lemur

Most Christians prefer the lies about Jesus in the new testimate over the lies in the old testimate which where pretty much made up by Moses.

Calling culture "lies" implies that there is a truer culture that demonstrates the deceit of the 'lies.' Care to explain what that truth is and which "lies" are deceitful in contrast?

Potential energy is only meaningful relative to some reference. That is the point.

 

Gravitational potential energy relative to the round is one natural choice, but not the only choice. To make sense of potential energy a choice of "ground state" is needed, and that can be arbitrary.

 

Potential energy and kinetic energy are not absolute. Energy is relative.

Can't potential be empirically tested by inciting the release of potential/stored energy? I.e. If you can't get any energy out of something, then it didn't have any potential (energy), right? Conversely, if you CAN trigger a release of energy, then that energy must have been potential/latent in the system that released it, no?

Even in relativity, while speed of a photon is the same in all reference frames, the frequency depends on the frame, and energy is proportional to frequency.

But doesn't frequency shift directly correspond to the rate of apprehension of the energy (waves)? Only since the waves can only be measured at the same speed regardless of motion relative to the source, the doppler effect registers as a stretching or contracting of the wave instead of as a change in its speed. So the amount of energy that a given star emits during its lifespan is the same no matter whether it is measured in a shifted frame or not, right?

However in the case of the football lying on the roof, I don't quite see where the evidence of the potential energy is. Both the football and the roof are static. There's no relative movement between them.

Could the force with which the ball is pushing against the roof be considered potential motion, i.e. if the roof wasn't pushing back against the ball with an equal and opposite reaction? Many people will tell you that potential energy depends on how you frame it, but I tend to think of it as an inherent propensity to work due to an something's state or position. I.e. it is energy that can be expressed but isn't at present, hence it is "potential (future) kinetic energy."

We invented money once; if it all went away then we would probably invent it again.

It's just bits of paper or metal trinkets.

 

I did once before point out that the transfer of money isn't actually important.

Imagine all the money went away but nobody cared. People still went and did their jobs. The farmers grew crops, the shopkeepers ordered goods and people came and took stuff from the shops.

Everything the same as today, but without money changing hands. (I'm not sure what the bankers would do but, to be honest, I'm not sure what they do now).

What you say would work if people all followed Marx's communist principle of working as much as you can and taking as little as you need. People would build tractors and give them to farmers because they wanted everyone to have food. Metallurgists would make metal and parts for the tractors because they new the tractor-builders would build the best tractors possible and give them to good farmers. The farmers would give the food to distributors who would distribute it with the least waste. Everyone would discuss how they could put their labor to work in the most effective and efficient way. The goal would not be money-making but simply maximizing good, although it would probably be debated what constituted "maximum good."

The author states that this is not physics! So I won't read it like it is physics.

I just read the website in more detail and you're right that much of it is tiresomely empty. The basic premise merits discussion imo, though:

Gravimotion's interpretation of the gravitation phenomenon implies that our human concept of space is physically made of motion.

As such we are living in motion rather than in time!

Just think about a cloud of particles in motion in a (curved) way that causes them to be constantly accelerating forward at the same rate. Next, imagine the particles in front of you start 'jamming up' like a muiticar pileup accident on a highway. If it was particulate matter piling up instead of cars, the traffic jam would cause all other particles to pile up on top of it to form "solid ground." Because the trajectory of the matter was curved, it would continue to accelerate into the "ground" in front of it even though that ground had built up potential energy by resisting its own inertial momentum.

That's the whole point of the question I posted in the first place.

The people are going to come anyway, were just trying to find the best way to get rid of the water.

So check ventilation off your list, epic fail.

If you were outdoors, the ground could absorb the humidity. Maybe this is why outdoor events like circuses and concerts often have sawdust or mulch on the ground.

Just a few quotes from the website. All these suggest to me that everyone should leave gravimotion well alone.

Why (pre)judge a book by its cover, or in this case rhetorical style? What is the harm in considering the content of the ideas? I'm not even sure I understand them exactly, because I'm too caught up in my interpretation of the idea of falling things building up in curved spacetime, but I think it's related. Obviously, I am capable of not abandoning existing theories of gravity to explore this gravimotion concept or any other for that matter. It disappoints me, though, that people are rejecting even considering and discussing the idea in a critical way.

understood, im thinkning more along the lines of will there come a point when the content on the web is so vast it becomes un controllable ex. the programs to hack fbi cia data bases are just as easy as typing an email and pretty much nothings a secret. the end result being letting secret information into the wrong hands and the accesability is to great to track which in turn could spawn a new group of terrorist, somthing along those lines not so much general information becoming dangerous.

It may be that secrecy itself spawns terrorism, but that could be a whole other discussion. I think you underestimate the ability of propaganda to be used for security pursuits. When information is "leaked" via internet, it often contains information that procures certain ideologies and effects. The idea that the information was supposed to remain secret yet was "leaked" may be little more than a ploy to stimulate interest in the information to lure people into consuming it. Ultimately you're dealing with a "free world" where people can and will pick and choose information and do with it as they will. So the question is how to approach broadcasting and other public communication with that in mind, I think.

From what I've read on the Gravimotion it doesn't just step outside the box, it ignores the box. In a nut shell, it looks at the universe from a very quantum physics level. Unfortunately quantum physics is a very specialized type of science that needs it's own realm of rules and understanding. Painting the bigger picture with those same rules doesn't make sense. Matter may not be understood on a quantum level, but it's what makes up our reality.

Can you cite what you read? because it sounds very different from what I read: http://gravimotion.info/what_is_gravimotion.htm

When you use the phrases "step outside the box" or "ignores the box," it sounds like you're evaluating a theory purely on the basis of how it fits with other theories, which doesn't seem very scientific to me.

What interests me about what I've read about the idea of "gravimotion" so far is that things can simply be in motion together and their inertia/momentum would be responsible for their gravitational behavior. So, for example, I could see how you could interpret gravity as everything moving (falling) together at the same speed in a recursive path and as matter starts to pile up due to friction, a solid core forms (ground) that everything else piles up against. Then, the fact that everything is accelerating is due to spacetime curvature, which prevents anything from moving in a totally straight line and therefore escaping the acceleration/force of angular momentum. Now I'm getting confused trying to remember why angular momentum is acceleration but I seem to recall that it is and I think this would apply to anything moving along a curved trajectory, no?

There are people with equations here that can probably answer your question precisely. I just want to point out that nothing can really be totally at rest insofar as it has to move relative to other things in the universe. So, in that sense speed, or rather acceleration, is relative to the gravity an object faces, however distant and weak the source of that gravity may be.

I suppose my main concern here is there too much content at to much ease for society? can it evolve to be dangerous at some point?

Knowledge is power and power can be used constructively and destructively. Would you rather have people as ignorant sheeple or that they develop some critical intelligence, independence, and take some responsibility for their own power? What has really evolved to be dangerous, imo, is that the will to be ignorant and yet politically entitled to economic privileges has created an ethic of controlling intelligent, powerful individuals to make them serve those who avoid gaining intelligence and power. This leads me to wonder whether the strongest power doesn't lie in ignorance and entitlement, which is why I think facebook is popular while the use of internet to gain knowledge-power is viewed by the facebook mentality as nothing more than a means to better yourself to impress others and thereby gain more entitlement/privilege.

They would continue to be dependent on your spending. It is practically impossible to create an economy in such a circulation of money. It would create riots and deaths. If this happens, you should do some charity.

I would not. I would expect people not to harm each other just because they didn't have money. I would question them for rioting and starving each other, even while they were giving me the blame for hoarding currency. Who would be right and why?

Are there any instances of a perpetual motion device that does not produce useful energy, simply only enough to keep itself running? A Stirling engine or something?

Wouldn't a satellite in orbit be in perpetual motion without friction to remove energy from its motion? Idk if you could say that orbital motion is absolutely 'perpetual' but I think it's the closest empirical example.

People would go bankrupt but not out of goods. You would have to buy goods from them. Though, it would be cheaper because of competition.

So would that be enough money for them to create a viable economy? Or would they continue to be dependent on my spending?

Situation 2

If all money goes into your account, you would be made to spend money.

Why? By taxes? What if I figured out a distribution scheme where I only spent it in ways that it wouldn't get spent? That way I could ensure that no one got a penny.

Interesting situation. If all went bankrupt, it would cause a sudden global poverty. In this situation, would purchasing goods and commodities wouldn't be possible.

Hey wait a second. If all went bankrupt then where will the money go?

It would all go into my bank account and I wouldn't spend a penny.

THE FLOOD!

 

May 31st, 2011.

93 F

 

We got to the club at 3pm, opened 3 windows. Two fans were exhaust, one fan was intake.

5pm, condensation begins in the corners.

6pm, condensation is spreading

7pm, visible condensation all over the floor

8pm, this is the most ridiculous scene ever! Water everywhere.

 

So to all those interested. Ventilation is NOT the answer. Maybe if you had a windtunnel sized fan.

 

Next week we try 1 AC unit and 3 dehumidifiers.

You packed a bunch of 98F human bodies, radiating heat and emitting water vapor, into a building at 93F? Where did you expect the humidity to go exactly?

When some people go bankrupt and others don't, those who don't tend to look down on those that do, feel pity, or otherwise distance themselves from the poor. So if everyone went bankrupt at the same time, would they all feel respect for each other's poverty or would they just seek some other basis for viewing some people as having truly earned their poverty and others being unwitting victims of their situation?

So what happened to this thread and poverty?

Apparently it went bankrupt

I hadn't heard of the idea of 'gravimotion' before the thread on E=MC^2's applicability at the quantum level. I don't know what gravimotion has to do with that, but I googled it and I find it an interesting idea worth discussing. It is also a question I've wrestled with myself: why can't gravity be explained as simply as lots of matter falling at the same rate? Spacetime curvature could then be held responsible for the fact that the matter tends to concentrate and build up a 'dam' (the ground) that blocks water and atmosphere from continuing to free-fall. I don't know what, then, would explain the curvature of spacetime that causes matter to 'jam up' into a 'dam' such as a planet or star, but I do think you could say that friction is sufficient cause for things to stop free-falling and pile up. Can anyone think of an issue that would falsify this idea that everything within a gravity well has an average ratio of momentum to inertia and that is all gravity is?

As what seems the general nature of emotions, fear and rage are behavioral responses to stimuli. Therefore, such animals may only experience those emotions when adequately stimulated. However, having a brain stem does not automatically confer emotions on a species. The brain stem appears to confer instinctual behaviors and animals with only brain stemlike structures likely react with the emotions we associate with instinctual behavior. Although brain stem function is the likely source of instinctual behaviors, cortical function enhances the mediation of those behaviors. It is the cortex that gives us the ability to mediate our fear, rage, hunger, and sexual desire in ways that can produce behavior more favorable to our immediate goals and circumstances. Through cortical function, we process our emotional responses with a consideration of consequences exceeding the instinctual needs or desires of the moment. Our cortex gives us the measure of cognition, forethought, and planning that has enabled our continual dominance of other instinctually driven species.

It is interesting to think about what it would be like to experience emotions without all the other cortical function that makes cognition what it is. There seems to be a feedback loop during moments of fear or rage, for example, where emotions generate/stimulate corresponding thoughts and expressions, which in turn feed into the emotional escalation. If animals don't have the ability to generate fearful or enraged thought-patterns as a response to emotional-stimuli, I wonder what they in fact feel/experience. Obviously animals can flee quite easily, and they can also fight when necessary or when they want something badly. Do all such activity-responses require very little cortical activity? Do they feel more or less intense emotion while responding to stimuli because of their limited cortical/cognitive function?

I don't see how considering the ease with which facebook lures people away from informative internet content found via google.

What you are suggesting here applies to the plasticity of neocortical structure and function. The hypothalamus is a subcortical structure (brain stem) where we find more specilized function. The cortex is known to compensates for damage to cortical function and structure, which is why it can sustain considerable damage without causing death. The function of brain stem structures is more highly specialized, which is why damage to these structures often has fatal consequences. Emotional behaviors such as fear and rage have instinctual roots and are likely to reside in the more primitive segments of our central nervous system (CNS) because these instinct-based behaviors were likely more vital to the survival of ancestral animals than higher cognitive functions. Spinal cord aside, the brain stem is the most primitive segment of our CNS.

So do you think 'lower' animals like fish, birds, insects, etc. are feeling fear and rage all the time or are there other emotional states they would be capable of experiencing with just the stem functions?

I didn't want to say they are doing that all the time. But when you push people (or entire countries) too far, when after 30 years people lose everything they worked for, they get angry.

People get pushed too far all the time. Look at all the migrants who get harassed in Europe and North America, the lower class people, and all the people who get bullied or shunned into abandoning their jobs just because they don't 'fit in' with their colleagues in some way or other. All, or at least some, of these people get angry too - and the irony is that the stronger economic growth is occurring, the more empowerment there is for the successful people to bully and shun these marginalized people and/or exploit/abuse them economically. As bas as I feel for people who overborrow and then discover the means to repay the debt have abandoned them, I wonder if any of those people were being nice to the poor and disenfranchized when they were the ones qualifying for a hyper-balloon mortgage to pay for a nice big house in an exclusive suburb.

When it happens to you & me, as individuals, there are no many ways to escape. Some suicide, some disappear and die quietly on a bench in a park, others steal a bank. When you are driven into bankruptcy, not because you didn't go to work but because nobody buy your products, working hard won't save you.

Some people survive homeless too or seek public housing and assistance. The other ironic thing about it is that there are people who currently know that they could be next in line to lose everything, yet they only advocate economic recovery instead of considering what might make their life easier if/when they are at ground zero.

When entire countries encounter the same problem, what do they do?

Imagine the U.S. not being able to sell anything nowhere because of a surevaluate dollar . Imagine the U.S. not being able to borrow money from nowhere. Imagine someone asking for the U.S. to pay its debt cash, right now. Imagine entire industries not being able to produce anything because they cannot pay their raw material.

And all that with bankers somewhere in the world, full of money (U.S. money). What would the U.S. do?

Every individual would have their own means of dealing with the resulting problems. Some would do business directly with the global business class and maintain a wealthy standard of living as people have always done everywhere on Earth. Others would have to figure out ways of living without fuel or other energy. People would have to live near farms and hope to be able to use their labor to feed themselves.

Well, history tells that the U.S., as any other country, after turning against his own people asking to work harder and to pay pay pay, would then turn against the bankers.

You say this almost as if something constructive results from it. People can get angry and turn against anyone they want. They can kill, torture, harass, threaten, and otherwise terrorize their way to the level of social submission that they think will provide for them the things that they can't produce for themselves. But, ultimately the people you lose in the process are just lost human capital. Obviously, this is why xenophobia grows during economic recession - i.e. people hope that when people start getting liquidated, it will be people other than themselves elsewhere. Nevertheless, it was bad economic politics in the 1930s and it would be bad economic politics if it happened again. People could organize their economies without violence if they would stop struggling to maintain standards of living and start focussing on ensuring basic necessities get produced and distributed to everyone.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/bloom-energy-boxes/

Supposedly, these small boxes somehow convert hydrocarbon fuel, natural gas I think the article says, into electricity. Apparently they are not suitable for vehicle applications, for some reason, though. If they were, could fuel be used to directly power electric motors to reduce battery weight while increasing the efficiency of gasoline or other fuels in transportation applications?

How can chemical potential be converted directly in to electricity?