Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[ovyyus]

Something makes me question daxcw's conclusion that the magnet stuck to his frig is expending energy and doing work. Do I keep an open mind and entertain the possibility that an already defined physical process is acting contrary to observation? Perhaps daxcw didn't fully describe his magnet and frig arrangement and I'm making rash assumptions?

Surely faith is something you might apply to probable future experiences. But isn't the magnet already stuck to the frig and aren't it's qualities already observed? Perhaps that same magnet will act differently tomorrow? Who knows, I guess anything is possible tomorrow. An element of faith is obviously present in any process of prediction. But an experiment done is, well, done.

[scott]

I find it curious, Bill, that you chose to respond to daxcw and not to me.

But an experiment done is, well, done.

OK, here's my experiment. I dig up a bunch of uranium ore and use it to build an overbalanced wheel which doesn't work.

What am I missing?

-Scott

[ovyyus]

Actually Scott I wasn't responding to daxcw, I was addressing you and Randall. Perhaps I should have added that I agree that science by it's very nature always includes, addresses and seeks to know the unknown.

OK, here's my experiment. I dig up a bunch of uranium ore and use it to build an overbalanced wheel which doesn't work.

What am I missing?

Scott, clearly you do not understand how to use uranium ore to power your wheel. Given that there is an abundance of experimental data which proves that uranium ore can indeed be used as a viable energy source then I would suggest that you re-examine your understanding of this substance, don't give up, and have another go at it.

[scott]

OK then my next experiment is to pick up a handful of sand and attached it to a wing. How can you be sure all of your old equations apply to this new experiment?

Sounds to me like you gain a certain satisfaction from attributing "absolute reality" to the results of past experiments, while I and others are may be a little reluctant to jump to the same conclusions.

-Scott

[Wheeler]

I think Bills thinking more on the fact of known experimentation,and experiences and Scott is conducting a new experiment. This would be new if never done before.

This could be a new experience for anyone.

[ovyyus]

OK then my next experiment is to pick up a handful of sand attached to a wing. How can you be sure all of your old equations apply to this new experiment?

Scott, "a handful of sand attached to a wing", is a pretty slim description. However, I can still answer your question: I can't be sure that old equations will apply to a new experiment.

Sounds to me like you gain a certain satisfaction from attributing "absolute reality" to the results of past experiments, while I and others are may be a little reluctant to jump to the same conclusions.

I'm not sure what you mean Scott. I use experiments to explore physical processes in order to better help me understand how things work. As far as attributing an absolute reality to them, I've never really thought about it like that. What I do think about, based on experience and understanding gained from those past experiments, are the interactions between certain physical processes and how they might relate. On that basis I have, and continue to, come to certain conclusions. But I feel I'm always ready to adapt or change those conclusions in the event of new or conflicting data.

Do you have the impression that I think I know everything or that I'm fixed in my views and that I gain satisfaction from some safe sense of an "absolute reality"? Perhaps I have given you that impression? When you or anyone asks for my opinion, as happens occasionally, I will either say that I don't know or I will give my honest opinion based on my experience and understanding. Is that annoying you, would you like me to stop?

[scott]

Is that annoying you, would you like me to stop?

Of course not Bill, don't be silly. I'm just trying to drive the discussion to a point. You seem to have no problem obliging.:-)

My point here is that for every bit of known we happen across there is also a bit of unknown that comes with it, and somehow they are inextricably linked. To me, your outlook appears to miss this point.

-Scott

[ovyyus]

The point here is that for every bit of known there is also a bit of unknown, and somehow they are inextricably linked. To me, your outlook appears to miss this point.

Scott, I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. I already agreed with you that 'unknown' is part of the process of scientific discovery. Perhaps more than a mere part, it is clearly a central motivating factor - to know the unknown. What part of my outlook appears to miss this point?

[daxwc]

Here is one of the questions from my daughters physics book:

What would happen if Earth's gravitational pull on the Moon suddenly stopped?

A) Nothing.
b)The Moon would fly out of Earth's orbit.
c)The Moon would fall into the Earth.
d)The Moon would fall into the Sun.

Guess what the answer was... yep...B... so I guess the moon is trying escape earth's orbit or another physcist was wrong, which was the point all along.

The questions I ask and what I believe are two different things. Some of them look silly, because I am trying make everyone (mostly myself) think different from what we are taught.

My grasp of physics could always be better. But I do find this strange it took Einstein 10 years to figure out the connection between spacetime and gravity because the gravitational field carries energy itself.

[scott]

What part of my outlook appears to miss this point?

The part that appears to think there might be a beginning and an end to knowledge.

In fact it appears knowledge is a process, not a destination. The more we learn the less we know.

-Scott

[ovyyus]

Daxcw, if the question were turned around:

What would happen if the moons orbit around the Earth suddenly stopped?

a) Nothing.
b) The Moon would fly out of Earth's orbit.
c) The Moon would fall into the Earth.
d) The Moon would fall into the Sun.

The answer is obviously c)

Does that mean the Moon is trying to crash into the Earth?

[ovyyus]

The part that appears to think there might be a beginning and an end to knowledge.

Sorry Scott, I can't remember ever stating, or even hinting, that I think there's a beginning and/or an end to knowledge. I would never state something that I didn't think was true.

In fact it appears knowledge is a process. The more we learn the less we know.

I agree, knowledge appears to be a process. Not sure about your second statement though, sounds like a theory - what do you compare the 'more' and 'less' to :)

[scott]

Sorry Scott, I can't remember ever stating, or even hinting, that I think there's a beginning and/or an end to knowledge. I would never state something that I didn't think was true.

Well how about when you said:

Perhaps lack of understanding causes 'science' to seem like religion to you at the moment?

How does your own lack of understanding exactly effect you? How is your science different from someone else's religion?


You also said:

I agree, knowledge appears to be a process. Not sure about your second statement though, sounds like a theory - what do you compare the 'more' and 'less' to :)

I submit that every question science has answered so far has only led to more questions. Please let me know when this pattern stops.

-Scott

[ovyyus]

In response to an earlier statement by daxcw,

Science right now is more like religion then science.

What I meant by,

Perhaps lack of understanding causes science to seem like religion to you at the moment?

is that a lack of understanding of an already known physical relationship might create a sense of mystery akin to religious experience. The sense of mystery may resolve when the known physical relationship is understood through acquisition of knowledge.

How does your own lack of understanding exactly effect you? How is your science different from someone else's religion?

My own lack of understandings often cause me to ask questions and seek answers. My opinion of science practice, in the form of empirical knowledge, is that it is based upon observation and measurement of physical quantities. Religious practice does not seem to require either.

I submit that every question science has answered so far has only led to more questions. Please let me know when this pattern stops.

I agree science continually answers and raises questions about the physical world. Does this pattern stop with religious practice? Perhaps this part of the conversation is leading off-topic.

[scott]

I'm pretty sure it's all on-topic :-)