Anti-gravity machine in your garage

[TheAntiRelative]

I've never heard that a GPS satellite employs such a device. If you have a source...?

Nope. A book sitting on a table expends no energy but applys a force forever.

On the Gyroscope thing, I can't find a direct reference immediately but tonight I started with a page that you provide a link for in a sticky in the relativity section. It's about all the wrong claims etc and specifically in the section about GPS Satellites near the end of it there is a quote that is relevant to what I am talking about but does not confirm what I was saying. The article also kinda alludes elsewhere to how small of a part SR (if any) plays in the calculation though that too is not said directly... There are so many large environmental factors that are unavoidable that SR effects in this case are even smaller than other sources of error. Hence the constant updates of the sats.

It is completely false that the design of the GPS system ignores relativity theory. Relativistic effects in the GPS system are vitally important. The total difference in the rate of atomic clocks on board a GPS satellite and the reference clock at the USNO amounts to some 38,600 nanoseconds per day. (This is mostly due to a combination of the Sagnac effect for a clock which is moving wrt the GPS receiver, and the relative gravitational time dilation between a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and a stationary clock 20,200 km above the surface, as mentioned in the above quoted paragraph from Ashby's paper; frequency shifts in clocks on the ground wrt UTC due to inhomogeneties in the shape of the Earth also play a role

It seems like you may be confusing the static situation with how you got there: it takes energy to lift a book onto a table, but that has nothing to do with the force between the book and the table.
Think about it this way: if force created energy, you could power a skyscraper by using the support columns to heat water. Ever touch a support column in a building...?

Force != Energy
This is an area I find a little fuzzy. Somewhat like potential energy...
Yeah, I'm not using the exact definition correctly and feel they are more interchangeable than you do I guess. It's my opinion that Force and Energy are for most considerations, analogous even though it doesn't fit textbook definitions.
Let me ask this: Does it take zero energy to hold the planets in orbit? The average of their elliptical orbit is equivalent to a perfectly circular orbit, so what is dong the work of preventing them from flying into space? Is there no energy required to accelerate them toward the sun? Just because an opposing force equals it out does it make the energy cease to exist? The sun, heats the earth, and I turn on the air conditioning. Did I retroactively cause the suns energy to cease to exist. F=MA is a description, not an explanation. ( I know an unconventional perspective is not your cup of tea here so I expect another healthy flaming )

With the magnets, I realize the inefficiency of moving them apart and all that, I'm not arguing that there would be some net gain. And yes, the noticeable heat would only start to be there once the metal first began to deform. I'll concede that it was an ill conceived example that I should have thought out further
However touching the beams of a skyscraper is not a good test either. If I did so I'd notice that they were not at absolute zero and therefore would know that something is giving them energy. Unfortunately, it's a contaminated experiment and can tell us nothing. I guess I'm not the only one who doesn't watch their every step in casual conversation huh? I was trying to convey a concept without detail, as you were.
I guess I'm just thinking about the fact that gravity (force) can cause something to transition from a state of no motion, to motion.
My chief (unconventional)difference in opinion is that regardless of the fact that a force is balanced out by something else I believe work is still being done. My feeling comes from the fact that artificial universal reference points have to be invented to attain "balance".
The book on the desk seems to be balanced in the reference frame of the room. However a viewer that is stationary in regard to the sun would say that the book is being dragged through the system. Gravity is the cause of the books motion.

Wrong. A hydroelectric dam utilizes an open cycle whereby the input energy is provided, ultimately, by the sun. Its the first law of thermodynamics.

Please don't think that I believe energy is just going to pop out of nowhere. You mention that the energy harnessed from a waterfall is that of the sun, however I contend that perhaps the sun provides the energy for it to go up, but if you remove gravity then there is no energy to harness after that point.


Back to the big magnets example and The first Law of Thermodynamics. If I bring two magnets within proximity of each other there is a point at which they will do the work of bringing each other together. Where does that energy come from? I'm not saying it comes from nowhere I'm simply wondering if there are some things that may not be classified properly. (though I recognize by your tone that from now on the slightest misstep or uncertainty in my questions will earn me criticism instead of dialog) It's not like it's a heresy for me to say that modern science has only a model of magnetism and gravity but not a deep understanding. If the answer does not lie in convention then where does it lie?

This isn't going to be easy: it appears you haven't learned even the most basic concepts in physics. Learning and understanding Newton's 1st law and the definitions of "force" and "energy" is the place to start.
Force. The part you are misunderstanding is that force and energy are two completely different things.

I appreciate your effort to not be demeaning, I can see how my humility was extraordinarily inflammatory.
However, I do have to say that since the Casimir effect was detected and measured there had to be motion in the experiment. How could you measure the force applied by a book on a desk if nothing in the system moved at all? How do you measure a force? F=MA...

Newtons first law is exactly what I've been talking about since post 1 I thought. "acted upon by an unbalanced force". Haven't I been talking about unbalancing a force?

Again, Newton's 1st law: the "artificial change" you make will be exactly equal to the energy you get from the system. Ie, you gain nothing by doing such a thing.
And again, this would yield you (not including efficiency losses) precisely the amount of energy you put into it: ie, nothing useful.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that an inefficient energy system can't be used for anything?
Last I checked, driving to work made use of a horribly inefficient system. Loss all across the board...

On a simplistic level, what I propose is very similar to a hot-air balloon. The fuel used to power the balloon is far and away more energy expenditure than a number of other methods of lifting the weight carried in the basket. Limited application, yes. Useless though? I think not.

The problem is that you keep attempting to stereotype me and think that I believe that gigantic mountains of magic energy is going to flood from nowhere from a simply wave of a wand and save the world. I don't.

Do I believe that there may be a method of siphoning a little ambient energy from nature. Do I make the wild assumption that, like solar power, as technology progresses we might actually find more different and perhaps even more efficient methods of siphoning off power from the world around us. Yes, I'll be that wacko...

At this point I'm not really sure what we are arguing. I guess we're arguing if there is any way to harness energy from the environment and get more than we put in? Like windmills, waterfalls, geothermal etc etc? (notice that this "free" energy is not really free it's just stolen from something else)
Are we arguing that we will never discover another source of ambient power like those ever again and that everything that has been invented is all that will ever be invented?

I hope not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The article also kinda alludes elsewhere to how small of a part SR (if any) plays in the calculation though that too is not said directly... There are so many large environmental factors that are unavoidable that SR effects in this case are even smaller than other sources of error. Hence the constant updates of the sats.

Scientists know how to calculate the error in a measurement. You are assuming either that they don't know how, or that unknown errors are present that have skewed the results. If the latter you would need evidence to support your claim.

Yeah, I'm not using the exact definition correctly and feel they are more interchangeable than you do I guess. It's my opinion that Force and Energy are for most considerations, analogous even though it doesn't fit textbook definitions.

Sorry but that won't do. We have definitions that already work.

Let me ask this: Does it take zero energy to hold the planets in orbit? The average of their elliptical orbit is equivalent to a perfectly circular orbit, so what is dong the work of preventing them from flying into space?

Conservation of energy and angular momentum.

Back to the big magnets example and The first Law of Thermodynamics. If I bring two magnets within proximity of each other there is a point at which they will do the work of bringing each other together. Where does that energy come from?

The energy is stored in the magnetic field. This field results from an alignment of the magnetic dipoles within the material. The work required to align these dipoles is the original source of the energy stored in the field.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that an inefficient energy system can't be used for anything? Last I checked, driving to work made use of a horribly inefficient system. Loss all across the board...

This is different since, for example, gasoline has much more energy per gallon than we need. In principle we can afford to waste the excess energy. Now, if you had to make your own gasoline from raw material, and you powered this process with a gasoline engine and generator, you would only produce a few gallons of gasoline, maybe ten to fifteen gallons in an ideal situation, for every one hundred gallons that you burn. This is the situation that applies to your ideas. Even if you could make 100 gallons for every 100 gallons used, which you can't, you wouldn't gain anything.

 

[russ_watters]

To hit what Ivan didn't:

Force != Energy
This is an area I find a little fuzzy. Somewhat like potential energy...
Yeah, I'm not using the exact definition correctly and feel they are more interchangeable than you do I guess. It's my opinion that Force and Energy are for most considerations, analogous even though it doesn't fit textbook definitions.
Let me ask this: Does it take zero energy to hold the planets in orbit? The average of their elliptical orbit is equivalent to a perfectly circular orbit, so what is dong the work of preventing them from flying into space? Is there no energy required to accelerate them toward the sun? Just because an opposing force equals it out does it make the energy cease to exist? The sun, heats the earth, and I turn on the air conditioning. Did I retroactively cause the suns energy to cease to exist. F=MA is a description, not an explanation.

This is a big, big, big misunderstanding of physics you're going to need to correct. The easiest way I can think of is ask yourself: Where does the energy come from and where does it go? Ie a light bulb and a battery: you can see and feel the energy coming from the light bulb, so its reasonable to conclude that it is coming from the battery.

-For the planets (or satellites) in orbit, kinetic energy is related to speed and potential is related to height. Since both are constant (for a circular orbit), there is no energy being used. Again, you used the word "work" in this context. Work has a specific mathematical definition: force times distance. Since the force is perpendicular to the velocity, no work is being done.
-For the sun vs air conditioning, energy is conserved: the sun heats your house and the air conditioner takes the heat and moves it out of the house where it heats the environment. The energy removed by the air conditioner is exactly equal to the energy gained by the house from the sun.

( I know an unconventional perspective is not your cup of tea here so I expect another healthy flaming )

Its not so much an "unconventional perspective" as it is an explanation that just plain doesn't accurately describe what we see. If force created energy, we would be able to measure this energy.

However touching the beams of a skyscraper is not a good test either. If I did so I'd notice that they were not at absolute zero and therefore would know that something is giving them energy. Unfortunately, it's a contaminated experiment and can tell us nothing. I guess I'm not the only one who doesn't watch their every step in casual conversation huh?

The example works fine (its just like every other lab experiment involving heat transfer): the columns are at room temperature plus whatever temperature they gain due to the energy created by the force they are under. What temperature are they at?

I guess I'm just thinking about the fact that gravity (force) can cause something to transition from a state of no motion, to motion.

That is correct - and when that happens, there is an energy transfer. But if there is no motion, there is no energy transfer.

My chief (unconventional)difference in opinion is that regardless of the fact that a force is balanced out by something else I believe work is still being done. My feeling comes from the fact that artificial universal reference points have to be invented to attain "balance".
The book on the desk seems to be balanced in the reference frame of the room. However a viewer that is stationary in regard to the sun would say that the book is being dragged through the system. Gravity is the cause of the books motion.

This is a small complication that is simple to understand: since kinetic energy involves motion, it of course depends on where you measure it from.

Take two identical cars, leave one stationary and crash the other one into it at 60mph. Then try again with two additional cars, but this time make the other car stationary. Does this change the result of the experiment? Not at all - in all 4 cars, exactly the same amount of damage is done because exactly the same amount of energy is involved. It doesn't matter which car is stationary (has zero energy), it only matters how much energy is transferred.

In any case, in your example o the book orbiting the sun, the book still isn't moving perpendicular to the gravity field.

Please don't think that I believe energy is just going to pop out of nowhere. You mention that the energy harnessed from a waterfall is that of the sun, however I contend that perhaps the sun provides the energy for it to go up, but if you remove gravity then there is no energy to harness after that point.

If you remove gravity, the water wouldn't go up in the first place (there would be no such thing as "up"!). Time for a quick thermodynamics intro: The concept you are describing is analogous to INTERNAL ENERGY. Internal energy is the energy inside a system. The temperature of a glass of water is a measure of its internal energy and the strength of a gravitational field is a measure of its internal energy. But the internal energy of a closed system is constant - it isn't being added to or consumed. This means that to use the internal energy, something has to change. With a glass of hot water, its temperature difference: energy flows from the water to the cool air in your room. Stick a turbine in the way and you can harness this energy. For gravity, a gravitational field is constant, so the way you change the gravitational energy of an object is to move it up or down in the gravitational field.

Back to the big magnets example and The first Law of Thermodynamics. If I bring two magnets within proximity of each other there is a point at which they will do the work of bringing each other together. Where does that energy come from? I'm not saying it comes from nowhere I'm simply wondering if there are some things that may not be classified properly.

Every pair of magnets in the world has a calulable potential energy associated with the pair. If you know the strength of the magnets, you can calculate the energy required to (or generated by) bring[ing] them together. The energy is there, now, in the system, waiting to be used.

It's not like it's a heresy for me to say that modern science has only a model of magnetism and gravity but not a deep understanding. If the answer does not lie in convention then where does it lie?

That's a philosophical statement. In fact, our model of magnetism and gravity works extrordinarily well. The things you describe do not match what is observed to occur in the universe.

However, I do have to say that since the Casimir effect was detected and measured there had to be motion in the experiment. How could you measure the force applied by a book on a desk if nothing in the system moved at all? How do you measure a force? F=MA...

F=MA can be used to calculate how much force an object of a certain mass would have (how much it would weigh), but not to measure it. To measure it, you use a spring of known spring constant and measure its deformation under the weight. [/quote]Newtons first law is exactly what I've been talking about since post 1 I thought. "acted upon by an unbalanced force". Haven't I been talking about unbalancing a force? [/quote] No, you haven't: a book pushes down on a table and the table pushes up on the book. The forces are perfectly balanced. Similarly, the Earth pulls on the sun and the sun pulls on the Earth with exactly the same force. In none of the cases we've talked about have forces been unbalanced.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that an inefficient energy system can't be used for anything?
Last I checked, driving to work made use of a horribly inefficient system. Loss all across the board...

I shouldn't have put in that bit about inefficiency, it really isn't relevant. In the cases you listed, there is just plain zero net energ produced. Adding efficiency losses just makes it even worse: negative net energy.

At this point I'm not really sure what we are arguing. I guess we're arguing if there is any way to harness energy from the environment and get more than we put in? Like windmills, waterfalls, geothermal etc etc? (notice that this "free" energy is not really free it's just stolen from something else)
Are we arguing that we will never discover another source of ambient power like those ever again and that everything that has been invented is all that will ever be invented?

I hope not.

What we are trying to convey to you is the concept of energy itself. The reason you think ZPE might be harnessable is that you don't understand how energy works and thus how to harness it.

 

[LunchBox]

PLEASE don't say F=MA

Although Russ and Ivan hit it all... I just wanted to add...

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop putting F=MA!

F=MA is what some people (hereafter referred to as 'idiots') use to try and debunk how rockets work in space.

Please remember what Mr. Newton said... Force in a direction is equal to the time rate of change of momentum in that direction. If mass or velocity is a varying function of time, you have a force. It is possible to have a force with a constant velocity ( and a time rate of change of mass). It's just that we have a term for time rate of change of velocity (acceleration).

Sorry... just had to get that rant out...

Cheers...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This just caught my eye.

Description

Moon shoes are the original mini trampolines made for feet so kids can jump with anti-gravity effects.

http://www.etoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/1644239/ctid/17/INstock/N/D/

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!

Thanks for the info, some of the things you've corrected me on I agree with however there are some things where you really aren't understanding what I'm trying to say so I must not be saying it in a way that conveys it properly...
In some cases I can see it is totally my fault for using terms that have very specific scientific definitions. For my lackadaisical approach I do deserve some chastisement.

Also keep in mind that I am one of those people that argue to learn, don't think that I'm convinced of my own arguments. It's an odd and inefficient method of learning sometimes but it grants better understanding for me personally.

Additionally I really love the quote in Ivan’s Signature:
I would add to it that disparaging remarks and abusive language or tone towards those that do question the norm is extraordinarily counter-productive to the aim of science.
Though I understand frustration towards what seems to be inane, a true scientist, a true seeker of truth must always be mindful that something he believes to be absolute truth may in fact be a concept that is inane.

That is the critical difference between inventors and engineers. …between pioneers and conquerors.


Ivan Seeking:

Scientists know how to calculate the error in a measurement. You are assuming either that they don't know how, or that unknown errors are present that have skewed the results. If the latter you would need evidence to support your claim.

Yes, unpredictable and therefore unknown errors are present in the system. Environmental fluctuations cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be accurately calculated.

Link stickied elsewhere in this forum:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html

Check the area about GPS, it's near the bottom and it's pretty comprehensive.

Sorry but that won't do. We have definitions that already work.

They do work but I don't know how to better express some of my ideas.

Ivan:

Conservation of energy and angular momentum.

I didn't ask what kept the planets going around. (angular momentum) I asked what kept them from flying away. It takes energy to make a body change its inertia.
Something traveling in a non-accelerating straight line is inertially the same as a body at rest. To move that body at rest (change its inertial state) energy must be transferred.
A planet traveling in a circle is constantly being moved off that straight path. Analogously, it is being moved from a rest state. Its inertial reference frame is changed. Energy is transferred.

I don't believe gravity to be some endless well of energy, I believe that it is produced in some way and similar to the radiant energy of the sun, it only seems constant and unending to us. I think there may be a way to use some of that open system.

Russ:

-For the planets (or satellites) in orbit, kinetic energy is related to speed and potential is related to height. Since both are constant (for a circular orbit), there is no energy being used. Again, you used the word "work" in this context. Work has a specific mathematical definition: force times distance. Since the force is perpendicular to the velocity, no work is being done.

… In any case, in your example o the book orbiting the sun, the book still isn't moving perpendicular to the gravity field.

...from your (IMO erroneous) inertial frame of reference.

Both of you are basically saying that there is no net motion. I'm saying that to qualify those statements you have to infer a preferential frame of reference. If you don't, then there is a perspective where the force is parallel to the velocity.(force times distance) The planet is traveling with the sun in the same direction as it is being pulled by gravity.
(Though I think the travel of our system is not parallel to orbits, there does exist some reference point that can make this situation true)
I suppose the reference frame you are using is the sun, but why? Because it seems correct? I'll agree that it does seem correct.

Distance is relative. Because everything is moving, we are incapable of picking a true single point in space that every frame of reference can agree upon as "still". Our version of a still point in space is just an arbitrary selection of a single preferential inertial reference frame.
If I am in a different preferred inertial frame than your preferred inertial frame and we both measure a distance through space that an object travels in a given period of time, we will come up with different answers.
An explanation of this concept is used when describing the Sagnac effect.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Unfortunately the author makes one slight error when he says there is no doppler shift in a sagnac device. There is...

To further explain where I’m coming from with the statement that distance is relative I’ll provide my own example in addition to the one given above.
Ex: Let’s observe two scenarios from an invisible preferential third perspective.
In the first scenario a scientist traveling left to right (+x) on a special science platform at an inertially stable 100 feet per second (from our perspective) fires a slingshot slug from point 0x 0y 0z in our third perspective coordinate system as he passes it by. (z going away from us) The slingshot is fired leftward (-x) to a target 50 feet away in his coordinate system at 50 feet per second. To him, the slug travels a distance of 50 feet, to us it did not travel at all.
A different scientist passes by moments later conducting the same experiment in almost the same way except that he is simply aiming the opposite direction. (+x) To him, the slug traveled 50 feet. To us 100.

Since distance is relative, the definition of work, as it applies to gravity, relies upon a single reference frame only.
Ex: I say that the book is moving up away from the table at 500 mph because the table's force is unbalanced in my frame of reference. I say that the table (or whatever behind it) is doing work. The book thinks that I'm just at a higher state of energy and I think the same of the book. So what? Neither is the “correct” choice.

So, my point is that since work is reference frame based, it is therefore not the perfect term for what I'm trying to relate but it's close.

My argument is that using a preferential reference frame outside of the object being studied is misleading because the possible answers are endless. Just because you've arbitrarily chosen the Earth or the sun as your frame to judge by does not validate that choice above any other...
You must instead measure only the inertial change of the object studied. If its inertial frame of reference is changed then it is being accelerated, if it is accelerated then it is in a state of inertial change regardless of tests from external inertial reference frames. Inertial change is analogous to movement and therefore the equivalent of work is done.(IMHO)
An object cannot deviate from a straight-line path (a stable inertial reference) without energy transferred.

The force of gravity causes a constant change of frames of reference. Even in freefall, there are changes to an objects inertial frame (acceleration)
What I'm saying is that our label "force", when it comes to gravity, is just when we remain in the same inertial reference frame as an item that has energy being transferred to it. Currently, “force” is only a useful concept within a specific reference frame when we use distance as the method to gauge acceleration


I think that the reason it is believed that gravity does no work may be because of the definition of work relying upon a single preferential reference frame.
I believe to encompass gravity and to more reliably define the transfer of energy, the definition of work should instead be described as Acceleration * Time. This would also keep someone from picking an erroneous reference frame to judge from.


Ex:
If there exists nothing else in the universe other than a rocket, it will have nothing to judge distance by. If when floating in space, it turned on the rockets, it would seem that it is not moving. Therefore no work is achieved and no energy is transferred.
If starting over you add a second rocket beside the first and the controls are linked such that when rocket one hits the gas, rocket two does as well. Both frames of reference are accelerated equally and therefore it seems to observers in the rockets that no work is being done and no energy is being transferred.
I postulate that as an observer acted upon by gravity judging other items likewise accelerated, you are simply the observer in the second ship without enough information to judge the energy transferred.


The reason why I said I believe that Force is more analogous to energy is only because of my thoughts about gravity and I can see how it doesn't really apply that way in regard to any other force so I agree with you that my terminology was off.
I guess my problem really lies in calling gravity or magnetism just a force.

-For the sun vs air conditioning, energy is conserved: the sun heats your house and the air conditioner takes the heat and moves it out of the house where it heats the environment. The energy removed by the air conditioner is exactly equal to the energy gained by the house from the sun.

I don’t know why it isn’t getting through to you that I do not believe that energy is being created or destroyed. I know that it’s just getting moved around. I was making an absurd statement to make the point that balanced energy can be achieved without having to believe that the energy never existed in the first place.

The example works fine (its just like every other lab experiment involving heat transfer): the columns are at room temperature plus whatever temperature they gain due to the energy created by the force they are under. What temperature are they at?

Not willing to give in on this one eh? Lol
Firstly, beams on a skyscraper would be in contact with the Earth as a heat sync and very likely be tied in deep. Room temperature would just be the temperature of the air so there would be a huge difference between them. Additionally sky scrapers are built to withstand earthquakes and high winds so a certain amount of flexibility is built as part of the design. Because of this they tend to list and sway throughout a normal day. I’m pretty sure that would convert into some non-trivial heat energy. Additionally, as a day goes by, a large enough building will have a large fluctuation of the number of people in it and therefore the building would tend to compress slightly and expand slightly during different parts of the day thereby causing more swings in temperature. … Night, day, Exposed to outside air… The list goes on but I think I’ll stop.

It doesn't matter which car is stationary (has zero energy), it only matters how much energy is transferred.

I’m saying that neither car can ever truly be called stationary. Yes you can, in that case gauge how much energy is transferred but that example just can’t be used for gravity. Though you may have just been talking about “force” and my bad communication screwed things up, sorry… Just really hadn’t put to words how my general concepts of things differed from the norm so while writing I was still in the midst of understanding the specifics.

If you remove gravity, the water wouldn't go up in the first place.
[paraphrasing]
… and more stuff about thermodynamics, closed systems etc.

Yes, I’m quite well aware of all that….
Have you thought that perhaps the casimir effect my have differing degrees of magnitude in different locations, perhaps casimir effect is inversely proportionate to gravity fields. In that case you could find some change. I thought I remember actually reading that the effect was measured to be different in space (though I could totally be thinking of something else)

Either way, even in a system that is stable and homogeneous you could still synthesize your own change.
Ex. If you were in the center of a giant circular tank of pressurized air in a weightless environment and you had a device that could rapidly take air in and pressurize the gas into a liquid to store in a tank, you would have a propulsion system. As the air was sucked in you would be propelled into the area being depressurized.

I use this strange example to make clear my earlier example of how ZP might be harnessed to provide propulsion etc

If ZP is a waveform energy that can cause a force on matter then a destructive waveform should cause an imbalance in “pressure” if directed like a laser. Though energy from some other system would have to be used and almost assuredly at a loss, most people would still consider levitation without the use of props, gas or other chemical propellants to be “anti-gravity”

Every pair of magnets in the world has a calulable potential energy associated with the pair.

Truthfully, I don’t know how solid that science is. Has anyone worn down permanent magnet successfully? If not then it is theory and subject to question. (though I believe that there is a certain amount of energy in a magnet just like all other matter)

F=MA can be used to calculate how much force an object of a certain mass would have (how much it would weigh), but not to measure it. To measure it, you use a spring of known spring constant and measure its deformation under the weight.

I’m just saying that it was an experiment, not a mathematical construct. Something real had to happen to prove a theory. For them to measure the force, something has to be accelerated. If it’s proven experimentally then something happened other than a guy with a math book and a chalkboard.
I just looked it up and the funny thing is that the original experiment was by using a “spring constant and measure its deformation under” the force itself.

The point is that it does work. It already has useful applications. ZP is alive and well and non-theoretical:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6

What we are trying to convey to you is the concept of energy itself. The reason you think ZPE might be harnessable is that you don't understand how energy works and thus how to harness it.

Sorry… just not true.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry… just not true.

Sorry, but it is. The things you are saying bear no relation to physics. If you want to rewrite all the known laws of physics, good luck, but they work quite well already (they did, afterall, enable us to create GPS ).

Here's a start: tell me how to calculate (give the equations) the energy required to keep a 1kg object in low Earth orbit.

edit: Or, even more basic, start by telling me what kind of energy it is.

 

[juju]

Hi,

It appears to me that what is being transferred to an object in a circular gravitational orbit is momentum.

The momentum transferred is such that only the directions change and not the values.

juju

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, IIRC [and I may not be... I will check], as the potential energy [due to the gravitational field] due to M, at m, is converted to kinetic energy in m, the mass of M decreases according Einstein's mass/energy relationship. As m loses kinetic energy [to potential energy] the mass M increases. This accounts for the energy storage and exchange.

Edit: This is okay.

 

[russ_watters]

Hi,

It appears to me that what is being transferred to an object in a circular gravitational orbit is momentum.

The momentum transferred is such that only the directions change and not the values.

juju

From where to where and how do you calculate and measure it?

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Well first we need to transition subjects properly. You can go ahead and concede that I was right about ZP energy being harnessable since it is actually being applied in certain industrial processes.

Sorry, but it is. The things you are saying bear no relation to physics. If you want to rewrite all the known laws of physics, good luck, but they work quite well already (they did, afterall, enable us to create GPS ).

If they bear no relation to physics then why would I have to re-write all the known laws of physics? Why are things always 0% or 100% with nothing in the middle? Why can't there possibly exist a small addendum to the current set of understandings?

I never said our current understandings don't work quite well already for many things but it sounds as if you are saying that they are flawless, complete, omniscient. I won't say that I'm right or even on the right path but I refuse to subscribe to any science that claims perfection. That's a religion.

You know that before Einstein, the physics of the day had accomplished - to the people of that era - many amazing things and I'm relatively certain that someone said to Einstein: "If you want to rewrite all the known laws of physics, good luck, but they work quite well already"

Not saying that I compare in any way, just trying to make a point. My point is not that I'm right about what I'm saying. My point is just that the perfect lack of reconsideration; perfect absence of doubt is belief.

I can play the part of a “crank” pretty well, can't I?

Here's a start: tell me how to calculate (give the equations) the energy required to keep a 1kg object in low Earth orbit.

To keep it there, not to get it there right? Well, since I was just idly hypothesizing I hadn't put together equations for it but I'll take a SWAG at a way to estimate it.

I’ve made a couple images to explain what I mean. Perhaps you will be able to understand the concept (or misconception) that I am trying to convey.

In this first image, imagine a frictionless and weightless environment. The object traveling is a billiard ball and we instantly transfer the correct amount of energy using another billiard ball at each of the arrow points.
http://home.midsouth.rr.com/erinyes/temp/GravEnergySimple.gif

This second image shows how I arrived at my proposed solution below.
http://home.midsouth.rr.com/erinyes/temp/GravEnergyTransition.gif

I think the total energy input into an orbit by gravity during 1 full orbit = Pi * Energy required to accelerate an object to the speed at which it orbits.
That explanation should allow you to plug in any numbers or units of measurement you like.

I would be interested to see if that number divided by the circumference matched up with some well known constant in regard to gravity.

edit: Or, even more basic, start by telling me what kind of energy it is.

Kind of energy? I guess I'm saying that gravity is another class of energy. Not really sure. Just because I don't have a label someone has already thought of does that invalidate it? Is everything that exists in the universe named?

My scientific answer is…. “I dunno”

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You should study physics before trying to rewrite it. You are getting the idea, but if you look at any Physics 101 course book, or any high school physics textbook that covers Newtonian Physics, or any number of good internet resources like the PF Physics Napster, you will find the correct explanations. Newton worked this all out nearly 400 years ago.

Edit: A better answer to the question about potential energy is found here.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html