The Bible: Energy = "nothing"? or 0?

[James R]

beil:

4) Velocity is achieved through application , expenditure of Energy by the accelerator. thus the expended, added energy is now stored in the moving body, That stored energy will be released when the movement stops. ouch.

We do not need to derive the kinetic energy, it is already there.

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Picture yourself travelling along a straight highway at 100 miles per hour.
Now, picture another car travelling along the same highway. At some point, it pulls over to the side and comes to a complete stop.

An observer on the roadside calculates the kinetic energy of the car when it is stopped on the roadside. He uses the formula K=(1/2)mv^2, where m is the mass of the car and v is its speed. Since v=0, he calculates the kinetic energy of the car to be exactly zero.

Now, the car pulls out onto the highway and accelerates in the same direction the car you are in is travelling. It speeds up until it is going at 100 miles per hour along the highway. Coincidentally, it reaches that 100 mph speed just as you're passing it, and then it stays alongside you in the next lane, going the same speed you're going.

The guy on the roadside behind you again calculates the car's kinetic energy. This time v=100 mph, so the car has much more kinetic energy than it did before. Kinetic energy has been added to the car.

Here's the thing...

Think about your calculation of that other car's kinetic energy. When that car is stopped on the roadside, then according to you, who is travelling along in your car, that car is actually travelling backwards, relative to your car, at 100 mph. So, as far as you're concerned, that car has a lot of kinetic energy when it is on the roadside.

When that same car is travelling next to you in the next lane, doing 100 mph relative to the road, its speed relative to your car is exactly zero. It's not moving, relative to your car. It's just sitting there in the same place, in the next lane. So, at this point you calculate its kinetic energy to be exactly zero.

Summary: in your frame of reference, that other car's kinetic energy decreased from a large value to exactly zero during its trip along the highway. Whereas, that other car's kinetic energy increased from exactly zero to a large value, in the reference frame of the guy on the side of the road.

My question to you, then, is: where is that "stored" kinetic energy you mentioned? It seems that the two observers in this example can't agree on how much "stored" kinetic energy the car has at any particular time. One says it has none at the same time that the other says it has heaps, and vice versa.

How do you account for this, if energy is real stuff that can power things, etc.?

 

[Pinball1970]

The bible nowhere "touches on physics questions".

The Bible mentions, celestial bodies, moon, stars, shooting stars, the sun, light and the beginning of the universe.
Those are physics questions whether the writers intended allegorical, poetry or literal.

 

[beil]

Think about your calculation of that other car's kinetic energy. When that car is stopped on the roadside, then according to you, who is travelling along in your car, that car is actually travelling backwards, relative to your car, at 100 mph. So, as far as you're concerned, that car has a lot of kinetic energy when it is on the roadside.

To my mind, The 'energy situation' is against the shared reality. the cosmos . It has absolutely nothing to do with the observer. In a crash the 'stored energy' from the acceleration is delivered, unloaded onto the hapless victim. Relativistic reasonings notwithstanding. thank you.

 

[Pinball1970]

To my mind

That's the problem. You think physics is something you can feel out, philosophise and explain using your intuition and random scientific terms you have heard.
You can't, no one can, Newton didn't do that, Galileo didn't and Einstein didn't.
First they learned what had come before, then they either experimented themselves or waited for others to test the ideas and theories they came up with.
That top trumped all the brilliant genius and intuition they brought to the table.

 

[Pinball1970]

Just illustrate that point, Einstein was at the absolute top of his game by the time GR was published, the greatest physicist of his generation and one of the greatest of all time.
For some reason he thought the universe was static and unchanging, even when Lemaitre wrote to him showing Einstein's own equations contradicted that he brushed it off.
His intuition, reasoning and belief betrayed him, he was wrong.

 

[exchemist]

The Bible mentions, celestial bodies, moon, stars, shooting stars, the sun, light and the beginning of the universe.
Those are physics questions whether the writers intended allegorical, poetry or literal.

Mentioning celestial objects is not the same as touching on physics questions.

 

[beil]

Think about your calculation of that other car's kinetic energy. When that car is stopped on the roadside, then according to you, who is travelling along in your car, that car is actually travelling backwards, relative to your car, at 100 mph. So, as far as you're concerned, that car has a lot of kinetic energy when it is on the roadside.

to repeat, energy is not created by looking at it, It is created (or really used, because the fuel burned already has energy) In this acceleration,

the car starts moving forward, by pushing the Earth (rotation) backward.

 

[Luchito]

The story has more than one author and the stories are spliced together.
One theme is do not dare question the almighty.
Another theme looks at the important of human contact and solidarity, job has lost everything and his friends sit with him.

You are correct in part.

What I see is that Job didn't understood the scriptures, specially the part of Genesis. This is why it appears he had the idea of earth hung on nothing.

The bad events happening in his life weren't just something aimed to him personally, even when the narration apparently implies it that way. Let me see how to explain this last part.

Let's say, Jesus in purpose waited until Lazarus was dead in order to travel to his town and Lazarus to be resurrected. The Jews around ignored what Jesus did. When Jesus arrived to that town and stood in front of the tomb were Lazarus was, Jesus cried. The Jews who saw that, they thought Jesus tears were because he loved Lazarus so much and he was missing him already. But such is a contradiction to what Jesus did from the very beginning. Then, there is something more that is involved in the story, and only few people can get it.

For this reason, it is very important to pay lots of attention when reading the bible, because when one reads it ignoring the other dots around, then one can't connect them and the whole text can be misunderstood..

The scriptures "inspired by God" do not imply vacuum or nothing at any place, such idea comes from Job alone.

 

[beil]

Just illustrate that point, Einstein was at the absolute top of his game by the time GR was published, the greatest physicist of his generation and one of the greatest of all time.
For some reason he thought the universe was static and unchanging, even when Lemaitre wrote to him showing Einstein's own equations contradicted that he brushed it off.
His intuition, reasoning and belief betrayed him, he was wrong.

I did not say they were infallible. All of them of course had their "Live and learn" moments, so: mind you, I am only in my 96th year, so there is still hope for me too.

 

[Luchito]

Just illustrate that point, Einstein was at the absolute top of his game by the time GR was published, the greatest physicist of his generation and one of the greatest of all time.
For some reason he thought the universe was static and unchanging, even when Lemaitre wrote to him showing Einstein's own equations contradicted that he brushed it off.
His intuition, reasoning and belief betrayed him, he was wrong.

I disagree with Albert as the greater physicist of all time. My understanding is that his theories are not even scientific. He based his theories on the illusion of time as something physical.

If the universe is not static but "moving" or "translating from one place to another", a "moving" universe won't necessarily mean that is "expanding".

In order to measure the expansion of the universe one must measure space itself, a certain location of space as point A as original point and expanding to point B.

Lets say space is the road built on the road, the street, the pavement. Galaxies and stars are the vehicles. (analogy only)

You measure the vehicle's position from point A traveling or moving to point B, and your observation is made from point Zero, your location.

Yes, you observe the vehicle is further now, but the road still is of the same length and has not moved or traveled, from your point of view. You must use other points of reference in order to claim that the vehicles and yourself are moving, but and again, moving won't mean "expanding".

In order to claim that space expands, you actually must detect or see space motion, one can't just assume its motion with calculations alone, a physical observation is demanded by science.

You need other points of reference to measure the expansion of space, and unfortunately those are points you don't have.

Perhaps Job fell in the illusion that space is perfect vacuum, this is because space itself is not detectable to the naked eye, and he wasn't able to reach outer space or having special instruments to find what space contains. Even today, this is a very difficult task.

Lemaitre fell in the illusion that the origin of the universe was an atom that exploded and expanded.

As far as I go, I have three persons already that suffered of the tricks caused by illusions: Job, Lemaitre and Einstein.

When is about illusions, the right forum is psychology, not religion not physics.

 

[Pinball1970]

The bad events happening in his life weren't just something aimed to him

He killed his children!

 

[Pinball1970]

I disagree with Albert as the greater physicist of all time.

I thought Albert was pretty good, that's your opinion though and you are entitled to it.

his theories are not even scientific

In what way?

He based his theories on the illusion of time as something physical.

He used time like physicists of the day, they were already of aware of the Lorentz transform and he derived it from his two postulates.

Relativity was quickly absorbed into mainstream physics when top scientists like Planck realised the significance.

It continues to be tested 120 years after publication and passes those tests.

 

[Pinball1970]

In order to measure the expansion of the universe one must measure space itself, a certain location of space as point A as original point and expanding to point B.

Since the 1920s scientists have observed galaxies moving away from us in ALL directions, red shifted.
A small number move towards us, blue shifted, part of the local group IIRC but James R has better knowledge in this area.

 

[Pinball1970]

You need other points of reference to measure the expansion of space

Yes 100 years of data using ground based and space telescopes. Observations of stars in our own milky way, othergalaxies, SN, quasars, AGNs and black holes.

 

[Luchito]

Since the 1920s scientists have observed galaxies moving away from us in ALL directions, red shifted.
A small number move towards us, blue shifted, part of the local group IIRC but James R has better knowledge in this area.

You just said it: Observed galaxies moving away.

Not a single record of expanding space.

 

[Pinball1970]

You just said it: Observed galaxies moving away.

The light from the galaxies are stretched, red shifted. This is caused by the expansion of space.

 

[exchemist]

You just said it: Observed galaxies moving away.

Not a single record of expanding space.

The wavelength distribution curve of the CMBR is evidence of that. It's a black body distribution, but one corresponding to the radiation from a body at only ~3K.

 

[beil]

When that same car is travelling next to you in the next lane, doing 100 mph relative to the road, its speed relative to your car is exactly zero. It's not moving, relative to your car. It's just sitting there in the same place, in the next lane. So, at this point you calculate its kinetic energy to be exactly zero.

We can test the reliability of these calculations " energy is just a number" "zero" by a test, drive those two cars against an obstacle, a parked concrete mixer, or the overpass support. It would be great to be in the one with the allegedly zero kinetic energy. It shows you to concentrate on your driving, never mind the calculations
P.S. what I meant to say is, that
driving by another car does not change it's kinetic energy "content" status.

 

[Luchito]

The light from the galaxies are stretched, red shifted. This is caused by the expansion of space.

I love understanding science with simple methods, the simpler the better.

Lets use the Doppler Effect device.

We will stand at the side of a highway in a flat farm area, long enough to perform a simple experiment.

We are going to aim the device to a vehicle with headlights On coming toward us. The device will detect the wavelengths of the incoming light and will identify them with a blue color.

Later, the vehicle will drive on reverse, with same headlights On going away from us, and using the device, the detected wavelengths will be identify with red color.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think that the "space" between the vehicle and us contracted or expanded when the vehicle moved toward us and away from us.

 

[Pinball1970]

I love understanding science with simple methods, the simpler the better.

Lets use the Doppler Effect device.

We will stand at the side of a highway in a flat farm area, long enough to perform a simple experiment.

We are going to aim the device to a vehicle with headlights On coming toward us. The device will detect the wavelengths of the incoming light and will identify them with a blue color.

Later, the vehicle will drive on reverse, with same headlights On going away from us, and using the device, the detected wavelengths will be identify with red color.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think that the "space" between the vehicle and us contracted or expanded when the vehicle moved toward us and away from us.

Nope. Doppler and red shift are different things.