(cinquirer) wrote in message om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

In fact, the electric charge force between the protons
and electrons in our atomic models holds atoms together without
draining any known power source or weakening in strength - often for
billions of years.

Why should a power source be necessary for this??? Energy is only
required if one wants to do work, and work is only done if one moves
something over a distance. Therefore simply holding something together
requires no energy - because nothing is moved there.

Ok. Let me focus on this particular paragraph first as it is the core
of his other comments.

He stated (below after it is the complete text where it is acquired.
He emailed the first chapter of his book to people):

"Consider the situation where an object is simply too heavy to move,
despite all efforts to push it. There is no question that one could
expend a tremendous amount of effort and energy attempting to move the
object, yet never actually manage to move it an inch. However,
applying the Work Function as a "work detector," it calculates that
zero work was done. A tremendous amount of force was applied to the
object, but the object was nevertheless moved zero distance, and since
work equals force times distance, the Work Function calculates that
zero work was done. If this were further taken to mean no energy was
expended, we would have a worker who is exhausted from attempting to
move such a heavy object, yet who is considered to have expended no
energy. Of course, this is obviously a serious misapplication of the
Work Function that brings nonsensical results, yet this is precisely
the logic used to justify the gravitational force, as we will see
shortly. The Work Function is only designed to help organize and qua
ntify situations where a force clearly moves an object through a
distance, but is not meant to function as a generic "work detector"
that further tells us whether any energy was expended by an arbitrary
event."

Now the complete text:


"(Error) The Work Function - A Flawed Explanation

Physical labor typically involves moving heavy objects or material
from one place to another. The heavier the object and the further it
is moved, the more energy must be expended in the process.

Right.

The Work Function is merely an attempt to describe this fact using a simple
equation - originally designed to help engineer mechanical devices
that use energy to do work, such as steam engines that burn fuel to
move trains. This equation is written as W = F d, which is read as
work (W) equals force (F) times distanc e (d). That is, the more force
required to move an object, and the further the object is moved by
that force, the more work is done in performing this task.

This is the grade school version. Strictly speaking, Work = I[(F).(R)]
where I is the integral sign, F and R are vector quantities of force
and displacement, and . is a vector dot product. Thus a work done by a
variable force acting in 3 dimensions is equal to I[FxRx + FyRy +
FzRz]. In other words, a force acting in the y direction only affects
the displacement in that same direction.

Work can also be expressed as a change in kinetic energy, Kf - Ki, or
W = 1/2mVf^2 - 1/2mVi^2.

The Work Function can be a very useful tool in analyzing and
quantifying the amount of work done by a given process or machine, and
has served engineers well for over a century. However, serious
problems arise when its use is extended beyond its design intent. Its
original purpose was as an engineering tool to compute how much work
is done when a force moves an object across a distance, which also
corresponds to how much energy was expended, since an equivalent
amount of fuel must be used in the process. Th is all seems quite\0
reasonable; however, over the years the Work Function has undergone a
subtle and surprisingly deceptive transformation into a "work
detector," whose result is taken as the final word on how much energy
was used in any given process.

Of course! Energy is DEFINED in terms of Work. Energy is the ability
to do work; consequently there is an intrinsic relationship between
the two quantities which much always exist. Without work, there is no
energy; without energy, there is no work.

This is such a subtle yet powerfully
deceptive transformation that it needs to be clarified with an
example:

Consider the situation where an object is simply too heavy to move,
despite all efforts to push it. There is no question that one could
expend a tremendous amount of effort and energy attempting to move the
object, yet never actually manage to move it an inch.

Effort is not energy in a Physics sense.

However, applying the Work Function as a "work detector," it calculates that
zero work was done. A tremendous amount of force was applied to the
object, but the object was nevertheless moved zero distance, and since
work equals force times distance, t he Work Function calculates that
zero work was done.

Right. And it makes sense, even if you consider work in a non-physical
sense. If you are trying to push an object, but aren't getting
anywhere, you aren't doing work (actually, in all likelihood a small
amount of work would be done by muscular movements internal to the
person). You're just pushing a wall. Do you think anyone would get
paid for pushing against a block that's too heavy to move?

If this were further taken to mean no energy was
expended, we would have a worker who is exhausted from attempting to
move such a heavy object, yet who is considered to have expended no
energy. Of course, this is obviously a serious misapplication of the
Work Function that brings nonsensical results, yet this is precisely
the logic used to justify the gravitational force, as we will see
shortly.

Change work to banana. All the Physics still applies, but his argument
no longer has any logical merit because the work he is talking about
above is not banana. Playing semantics with words and definitions
isn't logic.

The Work Function is only designed to help organize and quan
tify situations where a force clearly moves an object through a
distance, but is not meant to function as a generic "work detector"
that further tells us whether any energy was expended by an arbitrary
event.

Not with the present definition of energy...

Now, to complete the improper transformation of the original Work
Function from a simple engineering tool to a generic "work detector,"
it has evolved from its original form of W = F d to its current form W
= F d cos(theta). The additional term here, cos(theta), is the cosine
function, which transforms any angle from 0 to 360 degrees into a
value that lies between -1 and 1. Therefore, the original result from
the Work Function calculation is now multiplied by a value between -1
and 1 that corresponds to the angle (theta) between the direction the
object is pushed and the direction it actually ends up moving. If the
object simply moves in the direction it is pushed, which is the usual
case, this zero-degree angle between force and movement results in the
work calculation being multiplied by 1, since cos(0) = 1. This means
nothing changes from the original Work Function when force and
movement are in the same direction. However, if the object somehow
managed to move completely sid eways despite a forward push b eing
applied to it, this 90-degree angle between force and movement means
the resulting work calculation must be multiplied by 0, since cos(90)
= 0. Therefore, the work done in this scenario would be calculated as
zero. This modified Work Function, W = F d cos(theta), is said to
calculate the amount of useful work, since only the amount of work
done in the direction of the force is considered to be desired and
therefore useful work.

Again, this is a grade school definition of work, but its roughly
correct.

This is how the Work Function is taught today, which now sets the
stage to explain why the previously mentioned violations of the laws
of physics by Newton's gravitational force cause no particular concern
for most scientists. First, the issue of objects being held to the
planet's surface by a force that has no known power source is easily
dismissed by noting that an object held down by the gravitational
force does not move. If the object doesn't move, there is no work done
according to the Work Function, a nd therefore no energy is expended
and no energy source is required to explain how things are forcefully
held down by gravity. The serious law violation

Which law? It doesn't violate conservation of energy, because
conservation of energy is defined in terms of energy which is defined
in terms of work.

that results from
gravity forcefully holding objects to the planet's surface with no
known power source suddenly vanishes. This is the same flawed logic
used earlier, which left our worker exhausted after trying
unsuccessfully to move a heavy object despite having apparently
expended no energy. Yet, of course, both the work er and gravity must
expend energy in these examples.

Not with the present definition of energy. Energy is defined in terms
of work. None of this is relavent, since he isn't using his terms
properly. In any event, energy isn't "expended."

In similar fashion, the modified Work Function is used to justify the
tremendous energy required to hold our moon in orbit, again with no
known power source.

I don't ever recall hearing that Physics required things to have power
sources. Power is just a rate of change of energy.

Since the moon is actually traveling past the
Earth in a straight line but is continuously constrained in its orbit
by the gravitational force pulling it down toward the planet, this is
considered to be a situation much like an object that slides sideways
when a force pushes forward. The angle between the direction of the
moon's travel past the Earth a nd the direction of gravity pulling
down is the same 90-degree angle as in the earlier example of the
sideways-sliding object, meaning the Work Function must be multiplied
by 0. This gives the result that the gravitational force does zero
useful work and thus expends no energy in constantly constraining our
moon from flying off into space, removing the need to look for a power
source.

Actually, gravity probably does some work on the moon. The moon's
orbit is ellipical (as are all heavenly bodies) not circular (though
very close), so at certain points the object would be speeding up or
slowing down. However, work is an integral, so while at places the
object will be speeding up, in one complete revolution, an equal and
opposite negative work will also be done. In a given interval less
than an entire revolution, work would be done however. Again, I ask
which law of physics states that things need power sources.

Once again, a serious violation of the laws of physics
suddenly vanishes.

Which law?

Yet, a person who must constantly struggle to constrain a heavy,
speeding rock into traveling in a circle on the end of
a rope might disagree with this zero-work, zero-energy conclusion for
orbits.

Newton's third law would be what they are experiencing. They are
applying a force to cause the rope to spin, equal to V^2/R. The rope
is applying an equal and opposite force on their arm. Neither force is
doing work, however.

Finally, there is the situation where objects fall straight down.
Surely the Work Function would have to give a non-zero result here
since the direction of movement is in the same direction as the
downward pull of gravity. Indeed, the Work Function does calculate a
positive amount of work, which should mean energy has been expended by
the gravitational force, requiring an energy source be identified
within the Earth that is drained by an equivalent amount if this event
is to remain within our laws of physics.

Gibberish. Laws of physics say nothing about energy sources.

Since there is no such
energy source known to science, we must either admit that Newtonian
gravity cannot be scientifically explained, or arrive at some further
justification.

Newtonian gravity isn't perfect, General Relativity expands on it in
many ways. However, in the cases we are dealing with, classical
Physics explains the results consistently, accurately, and
effortlessly. The problem here is that the author has no concept of
how Physics works.

Indeed, an additional logical abstraction has been
invented for this type of situation to avoid the search for a power
source, which runs along the following lines:

What is this obsession with power sources? If anything, a power source
for a force like gravity would be more likely to violate conservation
of enegy than anything else.

In order for an object to drop from a given height, work had to be
done earlier against the pull of gravity to lift it to that height in
the first place. Since this upward lifting could be considered
negative work from the perspective of the downward-pulling
gravitational force, the positive work done by gravity when the object
falls could be considered to cancel with this earlier negative work.
This zero overall work then corresponds to zero net energy
expenditure, and thus we are once again saved from looking for the
energy source for gravity. Of course, this abstract exercise overlooks

Energy is an abstraction. It has no "source." It is an intrinsic
property of objects that are moving or want to be moving (eg are
constrained from doing so)

the physical reality that the falling object must still somehow drain
gravity's unknown energy source, and no known theory states how
lifting the object earlier would have charged this power source in
order to compensate for this later energy drain. Further, this
explanation implies the existence of such a mysterious and currently
unknown power source, which is the very issue it was invented to
avoid.

Again with the power sources. Take a first year Physics course.

So the "energy balance" in this logic is a meaningless

Energy balance means nothing.

abstraction that merely diverts attention from the physical law
violation that gravity somehow pulls objects to the ground while
expending no energy.

My heavens, the last 200+ years of scientists have worked really hard
to cover up this conspiracy. Amazing how many inventions were based
upon these flawed principles, but still manage to function. It's as if
no law is being violated at all...

Once again, the reason this logical conundrum has arisen in our
science is due to the deceptively subtle, yet powerful difference
between using the Work Function to describe clear situations where a
force moves an object through a distance, and using it as a generic
"work detector" in all situations. In fact, in the case of Newtonian
gravity, not only has the Work Function been misused as a "work
detector" but also as a "force authenticator." That is, not only is it
used to alleviate concerns about law viol ations by calculating that
the gravitational force does no work and expends no energy, but it is
put to this use in order to help justify or authenticate the very
existence of the gravitational force. After all, any theory involving
a force that violates our most fundamental laws of physics is

Which laws?

unacceptable as anything other than a purely abstract model of a still
unexplained physical process. It cannot literally be taken as the
proper physical explanation since this is precisely why our laws of
physics exist - as a litmus test or sanity test for such proposed new
ideas. The Work Function is simply intended to describe the work done
by known forces as they move objects, but here it is being used in an
attempt to authenticate the existence of the previously unknown force
introduced by Newton - a force that is otherwise scientifically
unexplainable.

Newton invented the concept of forces (more or less). He introduced a
lot of "unknown forces" such as normal forces, friction, gravity, etc.
The work function, however, was developed AFTER Newton's Laws by
Joule, almost 100 years after. That means that it could not have been
a justification for gravity, because it was not invented.

This misapplication of the Work Function essentially
creates a loophole in the Law of Conservation Of Energy, corrupting
the original purpose of both of these concep ts.

Conservation of Energy is defined in terms of Energy which is defined
in terms of work. (My, I seem to be repeating myself)

This Work Function discussion shows the type of logic that keeps most
physicists from acknowledging that Newton's gravitational force
violates the Law of Conservation Of Energy. However, once the flawed
Work Function explanation is exposed and removed, there are simply no
excuses remaining for this unexplained force. The rationalists of
Descartes' time had good reason to see Newton's gravitational force as
a return to the magical thinking of the past. Perhaps in Newton's day
it was reasonable to expect that future generations of scientists
would find a scientifically viable explanation or even a true power
source for the gravitational force. However, three centuries later we
have found no answers, instead opting to turn a blind eye to its
violations of our laws of physics by installing a flawed logical
justification for this force into our science. Regardless of its
original purpose, the Work Function has now been incorporated into our
science in such a manner that most scient ists clearly believe a
zero-value result from its calculation always means there has been no
expenditure of energy. This has led to the logical oversight that
gravity need not expend energy to hold objects to the planet, since
there is no motion involved, nor to constrain the moon from speeding
away, since the pull of gravity is perpendicular to the moon's orbit.

There is one simple problem. The work function does exactly what it is
supposed to. It's predictions are very reliable, very accurate, and
very easy to verify.

This state of affairs exists because we very much want to believe in
this force. For centuries it has been the only reasonable explanation
we have had, and in fact, it is still the only compelling and
intuitive physical explanation for falling objects and orbiting moons
even today. The official position in science today does state that
another viable explanation exists in Einstein's General Relativity

GR is not "another explanation" for gravity. It is an expansion on the
basic rules of the gravitational force. Unless I am very much
mistaken, GR predictions coincide with those predicted by Newtonian
mechanics for things like planetary motion.

Theory of a "warped space-time continuum," but this does not address
our everyday experiences and seems far off the mark compared with
Newton's intuitive gravitational force. And indeed, as shown in the
following chapter where the new principle is introduced, gravity can
be explained in a simple, intuitive, and scientifically viable manner
- but without appealing to either an unexplained force or an abstract
and largely incomprehensible "warping of space-time."

I would be interested in seeing how this "scientifically viable"
manner corresponds to the evidence.

--------------
cinquirer note:

The author above also attacks the laws of gravitation. But let's focus
on the work aspect first. His argument being that not only moving
object from position ot another requires work but also steady position
such as a man lifting a 10,000 ton car. Even if no distance is made,
he exerts work. Use his words above when arguing point by point.

c

In short, as I've stated in several places above, "The Final Theory"
is not a Physics book, nor is Mark McCutcheon an authority on even the
most trivial elements of physical law. He plays with definitions, uses
faulty logic, twists the facts, and invents concepts (power source,
etc.) that have no physical significance in order to justify his
claims.

He's a crackpot.

A.

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...

Gravity doesn't have muscle fibers. It's as simple as that. This is a
fine example of why argument by analogy is a logical fallacy. You'll see
the crackpots and woo-woos doing a lot of argument by analogy. Learn to
spot it, learn to recognize when and why a conclusion doesn't follow from
the argument.

When you strain against an object too heavy to lift, sure enough, no
matter how much effort was put into it, no work was done on the object.
If it were, it would have gained potential energy, or frictional heat
would have been generated.

The person doing the pushing has neurons firing, muscle fibers twitching
with actin and myosin sliding across each other, ATP used up to fuel the
effort. Work is certainly done internally, hidden by skin. But still no
work done on the object. Momentum is still conserved, energy is still
conserved because the wasted effort creates heat, entropy marches
inexorably on. There's no law of conservation of effort, and there's no
law that says the work done on an object is equal to the work done by the
person pushing the object.

Gravity doesn't use up energy on an immobile object because gravity
doesn't have muscle fibers, so making an analogy between the energy
expended by muscles and the energy expended by gravity is fallacious.

To head off the next round of questions, gravity doesn't have an internal
combustion engine, either.


He is talking about orbits of planets. I think let me mention the
following to put what he stated in perspective. The following text
came before the above text was shared. Anyway. This author gives out
the first chapter. His web site is http://www.thefinaltheory.com/

"- 1 -

Investigating
Gravity

The Theory of Gravity

Gravity as One of Four Basic Forces in Nature

Gravity is one of the most fundamental and familiar forces of nature.
As such, before discussing gravity in particular, it is important to
clarify what the forces of nature are considered to be and how they
relate both to Standard Theory and to our ultimate quest for
understanding. Although Standard Theory is a composite of many
sub-theories, some of which were listed earlier in Figure 1-1, most
scientists believe the search for the Theory of Everything is a quest
to understand and unify what are currently considered to be the four
separate fundamental forces of natu

Gravity - the familiar attraction between all matter, first described
by Isaac Newton.

Electromagnetism - the closely related phenomena of electricity and
magnetism, as well as electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves
and light.

Strong Nuclear Force - a powerful, short-range force thought to be
holding atomic nuclei together. Atomic nuclei have many positively
charged protons in close proximity, which should strongly repel each
other and cause the nucleus to fly apart according to the theory of
Electric Charge. Therefore, the concept of an attracting Strong
Nuclear Force between protons in the nucleus was introduced to explain
how the nucleus is held together in apparent violation of Electric
Charge Theory.

Weak Nuclear Force - another nuclear force, considered to be much
weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force. Phenomena such as the random
decay of populations of subatomic particles (i.e. radioactivity) were
difficult to explain until the concept of this additional nuclear
force was introduced.

It is currently believed that these are the four fundamental forces in
nature, and that, in essence, they are merely different manifestations
of one single underlying force or principle that has so far eluded
science. To discover this underlying force or principle would be to
arrive at the Theory of Everything since, at a glance, it would show
the single underlying cause for every observation, belief, and theory
in science today. Such a unified understanding is expected to\0
transform the patchwork of separat e abstract theories in Standard
Theory into a much simpler, coherent whole that shows a true physical
explanation for everything, sparking a scientific revolution.

The new theory discussed throughout these chapters suggests that while
this vision is the proper intuition, there are several reasons why
success has eluded us so far. First, since we obviously lack the
deeper understanding that we are seeking, we cannot be certain we have
properly identified the fundamental forces of nature. If, for example,
our theory of Electric Charge is an imperfect model of the true
underlying principle behind many of our observations, then our current
model of proton behavior as posi tively charged particles that always
repel each other may not be an accurate description of the nucleus of
an atom. Instead, it may be perfectly natural for protons to cluster
together when in the nucleus of an atom, according to an undiscovered
principle in nature that may have been misunderstood and represented
as a "positive electric charge" upon protons. That is, in many
situations protons may behave as if they literally possess our concept
of a "positive charge," but th is behavior could also arise from a
very different principle - one that causes them to naturally cluster
together when in an atomic nucleus. In that case, the concept of a
"Strong Nuclear Force" keeping the nucleus from flying apart would be
a completely unnecessary fabrication, and our attempts to find a
unifying theory would be based in part on a force that doesn't even
exist. Our current goal of unifying these four forces may be based on
such flawed assumptions from the st art.

Secondly, much of our current and largely mathematical approach to
finding a unifying theory may be straying from the original spirit and
purpose of the quest. The goal of a new and deep physical
understanding of our universe may be in danger of merely becoming an
exercise in mathematical manipulation of our current equations. Since
arrival at this deep physical understanding is expected to yield a
common mathematical framework for all the forces of nature, it is
often assumed that if we simply pursue this mathematical end result
directly - using our current models - we will achieve this deeper
understanding. However, this approach may be unsound since it assumes
we have correctly identified the fundamental forces of nature and
simply need to rearrange our mathematical models. Yet, if this turns
out to be an incorrect assumption, then such an approach would only
achieve a largely meaningless mathematical link between flawed models
of the physical world. This approac h also risks trivializing our
search for dee per physical understanding into an attempt to achieve a
mere mathematical goal, bringing no deeper meaning. We may expect
mathematically unified models to emerge once we achieve a deep
physical understanding of our universe, but this does not necessarily
mean this deep physical understanding will emerge by mathematically
unifying our current models. It is possible that this approach may
provide some useful insights, but it may also result in little more
than contrived mathematical relationshi ps between esse ntially the
same equations modeling the same limited physical understanding we
have today.

For the reasons mentioned above, the discussions of this new "theory
of everything" in the coming chapters do not strictly follow the
format of a mathematical unification of the "four fundamental forces"
in nature. In fact, there is very little math and only loose
references to these forces amidst a broad and rich discussion of
science in clear physical and common-sense terms. The discussions do,
however, begin with the first of these forces - gravity - showing the
numerous problems with our current gravita tional beliefs, and leading
to an introduction of the new unifying principle behind a new theory
of gravity that resolves these problems. Once this new principle is
established, it does indeed ripple through the rest of Standard Theory
in the chapters that follow, not only redefining our concept of the
"four fundamental forces," but redefining the complete patchwork of
theories in science today in clear physical terms.

The Trouble with Gravity

Newton's Theory of Gravity is undoubtedly one of the most universally
recognized and accepted theories in all of science. It has become so
deeply ingrained in our thinking and our science over the centuries
that this theory has largely become synonymous with the very
phenomenon of gravity itself. It is almost inconceivable today to
separate our everyday experience of gravity from Newton's proposal of
an attracting force emanating from all matter; yet, as shown in the
following discussions, Newton's theory a ctually contains many
unexplained mysteries and scientifically impossible claims. Such
problems should prevent any new theory from becoming widely accepted
as fact, leaving it only with the status of a proposal or hypothesis;
however, the compelling nature of Newton's proposal combined with the
lack of a more viable theory has meant that it has largely escaped
such scrutiny.

? Newton's theory of gravity does not explain why objects attract one
another; it simply models this observation.

? There is no known power source supporting the gravitational field
that Newton claims to be emanating from our planet and from all
objects.

? Despite the ongoing energy expended by Earth's gravity to hold
objects down and the moon in orbit, this energy never diminishes in
strength or drains a power source - in violation of one of our most
fundamental laws of physics: the Law of Conservation of Energy.

? These mysteries and violations are overlooked today because of a
flawed explanation that arises from the improper use of an equation
known as the Work Function.

? Every effect explained by Newton's theory of gravity today is
accurately modeled by non-gravitational equations that existed even
before Newton.

? Newton's gravitational force is actually an entirely redundant and
superfluous concept providing no additional usefulness and having no
proven existence in nature or scientific support.


Newton's Error - Violations of the Laws of Physics


Gravity is one of the most familiar and important phenomena in nature.
Although it has always been known that something obviously causes
objects to fall, it wasn't until Isaac Newton (1642-1727) that we had
a clear model of this something as an attracting force emanating from
all matter in a manner that is precisely describable via an equation.
Newton also claimed that this very same attracting force was
responsible for the orbits observed in the heavens, making our
universe as comprehensible and predictabl e as a clockwork mechanism
for the first time in history. This was such a monumental achievement
in Newton's day that it set the stage for other models of forces
described by equations in similar fashion ever since.

Although today we commonly speak of such forces, it is often
overlooked that modern science still has little or no solid phsical
explanation for many of them. The legacy of theories and equations
that compose our body of scientific knowledge today works rather well,
making it easy to forget that these are largely abstract models - not
solid physical explanations. Newton was the first in a long line of
scientists to produce explanatory models for various classes of
phenomena, which can be very compelling an d useful but cannot be
fully explained in physically meaningful and scientifically viable
ways even today.

In fact, there was a strong undercurrent of resistance to Newton's
gravitational force concept when it was introduced, since it seemed to
represent an almost magical force at a time when solid rational
thought was finally beginning to prevail over the mysticism and
superstition of ages past. Today, largely as a result of the
scientific acceptance of Newtonian gravity, we have grown accustomed
to the idea of unexplained forces reaching across empty space to
affect objects at a distance in some equally unexpl ained manner. We
have even grown accustomed to the fact that many of these forces
(gravity, magnetism, electric charge, etc.) have no known power
source. However, in Newton's time such concepts were only known in
stories of myth and magic. To philosophers such as René Descartes
(1596-1650), it had been a long journey for society to shake off the
mysticism of the past and finally enter a welcome era of solid
rational thought and debate.

In fact, Descartes himself had an earlier and widely accepted physical
theory of orbits that claimed the planets were dragged along by an
invisible material, known as the ether, which presumably swirled
around the sun. Although this theory had its own problems, in this era
of rationality many considered Newton's idea of a completely
unexplained force acting across empty space to be an unwelcome return
to the magical thinking of the past. Newton realized this fundamental
problem with his theory of a gravitat ional force, and never claimed
to be able to explain it. However, the compelling and rational nature
of his accompanying mathematical model soon solidified the force of
gravity as a physical reality and a scientific fact that continued to
grow in acceptance for centuries, being the predominant theory even
today.

It is important to note, however, that although it is generally
recognized that Newton's gravitational force lacks a proper physical
explanation, the much larger issue - that it violates the laws of
physics - has gone almost entirely unnoticed. This point will be
clearly illustrated, beginning with a reminder of one of the most
fundamental and unbreakable laws of physics - The Law of Conservation
Of Energy.


(Law) The Law of Conservation Of Energy Energy can neither be
created nor destroyed, but merely changes from one form to another.



This is one of the most fundamental and unbreakable laws of physics,
serving as a test for the scientific validity of any proposed theory
or invention. If a proposed theory or device either uses or produces
energy it must draw on an existing power source to do so, merely
transforming energy from one form to another in the process. For
example, the stored chemical energy in gasoline changes to kinetic
energy as it is "used up" to accelerate a vehicle. In accordance with
the Law of Conservation Of Energy, the chemical energy in the gasoline
does not actually vanish, but is converted into another form of energy
- the kinetic energy of the vehicle's motion. Similarly, the kinetic
energy of the vehicle did not simply appear out of nowhere, but was
converted from an existing chemical energy source - the gasoline.
Although we commonly refer to power sources being drained, what we
actually mean by this is that the energy from a given power source is
converted into another form o f energy elsewhere. This is the law tha
t tells us perpetual motion machines are impossible since they are
considered to be devices capable of producing or expending energy
continually without draining a power source. There is no such thing as
"energy for free" in our science. Free energy devices violate our most
elementary laws of physics.

Also noteworthy, once it was realized that energy (denoted by the
symbol E) and matter (denoted by m for mass) can change form back and
forth, modeled by Einstein's famous equation E=mc2, the Law of
Conservation Of Energy included matter as one of the energy forms. The
explosion of an atomic bomb, for example, does not actually create the
enormous amount of energy in its explosion, but is considered to
release it by converting its original core of matter into energy.
Therefore, in all things the Law of Cons ervation Of Energy must be
upheld.


(Violation) Newton's Gravitational Force Violates the Law of
Conservation Of Energy


There is nothing in Newton's gravitational theory stating that the
force of gravity weakens as it expends energy. The mass of the moon
exceeds one percent of the Earth's mass and would fly past the Earth
and off into space if not forcefully constrained by gravity to circle
the Earth, according to Newton's theory. Yet this tremendous continual
effort expended by Earth's gravitational field is not considered to
diminish the strength of this field at all - millennium after
millennium.

Returning to the vehicle analogy, when a car increases its speed it is
said to accelerate, which is only possible by drawing on a power
source, converting its energy into the car's increased speed or
kinetic energy. Turning the vehicle in a circle is another form of
speed change or acceleration, involving a constant, forced change from
its natural straight-line direction of travel. This continuously
forced circular direction change is known as centripetal acceleration,
and also requires energy to maintain t his constant diversion from the
natural straight-line path of objects. Likewise, the natural forward
momentum of the moon would carry it away from our planet and off into
space in a straight line if gravity were not forcefully pulling it
into a circular orbit moment by moment. Yet this tremendous energy
expenditure is not balanced by a conversion of energy from any known
power source. This is a creation of energy from nothing - energy for
free - rather than a conversio n of energy from one form (a power sour
ce) to another (circular centripetal acceleration). This situation is
a clear violation the Law of Conservation Of Energy.

Gravity also forcefully holds down all objects on the surface of our
planet, which would drift off into space otherwise. In fact, the pull
of gravity holds our very planet together, creating tremendous
crushing forces within the center of the Earth. This has been going on
for well over 4 billion years, yet no known power source is being
drawn upon to support this tremendous ongoing energy expenditure.

This mystery is further deepened when we consider that not only is
there no drainage of energy from a power source to support the effort
expended by the gravitational force, but in fact there is no power
source at all. A gravitational force is considered to emanate from
within each atom of matter, adding up to the tremendous overall
gravity of the Earth, yet we still have no explanation for its endless
power source despite having created detailed atomic theories - and
even having split the atom. This is a t extbook case of an impossible
free energy device.

This discussion naturally raises the question of why such a
fundamental violation of our laws of physics doesn't generate intense
scientific concern, curiosity, and investigation. Why is Newtonian
gravitational theory simply accepted and its mysteries left
uninvestigated? This question brings a curious mixture of responses.
One answer is that science has responded to these concerns by
accepting a very different explanation of gravity proposed by Albert
Einstein (1879-1955) known as General Relativity Theory , which will
be explored further in later discussions. However, Einstein's theory
offers no solutions to these problems either. In fact, these
violations are not generally acknowledged as the reasons for accepting
Einstein's alternate theory of gravity, nor are these violations even
generally acknowledged at all today.

Perhaps more curious is the fact that even though General Relativity
Theory is generally accepted in academic circles as the proper
description of gravity, it is not widely taught or used by engineers
and physicists - usually being reserved for optional or advanced
study, and mostly for rare and exotic applications. Most university
science and engineering graduates know little or nothing about
Einstein's theory of gravity despite the fact that it is presumably
the true explanation of this phenomenon, and it is not generally used
in our space programs. Newton's concept of gravity is by far the main
gravitational theory used in space missions today, despite the fact
that there was apparently good reason to accept Einstein's quite
different theory of gravity into our science. All of this further
deepens the mystery surrounding gravitational theory today, so let's
take a closer look at these issues starting with the currently
unrecognized law violations in Newtonian theory.


The serious law violations and mysteries found in Newtonian
gravitational theory have just been clearly pointed out in reference
to one of our most fundamental laws of physics, yet science does not
generally recognize these violations. How can this be? Why might those
who are the most highly educated in physics be the least likely to
acknowledge these mysteries and violations? The answer is that when
Newton's theory of gravity is taught, it is usually accompanied by
further instruction on how to resolve the se mysteries and violations
by referring to an equation called the Work Function. Although it will
be shown shortly that this is a fatally flawed explanation attempt
that gives a false sense of closure on these issues, this fact is
overlooked by our educational institutions today since there is no
other explanation for Newtonian gravity. Therefore, all properly
educated scientists have firmly learned the standard (though
erroneous) logical techniques that have been taught for generations to
provide ready an swers for the mysteries and violations of Newtonian
gravity. This leads to the curious fact that, on the one hand, science
found it necessary to search for and accept such alternate
gravitational theories as Einstein's General Relativity Theory, while
on the other hand, Newtonian gravity is still widely accepted by
scientists. This makes the Work Function an important pivotal element
in this whole mystery, and therefore worthy of a closer look."

---------------------

The continuation of this is in the "work function" stuff shared in
earlier thread. One can email this author Mark Mccutcheon to get the
whole of first chapter. His web site (http://www.thefinaltheory.com)
also mentions many things so try to check it out too. Let's
scrutinize his stuff and see how he went wrong in his analysis
of everything (if that's the case). He can learn as well as others.

c

To continue with the above. Found out that the following website from a
book supplier has his entire chapter 1

http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf

Check it out and get ready debunkers (let's see how you can
debunk each point of it. He and many others can learn if that's
the case or his challengers...)

c


(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
cinquirer wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

In fact, the electric charge force between the protons
and electrons in our atomic models holds atoms together without
draining any known power source or weakening in strength - often for
billions of years.

Why should a power source be necessary for this??? Energy is only
required if one wants to do work, and work is only done if one moves
something over a distance. Therefore simply holding something together
requires no energy - because nothing is moved there.

Ok. Let me focus on this particular paragraph first as it is the core
of his other comments.

He stated (below after it is the complete text where it is acquired.
He emailed the first chapter of his book to people):

"Consider the situation where an object is simply too heavy to move,
despite all efforts to push it. There is no question that one could
expend a tremendous amount of effort and energy attempting to move the
object, yet never actually manage to move it an inch. However,
applying the Work Function as a "work detector," it calculates that
zero work was done. A tremendous amount of force was applied to the
object, but the object was nevertheless moved zero distance, and since
work equals force times distance, the Work Function calculates that
zero work was done. If this were further taken to mean no energy was
expended, we would have a worker who is exhausted from attempting to
move such a heavy object, yet who is considered to have expended no
energy. Of course, this is obviously a serious misapplication of the
Work Function that brings nonsensical results, yet this is precisely
the logic used to justify the gravitational force, as we will see
shortly. The Work Function is only designed to help organize and qua
ntify situations where a force clearly moves an object through a
distance, but is not meant to function as a generic "work detector"
that further tells us whether any energy was expended by an arbitrary
event."

Gravity doesn't have muscle fibers. It's as simple as that. This is a
fine example of why argument by analogy is a logical fallacy. You'll see
the crackpots and woo-woos doing a lot of argument by analogy. Learn to
spot it, learn to recognize when and why a conclusion doesn't follow from
the argument.

When you strain against an object too heavy to lift, sure enough, no
matter how much effort was put into it, no work was done on the object.
If it were, it would have gained potential energy, or frictional heat
would have been generated.

The person doing the pushing has neurons firing, muscle fibers twitching
with actin and myosin sliding across each other, ATP used up to fuel the
effort. Work is certainly done internally, hidden by skin. But still no
work done on the object. Momentum is still conserved, energy is still
conserved because the wasted effort creates heat, entropy marches
inexorably on. There's no law of conservation of effort, and there's no
law that says the work done on an object is equal to the work done by the
person pushing the object.

Gravity doesn't use up energy on an immobile object because gravity
doesn't have muscle fibers, so making an analogy between the energy
expended by muscles and the energy expended by gravity is fallacious.

To head off the next round of questions, gravity doesn't have an internal
combustion engine, either.

(cinquirer) wrote in message om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

In fact, the electric charge force between the protons
and electrons in our atomic models holds atoms together without
draining any known power source or weakening in strength - often for
billions of years.

Why should a power source be necessary for this??? Energy is only
required if one wants to do work, and work is only done if one moves
something over a distance. Therefore simply holding something together
requires no energy - because nothing is moved there.

Ok. Let me focus on this particular paragraph first as it is the core
of his other comments.

He stated (below after it is the complete text where it is acquired.
He emailed the first chapter of his book to people):

The penny drops. You're talking about McCutcheon's "final theory"
book.

It struck me as being rather like the X-Files. Every episode
(chapter?) builds to a climax promising revelation in the next. It's
never delivered.

This book could only convince a reader who knows even less physics
than its author.

[snip hundreds of lines of excessively verbose strawman argument based
on a total lack of understanding of basic mechanics. Poor man doesn't
appear to understand the dot product.]

--------------
cinquirer note:

The author above also attacks the laws of gravitation. But let's focus
on the work aspect first. His argument being that not only moving
object from position ot another requires work but also steady position
such as a man lifting a 10,000 ton car. Even if no distance is made,
he exerts work. Use his words above when arguing point by point.

Is a crane holding a car suspended from the ground doing work?

cinquirer wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

In fact, the electric charge force between the protons
and electrons in our atomic models holds atoms together without
draining any known power source or weakening in strength - often for
billions of years.

Why should a power source be necessary for this??? Energy is only
required if one wants to do work, and work is only done if one moves
something over a distance. Therefore simply holding something together
requires no energy - because nothing is moved there.

Ok. Let me focus on this particular paragraph first as it is the core
of his other comments.

He stated (below after it is the complete text where it is acquired.
He emailed the first chapter of his book to people):

"Consider the situation where an object is simply too heavy to move,
despite all efforts to push it.

Sorry, this simply makes no sense. If the force is great enough, any
object
can be moved.


There is no question that one could
expend a tremendous amount of effort and energy attempting to move the
object, yet never actually manage to move it an inch.

If you use a machine to try to move this object, no work at all is
spent.
Only if *humans* try to move it with their muscular power, work is
spent.
That's because human muscles aren't fixed - they constantly move around
a bit, change between "pull" and "not pull" (sorry if this seems vague
- IANA biologist). Only because of this feature of human anatomy, work
has to be used.


However,
applying the Work Function as a "work detector," it calculates that
zero work was done.

And that's right, as long as you don't consider what's going on in the
muscles, or if you don't use muscles at all.


A tremendous amount of force was applied to the
object, but the object was nevertheless moved zero distance, and since
work equals force times distance, the Work Function calculates that
zero work was done.

Right.


If this were further taken to mean no energy was
expended, we would have a worker who is exhausted from attempting to
move such a heavy object, yet who is considered to have expended no
energy.

Essentially right. What the author is missing is the stuff about the
working of human muscles. For example, shells have other muscles - if
humans would use such muscles, they wouldn't get exhausted by trying
to push the object!


Of course, this is obviously a serious misapplication of the
Work Function that brings nonsensical results,

Right. Garbage in, garbage out.


yet this is precisely
the logic used to justify the gravitational force, as we will see
shortly.

The author displays only his own ignorance here.


The Work Function is only designed to help organize and qua
ntify situations where a force clearly moves an object through a
distance, but is not meant to function as a generic "work detector"
that further tells us whether any energy was expended by an arbitrary
event.

Complete nonsense.


[snip lots - I don't think the rest is worth commenting on, after this
simple elementary error]


cinquirer note:

The author above also attacks the laws of gravitation. But let's focus
on the work aspect first. His argument being that not only moving
object from position ot another requires work but also steady position
such as a man lifting a 10,000 ton car. Even if no distance is made,
he exerts work. Use his words above when arguing point by point.

I hope my explanation satisfied you.

Again, if we had muscles like the ones in shells, no work would be
required
when one tries lifting a 10,000 ton car!


Bye,
Bjoern

cinquirer wrote:

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...

Gravity doesn't have muscle fibers. It's as simple as that. This is a
fine example of why argument by analogy is a logical fallacy. You'll see
the crackpots and woo-woos doing a lot of argument by analogy. Learn to
spot it, learn to recognize when and why a conclusion doesn't follow from
the argument.

When you strain against an object too heavy to lift, sure enough, no
matter how much effort was put into it, no work was done on the object.
If it were, it would have gained potential energy, or frictional heat
would have been generated.

The person doing the pushing has neurons firing, muscle fibers twitching
with actin and myosin sliding across each other, ATP used up to fuel the
effort. Work is certainly done internally, hidden by skin. But still no
work done on the object. Momentum is still conserved, energy is still
conserved because the wasted effort creates heat, entropy marches
inexorably on. There's no law of conservation of effort, and there's no
law that says the work done on an object is equal to the work done by the
person pushing the object.

Gravity doesn't use up energy on an immobile object because gravity
doesn't have muscle fibers, so making an analogy between the energy
expended by muscles and the energy expended by gravity is fallacious.

To head off the next round of questions, gravity doesn't have an internal
combustion engine, either.

Did you understand the explanation, cinquirer?


He is talking about orbits of planets. I think let me mention the
following to put what he stated in perspective. The following text
came before the above text was shared. Anyway. This author gives out
the first chapter. His web site is http://www.thefinaltheory.com/

"- 1 -

Investigating
Gravity

The Theory of Gravity

Gravity as One of Four Basic Forces in Nature

Gravity is one of the most fundamental and familiar forces of nature.
As such, before discussing gravity in particular, it is important to
clarify what the forces of nature are considered to be and how they
relate both to Standard Theory and to our ultimate quest for
understanding. Although Standard Theory is a composite of many
sub-theories, some of which were listed earlier in Figure 1-1, most
scientists believe the search for the Theory of Everything is a quest
to understand and unify what are currently considered to be the four
separate fundamental forces of natu

Gravity - the familiar attraction between all matter, first described
by Isaac Newton.

Well, today one should say "the attraction between all energies" or
"the forces caused by curved spacetime" or something like that.


Electromagnetism - the closely related phenomena of electricity and
magnetism, as well as electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves
and light.

Strong Nuclear Force - a powerful, short-range force thought to be
holding atomic nuclei together.

That's not a fundamental force, that's the residual force of the
strong (color) force between the quarks.


Atomic nuclei have many positively
charged protons in close proximity, which should strongly repel each
other

Well, they do. This can be seen from the Weizsaecker formula for
binding energies.


and cause the nucleus to fly apart according to the theory of
Electric Charge.

There is no "theory of Electric Charge".


Therefore, the concept of an attracting Strong
Nuclear Force between protons in the nucleus was introduced to explain
how the nucleus is held together in apparent violation of Electric
Charge Theory.

BTW, this theory makes predictions which are consistent with
experimental
results.


Weak Nuclear Force - another nuclear force,

And again wrong. The weak force doesn't act only in or on nuclei.


considered to be much
weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force. Phenomena such as the random
decay of populations of subatomic particles (i.e. radioactivity) were
difficult to explain until the concept of this additional nuclear
force was introduced.

It is currently believed that these are the four fundamental forces in
nature,

Wrong, see above. The strong nuclear force isn't believed to be
fundamental.


and that, in essence, they are merely different manifestations
of one single underlying force or principle that has so far eluded
science.

That's a hope, not a belief, I would say.


To discover this underlying force or principle would be to
arrive at the Theory of Everything since, at a glance, it would show
the single underlying cause for every observation, belief, and theory
in science today. Such a unified understanding is expected to
transform the patchwork of separat e abstract theories in Standard
Theory into a much simpler, coherent whole that shows a true physical
explanation for everything, sparking a scientific revolution.

The new theory discussed throughout these chapters suggests that while
this vision is the proper intuition, there are several reasons why
success has eluded us so far. First, since we obviously lack the
deeper understanding that we are seeking, we cannot be certain we have
properly identified the fundamental forces of nature.

Obviously right. But what he neglects to consider is that the Standard
Model
of particle physics is one of the best tested theories in physics ever,
so we can be quite confident that we have understood these forces quite
well.


If, for example,
our theory of Electric Charge is an imperfect model of the true
underlying principle behind many of our observations, then our current
model of proton behavior as posi tively charged particles that always
repel each other may not be an accurate description of the nucleus of
an atom. Instead, it may be perfectly natural for protons to cluster
together when in the nucleus of an atom, according to an undiscovered
principle in nature that may have been misunderstood and represented
as a "positive electric charge" upon protons. That is, in many
situations protons may behave as if they literally possess our concept
of a "positive charge," but this behavior could also arise from a
very different principle - one that causes them to naturally cluster
together when in an atomic nucleus.

Sorry, I don't understand what he tries to say here - that protons have
a property which we interpret as positive charge, but which is
nevertheless
responsible for holding protons together in the nucleus? This makes no
sense at all!


In that case, the concept of a
"Strong Nuclear Force" keeping the nucleus from flying apart would be
a completely unnecessary fabrication,

Err, and the idea that in the nucleus, the property which we interpret
as positive charge acts somehow to hold the protons together isn't a
"completely unnecessary fabrication"?

Essentially he says that at short distances, the electromagnetic force
acts completely different than at large distances. This is nonsense -
lots of experiments have investigated already how the electromagnetic
force acts at *very* short distances, much shorter than the diameter
of a nucleus, and nothing like this was found.


and our attempts to find a
unifying theory would be based in part on a force that doesn't even
exist. Our current goal of unifying these four forces may be based on
such flawed assumptions from the st art.

"may". BFD. Then why do the predictions of the SM agree so well with
experimental results?

[snip rest; sorry, it's a complete waste of time to read this drivel]



The continuation of this is in the "work function" stuff shared in
earlier thread. One can email this author Mark Mccutcheon to get the
whole of first chapter. His web site (http://www.thefinaltheory.com)
also mentions many things so try to check it out too. Let's
scrutinize his stuff and see how he went wrong in his analysis
of everything (if that's the case).

He went wrong at lots of places - for some, see above. If you would
learn
some elementary physics, you would see this yourself!


He can learn as well as others.

No. Crackpots are in general unteachable. (I'm speaking from experience)


Bye,
Bjoern

AaronB wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

[snip]

Well, then why don't you tell us where we can find this "great" stuff?


Bye,
Bjoern

I'm pretty sure the text is vebatum (sp?) from a work called "The
Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon. It's basically a work that tries to
re-write ALL of Physics since Newton's time, using *extremely* poor
logic, blatant violations of physical laws, and demonstrates a lack of
understanding of even the most fundamental physics concepts (eg. work
cannot equal force.displacement because if you push against a wall
without moving it, you are clearly still doing work)

There's a thread elsewhere regarding this book called "The Theory of
Everything."
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...NzSWiRVn-uw%40
giganews.com&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den
%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics.particle%26safe%
3Doff%26start%3D25
(I broke up the link so that the page wouldn't scroll horizontally, so
I'm not sure if clicking the link will actually get you there.)

You can read the first 25 pages of the book free, if you want, its
worth a laugh if you have some spare time
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/4/index.htm

The consensus is, from the other thread, that the author is basically
a crackpot who knows nothing about physics. I tend to concur.

Thanks for the links. Judging from the excerpts which cinquirer quoted
so
far, I've come to the same conclusions as you - complete crackpot who
doesn't even understand basic physics.

Now, how can we teach cinquirer how he can recognize crackpots, so that
he
doesn't keep running to sci.physics asking everyone to tell him what
the flaws in this and this web site are? (another problem is that, as
far
as I can see, cinquirer often doesn't understand the explanations why
the web sites are wrong - because he himself doesn't understand
elementary
physics...)


Bye,
Bjoern

In article ,
Y.Porat wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...
In article ,
cinquirer wrote:
The following are the questions being addressed by people who have
studied the Ruth-Bohr Atomic Model for years. They are not beginners.

They're idiots.

They are seeing some logical flaw in the Standard Model even when
studying it at many angles including Quantum Mechanics, etc. This

Doesn't look like they've gotten as far as the standard model.
-------------------
ok we are satisfied
Mr Hansen
do you see any problematic issues in the standard Model?!
if possibly the answer to my question is positive-
i might be greateful if you put on your finger on some of them

It does not yet incorporate neutrino masses. It's not hard to put
neutrino masses into it, but we need to know more about neutrinos, first.

It has a bunch of measured parameters. It would be nice to see them
coming from a more fundamental theory with fewer adjustable parameters.

It's not a Grand Unified Theory, and although there's no good reason right
now to say their should be one beyond electroweak, it would be nice to
have one.

It does not incorporate gravity. But quantum gravity might need something
a little more fundamental than a few extra terms added to the standard
model Lagrangian, so I think we can't say that's a problem with the
standard model per se.

Except for neutrino masses, it has more to do with what we want out of a
theory than about problematical data.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

(cinquirer) wrote in message om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

In fact, the electric charge force between the protons
and electrons in our atomic models holds atoms together without
draining any known power source or weakening in strength - often for
billions of years.

Why should a power source be necessary for this??? Energy is only
required if one wants to do work, and work is only done if one moves
something over a distance. Therefore simply holding something together
requires no energy - because nothing is moved there.

Ok. Let me focus on this particular paragraph first as it is the core
of his other comments.

He stated (below after it is the complete text where it is acquired.
He emailed the first chapter of his book to people):

"Consider the situation where an object is simply too heavy to move,
despite all efforts to push it. There is no question that one could
expend a tremendous amount of effort and energy attempting to move the
object, yet never actually manage to move it an inch. However,
applying the Work Function as a "work detector," it calculates that
zero work was done. A tremendous amount of force was applied to the
object, but the object was nevertheless moved zero distance, and since
work equals force times distance, the Work Function calculates that
zero work was done. If this were further taken to mean no energy was
expended, we would have a worker who is exhausted from attempting to
move such a heavy object, yet who is considered to have expended no
energy.

Incorrect. In any application of muscles, there is some
energy lost to non-useful avenues, e.g., heat. In the
case of straining on a heavy object, this loss is 100%.
Nobody would claim that no energy was expended, merely
that none of it went into work.

In the same way, I can use my muscles to hold a picture
up on the wall, and I will get tired. I will require input
of energy to maintain that position. I am burning that
energy in order to maintain that position. I am really
consuming energy, despite not doing any work.

But then I can take a nail and fix the picture on the wall
in the same position, and the nail can do the job with
no fuel requirement, and do it forever. The nail is
applying the same forces that I was to hold the picture
up against gravity. Do you think the nail is getting
tired, or is burning energy?

- Randy