Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?
It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.
What the F are you talking about?
Force = mass times acceleration. F=m*a.
Force = Electric field times charge. F=q*E.
Work = Energy = distance times force. W=F*d=m*a*d
Work = Energy = distance times force. W=F*d=q*E*d
Force acts on mass and charge. Or rather, force is an accounting of gravitational field or electric field acting on mass or charge.
Force doesn't act on energy.
Energy is the potential to do work. Energy is the potential of a force. Energy is an accounting of the potential for a force. Energy creates a force.
Kintetic Energy = .5*m*v^2. That is the potential to do work.
Gravitation potential energy = mass times gravitational acceleration times distance. PE=mgh
There is potential energy because a force acted on the mass over a distance, doing work, which is energy, against the gravitational force. It may also act against electric force.
Energy is the thing that causes force. Force doesn't act on energy, boob. There is no such thing as a fundamental force that makes energy move from one place to another.
Energy simply propogates. Pure energy, light, propogates at the speed of light, c. c^2=1/(ε0 * μ0). There is no force that acts on light to make is propogate. Light simply propogates because that is how the universe functions. (See Maxwell's equations. Changing electric field causes a magnetic field. Changing magnetic field causes and electric field.)
Light, from the sun, can be used to heat up water, making steam.
Alternatively, through the process of photosynthesis, light can be used by plants to create carbon chain molecules. Over time, those carbon chain molecules become oil. The oil contains potential energy, in the form of the molecular bonds.
Either way, a steam engine and an internal combustion engine can then be used to convert that energy, either in the form of kinetic energy of the water molecules or the kinetic energy of gasses in the combusion engine, into work through a mechanism of pistons and a crank shaft.
The force is from the kinetic energy of the molecules in the steam or the burning gasoline. The released energy creates a force. There is no force that moves the energy.
The expanding gasses do work on the piston, force times distance, turning the kinetic energy into work.
It is sad you don't know how things are measured and can't do the math.
"When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another"
That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make. The more you write, the clearer it becomes that you haven't a clue what your talking about.
There is no force that makes energy move, numbnuts. Energy creates the force. I don't know what your education level is, but clearly it isn't in physics or a branch of engineering that uses mechanics or electrodynamics. You certainly didn't get an education from an accedited university.
Force, work, energy, all have very specific meanings in terms of measuring reality and combining those measurements into mathematic equations that relate them.
Energy = Force times distance = Mass times gravitational accelerations times distance.
Energy = Force times distance = Charge times electric field times distance.
Force = Energy divided by distance.
No where in there can it be said "force actually makes energy move".
Can you read that? Force is a result of the energy. Energy is force divided by distance. The force acts on mass or charge causing it to move a distance. Energy is the potential for force. Energy is the potential for the movement of mass and charge.
"force actually makes energy move" is a completely non-sense statement.
Get an f'in clue.
Take the time to read, learn, memorize, and grasp the fundamental equations that I have presented above. They are a precise description of the things actually measured and how they are related. You can't just throw words together based on some fuzzy analogies you've created in your own mind.
Force can't actually make energy move. There is no measurement of pounds or newtons force that acts on light to make it move. It is non-sense.
When energy propogates, it propogates where ever it can. When energy is released from the vibrating modes of a CO2 molecule, it propogates in whatever direction it can and does so unpredictably. The only reasonable description is a statistical description of probabilities. Entropy counts the number of ways that energy may exist in a particular volume of substance. There is no "entropy force" there is no "entropy field". There is no "temperature field." There is no "energy force", a force acting on energy. Energy, heat, and temperature are not what your trying to make them out to be. Energy describes an action, or the potential for an action, not a physical thing like a rock or molecule.
A photon is a propogating disturbance in the electro-magnetic field. An electric field has the potential to do work. A photon is a little potential to do work. A photon is a little bit of propogating energy and momentum. There is no force that acts on a photon. A photon simply goes in a straight line until it hits another particle, in which case the particle absorbs the energy and momentum.
There can't be a "force actually makes energy move", a force that makes a photon move. A photon is the energy that creates the force that makes charge or mass move. When a photon is absorbed by a molecule, it causes the individual atoms that make up the molecule to move as the electric bonds, the electron, vibrates. As a photon is responsible for the force, then there cannot be a force that acts on a photon. That would be another photon. It's non-sense. Guess what.... Photons don't intereract. (well, not as far as your concerned, not in terms of the way your trying to make things, that is quantum mechanics and your not ready.)
Geez.
I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.
I don't see anything wrong with SSDD's sig line. He's advertising my knowledge of the topic, and broadcasting his own ignorance of it. And he doesn't understand that. So what's not to like?
"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth"
Yes, that would be an absolutely correct statement. We were not exactly sure, up until Einstein demonstrated that Brownian motion was fully accounted for by the statistical nature of moving molecules.
The second law of thermodynamics says that most natural processes are irreversible,
Boltzmann in particular resolved this contradiction by interpreting the second law as a new type of law: a statistical, not an absolute, law.
new "statistical mechanics.""
and the American physicist J. Willard Gibbs provided the first accounts of how exactly the second law of thermodynamics arises from the statistical behavior of myriads of randomly moving atoms,
correct, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics.
second law says that when shit hits the fan, it randomly spreads out everywhere.
Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth" is a perfectly sound statement. Why would anyone think otherwise?
SSDD
You have been shown often enough ........
Except that AWG is demonstrated scientifically as is CO2 absorbtion. You just fail to grasp the fundamental aspect of the science, choosing instead to believe in some unrecognized magical cause rather than what is demonstrated.
course, you are welcome, at any time, to provide demonstated scientific evidence of this other thing. Or that the temp record is demonstratably wrong.
One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously. When you can't make a point honestly, you lie. There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing. It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN, It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.
SSDD
You have been shown often enough ........
Someone needs to explain to SSDD how air conditioning works.
SSDD
You have been shown often enough ........
One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously. When you can't make a point honestly, you lie. There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing. It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN, It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.
One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously. When you can't make a point honestly, you lie. There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing. It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN, It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.
A cold broadcasting antenna sending energy to a warm receiving antenna.
I know about frequency and amplitude. The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics does not. It only knows about the probabilities of the kinetic behavior of large numbers of individual molecules or atoms.
One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously. When you can't make a point honestly, you lie. There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing. It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN, It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.
I know about frequency and amplitude. The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics does not. It only knows about the probabilities of the kinetic behavior of large numbers of individual molecules or atoms.
So prove it. You seem quite sure.....lets see the proof.
]
Prove the second law of thermodynamics?
]The good thing about science is that there are things that have been established as true, that can be assumed as givens, and used to prove additional things.
]
Prove the second law of thermodynamics?
Prove 2 way net energy flow. Don't worry about the obvious dodge. It was expected.
]The good thing about science is that there are things that have been established as true, that can be assumed as givens, and used to prove additional things.
Don't guess you are old enough to know about the problems associated with assuming. No surprise.
[MENTION][/MENTION]Prove 2 way net energy flow. Don't worry about the obvious dodge. It was expected.
Prove it is gross flow.
go study statistical mechanics and look up "einstein brownian motion thermodynamics" It's all there. And, while you are at it, stop lying and dodging the obvious, that you have no proof it is gross flow and that your science knowledge hasn't gotten past the 1800's.
Nothing there even begins to prove two way net energy flow. If you believe it does, then you know even less than I had given you credit for. If you knew half of what you beleive you know, you would just walk away and shut the hell up because if you knew as much as you think you know, you would know that no proof exits or is likely to ever exist.
Prove it is gross flow.
I don't need to. The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.
go study statistical mechanics and look up "einstein brownian motion thermodynamics" It's all there. And, while you are at it, stop lying and dodging the obvious, that you have no proof it is gross flow and that your science knowledge hasn't gotten past the 1800's.
There is nothing like proof of two way net energy flow there. You believe in an unprovable mathematical concept which can not be demonstrated in the real world because the real world simply won't cooperate.
And again, I don't need to prove anything. The statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics backs me up.
