All the energy in a closed system is constant.

There's only one closed system in nature. That is the entire universe.


So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.

Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman experiments.



This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.

This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free space
at any speed consumes no energy.

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?



Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.

Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process and
is not a cause for an effect. Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some research
on oscillators.

All the energy in a closed system is constant.


There's only one closed system in nature. That is the entire universe.

The universe is not a closed system.


So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never
re-produce his claimed cold fusion.





This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free
space
at any speed consumes no energy.

Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?

The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses. However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order effect.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.



Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not
apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.

They are indeed external


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process
and
is not a cause for an effect.

There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.



Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.

Why?

Joe

The universe is not a closed system.

If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could something
not be a subset of it.?



So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never
re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsr...nal_120104.pdf





This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free
space
at any speed consumes no energy.

Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.

Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to see me
moving? None.

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion. Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative; motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely accepted.



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.

Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not the
observed to change the apparent motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?

The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.

What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order effect.

Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?



Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.



Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not
apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.

They are indeed external.

Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The
oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a
passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external effect
of this system?


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process
and
is not a cause for an effect.

There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.



Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.

Why?

The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.



Joe

Hank Rearden


The universe is not a closed system.


If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it.?

parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding
into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju
not yet in our universe.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub=AD/Ne...C=AD/2004/low=
..=2E.


Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.


Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.



Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None.

Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train.

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.
Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted.

And will never be. It's bunk



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.


See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.



Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion.

apparent motion is not motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?


The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.



What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

Gravity, & yes


However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect.


Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system.


Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


They are indeed external.



Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this

Loss of massbound energy.




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

system?

So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.


There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is



a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.


Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.


In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.


Why?



The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.

I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state.=20

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hank Rearden


The universe is not a closed system.


If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it.?

parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding
into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju
not yet in our universe.

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give two
examples.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub*/News...E-SC*/2004/low...


Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree.


------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system. This
was simply one example.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.


Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.



Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None.

Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train.


------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.
Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted.

And will never be. It's bunk

------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.


See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.



Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion.

apparent motion is not motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?


The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.



What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

Gravity, & yes

---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a time
distortion instead?


However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect.


Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system.


Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


They are indeed external.



Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this

Loss of massbound energy.

-----------------------------Where does this energy go?




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

system?

So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.


There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is



a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.


Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.


In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.


Why?



The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.

I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state.


-----------------And that is?



Joe

Hank Rearden
The universe is not a closed system.
If the universe is not
a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it
..?
parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding

into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju

not yet in our universe


..

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give
two
examples.

"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.

-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.
Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.
They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.
My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub=AD=AD...E-SC=AD=AD/20=
04/low

..=2E.
Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree


..

------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that
people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system.
This
was simply one example.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.
This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.
Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.
Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None
..
Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train


..

------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for
the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

The center or origin.


Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.

Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted
..
And will never be. It's bunk


------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".


Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP

What is a Cosmological Constant?

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.

What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes


---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?


No.


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect
..
Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?

Gravity again.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system
..
Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.
They are indeed external.
Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this
Loss of massbound energy


..

-----------------------------=ADWhere does this energy go?

Heat.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
system?
So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.
Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.
There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.
Randomness is
a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.
Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.
In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.
Why?
The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence
..
I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state


..

-----------------And that is?

Juju...... Read my first sailing related post in this thread


Joe

used to eat Jujubes at the movie house when I was a youngun.

Scooter

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hank Rearden
The universe is not a closed system.
If the universe is not
a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it
..?
parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is
expanding

into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains
Juju

not yet in our universe


..

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give
two
examples.

"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.

-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.
Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.
They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could
never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.
My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub**/New...DOE-SC**/2004/
low

....
Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree


..

------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that
people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system.
This
was simply one example.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur
without

using energy.
This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in
free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.
Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.
Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None
..
Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train


..

------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for
the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

The center or origin.


Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is
motion.

Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted
..
And will never be. It's bunk


------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".


Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical
Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP

What is a Cosmological Constant?

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical
fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.

What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable
fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding
universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes


---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?


No.


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect
..
Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?

Gravity again.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system
..
Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would
not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.
They are indeed external.
Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms.
The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is
a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this
Loss of massbound energy


..

-----------------------------*Where does this energy go?

Heat.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
system?
So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.
Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.
There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.
Randomness is
a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.
Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.
In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.
Why?
The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence
..
I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state


..

-----------------And that is?

Juju...... Read my first sailing related post in this thread


Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/011021a.html :

"Perhaps the simplest way to look at these questions is the following: if
the universe includes, by definition, everything -- all of space, time,
matter, energy -- than there can be nothing outside of it (and hence no
edge), nothing for it to expand into. Its true that this is contrary to our
everyday experience, as is much else in physics and astronomy; but of course
our everyday experience does not extend to the entire universe. In some ways
this line of argument parallels those in refutations of the "argument by
design" for the existence of God."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN :

What is the Universe expanding into?

This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe
is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the
Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably
fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the
Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the
Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that
we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger
space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge
or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into
anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about.
Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object
that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy
is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think
about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D
space that the Universe is expanding into.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...88F2D7&catID=3
:

"There is no 'empty space' that the universe is expanding into."





Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train

Here's a quote from Einsteins paper on Special Relativity:

.... the introduction of a light-ether will prove to be superfluous since,
according to the view to be developed here, neither will a space in absolute
rest endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity
vector be associated with a point of empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.

..

What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

The center or origin.




------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".


Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP

What is a Cosmological Constant?

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.

What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".


What is the physical significance of the CC?


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes


---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?


No.


Recent satellite experiments have shown frame dragging in
low earth orbit. The time distortion is dependent of the velocity of the
satellite relative to the earth's surface.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...de/Page28.html
says:

One of the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity is that
local spacetime is twisted by the rotation of the Earth. Hans Thirring and
Joseph Lense called this "frame-dragging"- any rotating mass will drag the
local spacetime frame of reference Honey Ball Drawing with it. The predicted
drag is very small and fades as one travels farther from the rotating mass,
but the twist nearby can affect the paths of light, energy, and other
masses.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Randomness is a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the
lack of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.

But the notion of a causal system is based on observing a set of instances
where one event follows another, from which which we infer a notion of cause
and effect. We then extrapolate that notion to instances that we haven't
observed, or which haven't occured yet, and thereby impose a notion of
causality on what is, literally, unknown.

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be none the
wiser.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
k...

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be none
the
wiser.

That's why experiments must be reproducable.