gentleman-farmer

4500 years ago builders in ancient Egypt structured the foundation of the pyramids of Saqqara with blocks that had thereon a strange hieroglyphic writing. The writing was known to them at the time - but was subsequently lost, and remained so until 1799 when one of Napoleon Bonaparte's legionaries discovered a basalt tablet (now known as the Rosetta Stone) from which Jean Francois Champollion deciphered the ancient text c1821 -22. It followed that the late Dr. R. O. Faulkner (then of the British Museum, London) translated the hieroglyphic writing and published it in English under the title, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. It is therein that the cosmology and the gods of ancient Egypt are introduced and the iconic emblem of the Eye of Horus is revealed - and like Zeus, Jove, Osiris the King - was a direct reference to Jupiter From the Pyramid Texts (§ 1806) O Osiris the King, the gods have knit together your face for you and Horus has given you his Eye, that you may see with it. Too much of the ancient civilizations has been lost for us to know how they saw Jupiter in such detail - but that they did is now a matter of record The validity of the interpretation relates to the number of points of correlation - by example the likeness of the Eye of Horus icon to the Eye of Jupiter is unmistakable when you take into account the contours of the Eye and the knitted appearance of the storm bands on Jupiter gf

mooeypoo gf) It's not the Eye of Horus that is the Egyptian Jupiter, it's Osiris the King We can confirm the validity of the interpretation by the number of points of correlation - by example the likeness of the Eye of Horus icon to the Eye of Jupiter is unmistakable when you take into account the contours of the Eye and the knitted appearance of the storm bands on Jupiter to the related phrase (§ 1806) O Osiris the King, the gods have knit together your face for you and Horus has given you his Eye, that you may see with it. That Osiris the King was the ancient Egyptian reference to Jupiter falls in line with the Roman Jove and the Greek Zeus that we recognize as the King of the Gods, the ruler of Olympus and the patron of the Roman state. (§ 1806) is not the only passage of interest - the Ancients celebrated special events in festival form. There were three-day, sixth-day and ten-day festivals; and Festivals of Red Linen .. but only the Ten-Day Festival that we'll see in (§ 1067) is special because it was celebrated in commemoration of Jupiter and the Eye of Horus I'll quote article (§ 1067) in a bit gf

4500 years ago builders in ancient Egypt structured the foundation of the pyramids of Saqqara with blocks that had thereon a strange hieroglyphic writing. The writing was known to them at the time - but was subsequently lost, and remained so until 1799 when one of Napoleon Bonaparte's legionaries discovered a basalt tablet (now known as the Rosetta Stone) from which Jean Francois Champollion deciphered the ancient text c1821 -22. It followed that the late Dr. R. O. Faulkner (then of the British Museum, London) translated the hieroglyphic writing and published it in English under the title, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. It is therein that the cosmology and the gods of ancient Egypt are introduced and the iconic emblem of the Eye of Horus is revealed - and like Zeus, Jove, Osiris the King - was a direct reference to Jupiter From the Pyramid Texts (§ 1806) O Osiris the King, the gods have knit together your face for you and Horus has given you his Eye, that you may see with it. Too much of the ancient civilizations has been lost for us to know how they saw Jupiter in such detail - but that they did is now a matter of record

Cap The definition of work is force through a distance - no mention of not every force results in work. You made that up - that is why I'm out - it is getting foolish

This discussion is turning foolish so I'm bowing out. As the point is well established if there is tension in the string - than the ball is not going the right way and the string corrects it. To do that there must be work The main point is that if a force exists there must be work first. No way can a scale or transducer measure force without deflection - there'd be nothing to measure

but if you let go of the sting where will the ball go? Oh - out tangent to the circle? So ya gotta do work toward the center to keep it circular

Cap Then there is no tension in the string

Your analysis is incorrect when a force changes straight line motion (to curvilinear motion) the movement of the object (while it traverses) is toward the center in line with the force being applied. Work is being performed to cause it to go curvilinear If we were to believe your sources we'd have to give up on Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation - and I don't think anyone is willing to do that at this point

Cap asks gf) The ball is wanting to go straight line in accordance with Newton's 1st Law: a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force So yes - by holding onto the string and supporting the outward force and causing the ball to go curvilinear like all good orbits you are performing work -

Cap'n gf) Ya got me there Cap - I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about - but if that's what ya wanna believe - than go for it As for me - I know that unless an event touches something and that something starts to deflect - no force registers. It's like ya can't get kilt by a tree until it falls on ya

Cap'n I've explained it every which way but loose - I'll offer this - extend our arm out as far as it'll go. Nothing happens (no force - no work) now your hand touches a post. The post moves - you feel a force (that didn't exist a moment ago) there was work performed on the post as it tipped - and you felt the force increase as the post moved I hope this helps gf

Cap'n Refsmmat gf) From the point of view of the bow - the work is complete - but the work is stored in the deflected fibers of the bow. They are applying a force to your poor tiring body. Let's change the scene - we'll follow the path of a projectile as it leaves the barrel - the only force that exists is what it takes to overcome aerodynamic drag. Then the projectile hits a board set in its way - now a force materializes as it goes through the board (time rate of change of momentum) - once out no force exists Then it hits a house and forces materialize as the projectile hits the respective walls (and again - time rate of change of momentum) In between the walls - no force exists The point being that until a perspective event meets resistance no force exists gf /

Cap'n Refsmmat Cap'n Refsmmat gf) No! You are not just moving the bowstring over a distance - you are deflecting the material fibers of the bow - (the string is just a tool) At that point the work is complete and the initial force has already manifested itself in having performed work. No force existed before the bow started to deflect - that is the point of interest - what you do thereafter is another story

Cap'n Refsmmat gf) You can answer that from our own experience - let me hand you a 175 pound (pull) bow. Now insert an arrow and pull it back - now hold it while I get some coffee The deflection does not go away - it sits there waiting for you to make a mistake gf /

Cap'n Refsmmat gf) Exactly right - but don't think work hasn't been performed. Let's pretend the box's sides were highly elastic and you let go of what ever you used to apply the force. The sides would rebound and put whatever you were holding - right into your pocket The concept is not unlike a simple bow gf /

Cap'n Refsmmat Cap'n Refsmmat gf) No! It means you have not analyzed the problem correctly. The law you are looking for is Newton's 3rd Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Each side of the box is going to respond elastically with application of the forces. The resultant deflection times the average force will be the work performed That the box itself doesn't moved is irrelevant - the work was performed in deflecting the sides gf \

darkenlighten gf) Not true - if a force exists work must be performed first -- as for magnetic fields - solenoids are a good example That aside we're not talking about magnetic fields - I was as specific as I could be - we're talking about work meaning force through a distance (f x d) the units in the English system are foot pounds (same as energy) -

I wouldn't know why you'd ask me for a definition of work - it's in many high school science books and in all physics books. It is easier recognized simply as force through a distance (f x d) the units in the English system are foot pounds (same as energy) The important thing is that force does not exist but what work has been achieved first - so your statement is false / And if you asked me for a definition of work - it had to be on another thread! gf /

It was said on another thread that ( snip ) It was also stated that gf) The purpose of this thread is to bring people's attention to the fact that both of those statements are false. They are false because it is impossible to have a force manifest itself without having encountered resistance. Without resistance force does not exist. With resistance there is deflection - with deflection there is distance traveled - with distance traveled there is work - hence no force can exist but what work has been already been performed The same is true of fluid systems - pressure cannot exist but what there is resistance down stream gf /

DJBruce Swansont) gf) All of you DJBruce, Swansont, & D H, ( and I'm trying to say this as politely as the circumstances allow) have absolutely no knowledge of what you speak It is impossible for a force to exist but what it has performed some work. Absolutely impossible A force must encounter resistance in order to manifest itself. With resistance there must be deflection - with deflection there is distance traveled - with force and distance traveled - there is work. Work being Swansont's pesky little dot product - that he thinks no one understands If you guys would think through what you are saying - you'd begin to understand centrifugal force D H says Gf) D H that is pure foolishness - centrifugal force was labeled "fictitious" for the sole reason that the force does not lay in the inertial plane. Stand in front of an advancing train (or stand in front of the Olympic athletes' hammer) and you'll learn all about inertial planes (and you'll learn about time rate of change of momentum) With all other forces the inertia is in line with the force. Like as in don't put your hand where I'm about to drop this here rock. Again - if a force exists it has performed some work - and it is the easiest thing in the world (in defiance of C H's suggestion that you can't perform a local experiment) to put a spring scale on the Olympic athlete's cable and watch the force increase as the athlete increases the speed of rotation (or vise versa) gf

C H (and others) Perhaps you'll see yourselves being laughted at in this cartoon - could I suggest you read it through carefully because it makes a point of every ill gotten notion you've all perpetrated - please take particular note in the line There's no such thing - as it was C H that started the There's no such thing drama that now you can see is quite real "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"

Cap'n Refsmmat gf) It's not the hands that are of interest - they merely act as an extension of the cable. The point of interest is the inertial frame - the inertial frame (wherein lies the motion hence the momentum) is perpendicular to the line of force known as centrifugal force (which is quite real as the Olympic athlete clearly demonstrates) swansont gf) Centrifugal force does not originate from the momentum of the hammer and has no relationship with the cosine of 90º -- centrifugal force originates from the time rate of change of the instantaneous straight line portion of the orbit as it goes curvilinear in accordance with Newton's 1st Law: a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force In this case the external force is being executed by the Olympic athlete \ gf /