.
Tom Roberts
Y.Porat
------------------
i dont mean the conservation of energy globally
i mean conseravtion for that tested field of a specific mass
one would suppose that if a field say
of a magnetic mass or even a single particle
or a single Atom is doing work on another mass
it will cost loss of energy to the acting mass or object
ie
for doing work you have to pay with enrgy loss
as for instance
if your car is doing work you have to pay in loss of its
energy resource
2
if you like we can put the question differently:
why an attraction field
**does not lose some of its attraction messengers
after doing an attraction job??!!
(you can guess that i have some answer (suggestion) for it
but i would like others to get it step by step )
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Jul 19, 2:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any attraction field never loses its energy-
> > in an ordinary attraction process it does
>
> > WHY ????
>
> <<... small fractional values of r cause the 1/r3
> term to become large. Conversely, for large
> values of r, the 1/r term may be orders of magnitude
> bigger than the others. This kind of reasoning results
> in the definition of three regions: the reactive
> near field, the radiating near field, and the far field.
>
> In the reactive near field, energy is stored in
> the electric and magnetic fields very close to the
> source but not radiated from them. Instead, energy
>
> http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
>
> Sue...
-------------------------
i am talking *only* about the attraction field and its
work ability
and only the results of an attraction action of it
the net attraction act
it is obvious that if say rthe sun is radiating huge quantities of
mass
its gravitation will diminish in billions of years
but my question is about
if you take its mass neglecting (discounting)its radiation of mass
that is not connected at all to the attraction action
and test its attraction ability at the next attraction job ....
in short
why are attraction messengers never get lost
(at least not as can be detected by experimets)
(we never heard about a piece of a steel magnet
that its magnetic field the next day
is smaller than to day !!! even after doing attraction jobs today )
or another example
if a Proton is keeping and electron next to it
by attraction
the magnitude of that attraction tomorrow
is not less than today !
(iow there is conservation of charge of a particle
why and ** how** ?? )
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Jul 19, 1:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any attraction field never loses its energy-
>
> That's right.
>
> > in an ordinary attraction process it does
>
> Such as what?
>
> Where do you suppose the energy goes?
>
see my answers to others
you are of course welcome to join in
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
>
> > WHY ????
>
PD
> On Jul 21, 2:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 19, 1:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Any attraction field never loses its energy-
>
> > That's right.
>
> > > in an ordinary attraction process it does
>
> > Such as what?
>
> > Where do you suppose the energy goes?
>
> > -------------------
>
> see my answers to others
It doesn't "cost" energy for one object to interact with another. For
fundamental particles, there is no loss at all, though there is an
interaction. For *composite* objects that interact with each other,
some of the energy of the interaction can be turned into *internal*
energy, such as thermal energy or internal vibrations. But even in
this case, there isn't any energy lost or consumed. Some of it is just
converted into other forms.
Y.Porat
> On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 2:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 19, 1:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Any attraction field never loses its energy-
>
> > > That's right.
>
> > > > in an ordinary attraction process it does
>
> > > Such as what?
>
> > > Where do you suppose the energy goes?
>
> > > -------------------
>
> > see my answers to others
>
> It doesn't "cost" energy for one object to interact with another. For
> fundamental particles, there is no loss at all, though there is an
> interaction. For *composite* objects that interact with each other,
> some of the energy of the interaction can be turned into *internal*
> energy, such as thermal energy or internal vibrations. But even in
> this case, there isn't any energy lost or consumed. Some of it is just
> converted into other forms.
thanks
but still not deep to scratch
it i s knwon experimentally that say
a steel magnet is attracting say one piece of iron
'at no cost' of of its further ability
ie
later it can do the same job
exactly quantitatively the same job.
now it i snot self understandable
i thinkk we all agree that the atraction action is done by
some 'force messengers'
morover
those force messengers work continuously non stop
at any fraction of second you like
(btw they 'work in some cases only in some directions
and in other cases of fierlds - in another direction)
so let us save time and go to the next step
we can guess that those messengers are 'fountained out
and back !!
whithout any lose of anyone of them or another posibilty
no loss in their overall number
in case there is a 'borrow and lend' process
it is more reasonable that most of them come back
after' fountained' out even if doing nothing
(no any attraction job)
now
how does that 'fountain works ??
lets stop in that step
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
Here is where one stops *imagining* for a moment and starts putting
things in terms of testable predictions and then testing them.
For example, IF what you IMAGINE were the case, then one could test
this very simply. Take a magnet and two different pieces of metal. One
piece of metal is geometrically small and doesn't take up much of the
3D space surrounding the magnet. Another piece of metal is
geometrically more spread out and consumes much more of the 3D space
surrounding the magnet. IF what you IMAGINE were the case, there would
be more "leakage" of escaping particles in the first case than in the
second case, and there would be noticeably faster weakening of the
magnet in the first case compared with the second case over time. Now,
I invite you to put that to experimental test. That is, DO it, and see
if what you IMAGINE really turns out to be true.
Y.Porat
you compleley ddint understand me
or may be i am a poor explainer of my thoughts
i dont say that any messenger is lost
not in a big iron piece not in a small one
and that is exactly the point
(btw
try not to be apriori hostile and try to go with me
a long some way ie try to be a bit more tolearant and with a
'positive mode '
and so we might get somewher further
i intend to do it a step by step
because the issue is imho
a bit more complicated than acustomed to be )
so
lest start examining the possible properties of the
attraction messengers :
ie
to analyse it more abstractly first
1
do we agree that th e attracttion force is done by messengers ??
if yes
after such a messenger is shot out
does it' control itself' or may be even after being shot
there is still something else that goes on controlling it ??
2
does those messengers move in straight lines
more questions later
btw i am not in hurry to answer about my opinion
in order to let thinking and let other people to think and get in
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
PD
Yes.
>
> if yes
> after such a messenger is shot out
> does it' control itself' or may be even after being shot
> there is still something else that goes on controlling it ??
Neither. A cannonball doesn't control itself, nor is there anything
else that is controlling it besides the laws of physics.
>
> 2
> does those messengers move in straight lines
Neither, as far as we know. The trajectories of a particle between A
and B is undetermined, and in fact the only model that produces
calculations that accurately match *measurements* is one that says
that all paths -- straight, curved, and crooked -- are taken by the
same particle between A and B. No model that has a unique straight
trajectory or a unique curved trajectory between A and B has yet to
produce *quantitatively accurate* predictions of the actually observed
behavior. If you have a model that DOES have a unique trajectory
between A and B and which you can show produces accurate numbers in
calculations, then you are free to trot it out. But agreement on the
"concept" of a unique trajectory between A and B is a completely empty
and valueless exercise, as it has absolutely no predictive power and
is therefore scientifically useless.
Y.Porat
> > > > now
> > > > how does that 'fountain works ??
>
> > > Here is where one stops *imagining* for a moment and starts putting
> > > things in terms of testable predictions and then testing them.
>
> > > For example, IF what you IMAGINE were the case, then one could test
> > > this very simply. Take a magnet and two different pieces of metal. One
> > > piece of metal is geometrically small and doesn't take up much of the
> >
that question is too important to answer it too quick
and it is a bit more complicated than you think !!
let see what other people wil say about it
----------
>
>
> > 2
> > does those messengers move in straight lines
>
> Neither, as far as we know. The trajectories of a particle between A
> and B is undetermined, and in fact the only model that produces
> calculations that accurately match *measurements* is one that says
> that all paths -- straight, curved, and crooked -- are taken by the
> same particle between A and B. No model that has a unique straight
> trajectory or a unique curved trajectory between A and B has yet to
> produce *quantitatively accurate* predictions of the actually observed
> behavior. If you have a model that DOES have a unique trajectory
> between A and B and which you can show produces accurate numbers in
> calculations, then you are free to trot it out. But agreement on the
> "concept" of a unique trajectory between A and B is a completely empty
> and valueless exercise, as it has absolutely no predictive power and
> is therefore scientifically useless.
> -------------------------
imho
it cannt be in straight lines !!
(all other possibilities might be but not straight
because if A is shooting a messenger to be straight line
that messenger has momentum
and momentum has direction
the above momentum will push B instead of pulling it !!
anyway lets again hear other opinions as well
before we go on
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
---------------
Y.Porat
a cannon ball is not like our case:
the cannon ball is shot and after that is controlled
by the gravitational field
in our attraction force (say a magnet)
we dont know about any exterior influence
on our messenger
if you say that even in the magnet case the gravitational
force still exists
we know that the gravitational force compared
to the the magnetic force (field) is negligible !!
so can we say
that after being shot out the messenger
has no other control but its own (net) initial properties
2
if you like we can decide to deal only with the case
of no additional **external intervention**
in the movement of the messenger
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.y.Porat
----------------
so
from the lack of answers we may conclude
that actually no one has a real answer to my OP question!!
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
> Y. Porat Dont know about witches on brooms or fairies on needle points.
> I do know the strong force gets stronger with distance,and so does
> pulling on a rubber band. It fits Bert
wrong!!
the strong force does not get stronger with distance!!
it gets stronger and suddenly disappear
quit in a very short additional distance
and that exactly is
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES
TO THINK ABOUT !!
(the secretes of any attraction force lie just at this point !!!))
why ???!!!
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
TW
Jeff, I have left you alone for nearly two years and you are still
coming out with nonsense. Why is that?
Have you genuinely been unable to take your knowledge of the subject
even an inch further? If that is the case, you may want to think about
why that is...
Did you ever discover the reason behind why the universe is described
as having three spatial dimensions?
Jeff▲Relf
All the evidence suggests General Relativity is right;
i.e. intrinsically, irregardless of what is or isn't known,
nature is 4-D static. And there's no evidence to counter it.
Put more simply:
nature can't be acausal, randomness can't be anything but ignorance.
“ This paper pursues two aims.
First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.
Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.
The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional
the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. ”.
-- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? ”
Petkov ( 2005 ) Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/