OT: The 10th Demention

[Renegade 13]

GuyOfDoom said:

I've gotten the impression from some of your posts that you don't seem to be a big fan of science in general.

Personally, I'd call Capnq a skeptic, which is a good thing in today's world.

[GuyOfDoom]

Renegade 13 said:
Personally, I'd call Capnq a skeptic, which is a good thing in today's world.

It depends on the focus and the intensity of the skepticism. As always too much or too little is a bad thing.

[Phoenix-D]

Raapys said:
However, isn't it true much of what he says? One example; how can the law of conservation of energy( "Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another" ) and the laws of gravitation exist both at the same time; aren't they massive contradictions?

Not really. And even if they were, the way he uses them is incorrect; if a law contradicts another law, they have more or less equal chance to be wrong.

Gravity seems to be an intrinsic property of mass. If that's the case it wouldn't use energy the same way as being blue doesn't use energy. (think of reflections the same way. A photon hits an object, then bounces off..at the same wavelength! It changed direction, so obviously there was some energy used to change its course, right? Answer:..not really)

EDIT: I should point out that my specialty is biology, not physics. However I have seen this sort of claim with biology as well (hi there, creationists), and the logic matches. Plus the way he advertise his book- "the book our scientists hope you never read". Usually the kind of thing kooks use.

[Raapys]

I don't know, I still don't see how gravity and magnetism are *not* infinite sources of energy. They can both definitely apply kinetic energy to other masses, and to our knowledge they do not weaken over time, indicating they are inexhaustible.

Photons are a special case, aren't they? Since they can, apparantly, be slowed down by passing through certain matter, then speed up again entirely by themselves.

[se5a]

because you have to spend the same amount or more energy getting an object back up the hill as you got from it rolling down the hill.

[Phoenix-D]

Gravity first: the best explanation at the moment is Einstein's. Gravity is -not- considered a force there, and doesn't 'use' any energy. Rather its something mass does to spacetime, with the side effect of making masses move toward each other.

Even that theory isn't complete yet, though, as it doesn't work on the level of atoms (possibly because gravity is so weak at that scale).

Magnetics: same general idea. Its caused by the movement of charged particles though, and to explain those you get into QM, which is mind-bendingly freaky.

Something to remember: Newton's theories are *wrong*. Darwin's theory was *wrong*. In both cases however, they still serve as a strong base for use and further experiment; the areas where they are wrong are small enough they don't impact day-to-day work.

[Raapys]

because you have to spend the same amount or more energy getting an object back up the hill as you got from it rolling down the hill.

But that's not actually true. If you pick up a box and hold it for one hour then you've spent alot more energy than if you merly lift it up and drop it at once. Yet, the box doesn't have any more energy when it falls after one hour than it does if you release it instantly. So where did the energy you continously applied to the box for one hour go?

PhoenixD: Alright, I can go with the spacetime theory as passable, but that still doesn't account for the fact that gravity does 'consume' the kinetic energy of masses, which means we still have a change in the amount of energy in the universe. Or am I missing something? Where's the kinetic energy going?

It does all sound a little odd, since if energy = mass, and mass is what creates gravity, and gravity drains energy, then we're left with mass that is actually consuming itself.

Oh, and while we're on the mystic and unexplained, does anyone know why *REPLICA WATCHES* are so popular? My inbox has been continously spammed with that stuff for over a year.

[GuyOfDoom]

Darwin's theory was *wrong*

Admittedly I've never read Origin of Species, but I don't believe he states where life started, which is a large misconception. As for his theory being wrong, I'm confused as Evolution happens, but not precisely in the way he was able to observe at the time.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I could explain how standing on a surface does not use energy save in inneficiency, but Fyron was the one who explained it to me and as it's been about a year, I'm not sure I can explain it.

[Spoo]

Raapys said:
If you pick up a box and hold it for one hour then you've spent alot more energy than if you merly lift it up and drop it at once. Yet, the box doesn't have any more energy when it falls after one hour than it does if you release it instantly. So where did the energy you continously applied to the box for one hour go?

Your muscles require a constant use of energy to remain contracted. That energy ultimately "goes" into heating your body over the course of the hour that you spent holding the box.