## Force, Work and Energy

Unfortunately even classical mechanics is not without misconceptions and superstitions.

According to the classical physics, a force is any influence which tends to cause a change in the motion (or shape) of an object. In simpler terms, it is also described as something that causes acceleration (or deformation) of a body. Physicists put the same in mathematical terms as

F= ma (Force=mass x acceleration)

But what do they mean by ‘influence’? And what is the fundamental basis for the so called force?

Obviously a mathematical formula (F=ma) makes little sense unless we have a thorough understanding of the concept in clear terms without scope for vagueness or ambiguity.

I thought supplying energy to a body results in acceleration of the body. But then how is it different from a force because the latter is also said to result in acceleration of a body? Is there a real difference between force and energy? I always had difficulty in imagining force and energy as two different concepts during my school days. But of course being a blind ‘believer’ of science and great fan of physics, I was ‘intelligent’ enough to thoroughly (mis)understand them as two completely different things (like what any other ‘bright’ student of science would do).

Lets us see now how work is described in our physics books-

– When a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement of the object, it is said that work was done upon the object.

– A force is said to do work when it acts on a body, and there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force.

– Work refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.

And in mathematical terms, work is represented as

W= F x D (Work = Force x Displacement)

From the above descriptions, we can imagine work as displacement of a body in the direction of force which implies that work is a vector quantity and points in the same direction as that of the force. And that makes sense too. For example a body moved for 1meter towards east is not the same as that body moved for 1meter towards the north. And when a force of 1Newton acts upon a body and moves it for 1 meter eastward, then the work done would be 1Nmeter eastward. But the quantity of work done is not the same in the northeast direction. So the amount of work done varies with direction in a similar proportion with force. And if work is a vector, then obviously energy becomes a vector too because work done is energy spent. And that goes against the most famous and chanted principle of mass-energy equivalence and destroys the entire imaginary world of modern physicists. To save themselves and their delusional theories, they would surely resort to vague explanations as they always do whenever their stupid theories are under threat.

But anyway, to the majority of the ordinary minds, the above derivations and definitions of force and work make very little sense. Of course, intelligent students of science will surely manage to understand them thoroughly. And if they are even more intelligent, they will also thoroughly ‘understand’ relativity and quantum theories. That makes me feel that intelligence in modern scientific society is a measure of distorted thinking or indicates the ability to ‘correctly’ understand false theories and thoroughly imagine non-existing things and phenomena.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, science and mathematics are ultimately built upon on bits of simple assumptions or axioms. So every concept in physics (and every mathematical formula) must be amenable to breaking down into tiny bits of simple assumptions. Hence as we dig deeper and look closer, we must find even complex appearing things become simple and straight forward and easily understandable even to the ordinary brains.

But this is not the case with most concepts in modern physics. As we go deeper and deeper, things become more and more weird and unintelligible and demand more and more ‘imaginative’ power. For example relativity starts with the preaching of constant speed of light. Then it goes on to propose time dilation/ length contraction, and then relativity of simultaneity and so on. At every step, a newer and weirder proposition is thrown upon us to explain or support or save a previous less strange proposition.

And unfortunately many such weird ‘preachings’ exist in classical physics too. (Otherwise why would physics, supposed to be built upon simple axioms and hence must be easily understood by ordinary minds, be felt as the most difficult subject by many students?)

To remove the confusion and to bring back law and order into the chaotic physics, I have decided to redefine things in simple and clear terms without resorting to vague statements and complex maths.

We can define work as movement of mass in space. That is, when we move a mass from one location to another, we can say work is done. So to quantify work, we have to obviously take into account both mass and distance – for example when 1kg of mass is moved over a distance of 1meter, we can consider that as 1kg.meter of work.

Work = mass (m) x distance (d)

Of course, we need one more parameter to make this formula complete. That is the resistance of the environment or medium i.e. whether the movement occurs in water or air or Ether medium. (Remember that we no longer believe in the notion of absolute vacuum, every bit of space is filled with Ether). For example moving a 1kg mass for 1meter in water involves more work than moving the same in air or Ether. Also we need to do more work for moving 1kg mass uphill (against gravity) than to move the same mass downhill for the same distance.

So, Work = mass (m) x distance (d) x resistance factor (r)

Energy is defined as the capacity to do Work. While work is the effect, energy is the cause of it. Often we can only measure a cause by looking at its effect. So, it is not surprising that both Energy (cause) and Work (effect) are expressed in same units and possess the same value. So work done is same as energy spent.

So Energy spent =Work done = mass.distance.resistance

(And Energy may also be defined as the capacity to do work. So a body’s energy may be expressed in terms of its capacity to do work i.e. in terms of the distance a body can move in a given environment)

Just to quantify how much work is done in an event, we don’t need the time parameter

Now compare the following two examples of work done in an environment or medium with resistance factor 1.

1. 1kg mass moved for 1meter in 1 second
2. 1kg mass moved for 1meter in 2 seconds

In both the cases, the quantity of work done is same i.e. 1kg.meter. But in the first example, the work is done faster. That introduces us to a new parameter i.e. rate of work done or energy spent per second.

Work done in 1 second = r.mass.distance/time=r.mass.velocity

The ability to do more work per second may be called as power.

So power = work/sec = mass x distance / time = mass x velocity (momentum in our classical understanding)

But what happens to the energy that is spent? We believe that energy can’t be destroyed or created. When work is done, energy simply gets transferred from a body to the environment or to some other body. For example when a bat hits a ball, energy gets transferred from the bat to the ball. And as the ball travels in the air medium, it loses energy to the air particles and creates air currents and air waves. Thus the energy of the ball gets dissipated throughout the environment. So as work is done by a body, it loses its energy to the environment.

This transfer of energy to a body in unit time is what we may call as force.

So force F = quantity of Energy transferred/ sec

(While work done per second is power, energy transferred per second is force. So like work and energy; power and force are one and the same)

A force is nothing but the rate of energy transfer from one body to another. And this energy transfer occurs only when there is a collision between material objects. There is no other magical way of transferring energy unlike what the physicists may preach. And there is only one force in Nature. Gravitational ‘attraction’ occurs because of Bernoulli Effect which can be explained by the differential ether dragging around the spinning celestial bodies.

From the above discussion, it is obvious that work is a vector quantity. So whenever we say a work is done we must specify the direction in which the work was done. That obviously makes energy also a vector. The energy of a body points in the direction of its motion.

But here is a question- What is the direction of the energy stored in food and fuels? A meal can make us walk in any direction. A car can move in any direction with the energy it gets from a litre of petrol? If energy is a vector, how can we explain this?

And then what about the so called potential energy? I will come to these things later.

Go to Main Index

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

### Comments

• Galacar  On April 20, 2014 at 1:36 am

“Unfortunately even classical mechanics is not without misconceptions and superstitions”

even worse, it is full of them (misconceptions etc) if you look critically.

take ‘gravity’ I will be brief here, but some questions. why is the ‘force of gravity’ not dimished when it is ‘used”, what is the powersource?
it seems to be in conflict with other ‘physical laws’.

how about this; when light enters something like glass, it will slow down,
but when it leaves the glass it will speed up again! How is this possible?

when water freezes it will be able to do a lot of ‘work’ like bursting waterpipes,
Isn’t that strange? Energy is taken away from water when it freezes and it expans! weird! and don’t mention ‘water bridges’ because they only shift the problem and the list goes on and on and on and on…

Like

• Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 6:14 am

Galacar: “Why is the ‘force of gravity’ not dimished when it is ‘used”, what is the powersource?”
What physical laws is this in conflict with? I do not notice them as being in conflict with gravity.
Galacar: “when light enters something like glass, it will slow down,
but when it leaves the glass it will speed up again! How is this possible?”
The proposed explanation for this is that when light is in the glass there are more charged particles to slightly alter the direction the photon is moving in the glass than in the air. This makes the light seemingly go slower. The reason the light does not change the general direction within the glass is because the charges are not strong enough to change the light’s general direction.
Galacar: “when water freezes it will be able to do a lot of ‘work’ like bursting waterpipes, Isn’t that strange? Energy is taken away from water when it freezes and it expans! weird! and don’t mention ‘water bridges’ because they only shift the problem”
It seems to me that you are right about this one, even though I do not know what a ‘water bridge’ is.

Like

• dbe  On February 11, 2015 at 11:15 am

Work is more rigously defined as the curve integral of the scalar product of force and position, and hence, a scalar (not a vector). The w=f*d is a simplification which works when force and distance are parallel (and scalar).

Like

• drgsrinivas  On February 14, 2015 at 6:33 pm

Try to translate that into simple layman’s terms. If it is truth, it must be amenable to clearly convey to the lay people. Then we can discuss how much truth exists in the definition that you are reciting.

Like

• Galacar  On February 14, 2015 at 9:50 pm

drgsrinivas

Oh, how do I agree!! People hide their illogical and irrational thinking behind a lot of math and dificult words. And I really think there is an inverse relation with their understanding of physics! That is, the more dificult words they use, the higher their lack of understanding!
As I have written elsewhere, a child can be able to understand real physics.
Remember the quote from the physics prof, who said he could do the physics math, but confessed he didn’t really understand it?

Liked by 1 person

• JW Ballard  On October 22, 2015 at 12:45 am

I could not find the reference to Lloyd Zerbes. Where is it, and where is there more on his falling bodies experiments?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On October 24, 2015 at 11:27 pm

Interesting to read about Lloyd Zirbes. His explanation on gravity sounds similar to my whirlpool model of gravity.

Like

• Galacar  On October 25, 2015 at 10:15 pm

About Lloyd Zirbes, are you prepared to go deep into the rabbit hole?

Like

• Alex  On January 26, 2016 at 1:38 am

What about thermal (or, perhaps, electrical) energy? Does the energy of a hot coal (or a battery) have direction?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On January 29, 2016 at 6:08 pm

Thank you Alex, that is exactly where I had left the discussion in the above page and your question reminds me of that unfinished task.

Basically, energy manifests as motion of matter particles. If there is no motion of matter particles in any system, we can assume that there is no energy in that system.

But then how does energy exists or is stored in food stuff, coal etc and in what direction? I think the answer lies in spin. I will present a detailed explanation soon.

Like

• Galacar  On January 26, 2016 at 1:42 pm

Alex wrote,

“What about thermal (or, perhaps, electrical) energy? Does the energy of a hot coal (or a battery) have direction?”

Apart from the directory question.

In reality the ‘energy’ is not coming form the hot coil (or a battery) at all!
It is energy from the cosmos converted into another form of energy.
There is nothing that creates it’s own energy. Everything is only converted.
Well, not according to me, but according to a man called Tesla.

I really, really wonder why they don’t teach that at school? 😉

Juts me again

Galacar

Like

• A different Alex  On January 27, 2016 at 9:09 am

One thing I can’t understand about you, Galacar: you talk so much about how we have been taught to look up to scientists for their contributions to the world, and you seem to think that this is evidence of how messed up and indoctrinated we have become (I know your response to this will be to say that they made no real contributions, so just give it a rest). At the same time though, you idolise Tesla and hang off his every word, in an even worse religious fashion to that which you attack in the general public. How to reconcile this vast contradiction?

Juts my two cents 😉

Like

• Galacar  On January 29, 2016 at 8:02 pm

@A different Alex,

It seems, something is bothering you.Isn’t it? 😉

Well, let’s see. It isn’t all that difficult.

First of all Tesla wasn’t a scientist in the way ‘scientists’ are ‘scientists today.
So, there ya go.You really can’t compare these two,
Don’t even try.It is just the logical fallacy of the wrong analogy.
Nice try, but alas..

Furthermore, Tesla invented the lightbulb (not Edision), the radio (not marconi),
x-rays and the list goes on and on.
NOTHING of this is mentioned in the ‘scientific text books’!
And you think I idolise Tesla? This is not the case.
Just study his work and that will do the job, mate!
You will get by studying his work an enormous respect for this man,
There is really no contradiction here.
I reckon you haven’t even begin to study the basics of his work?
Now have you? If you do Einstein will look like the village idiot, a clown, an idiot!

And another one whos’ work is that of a real genius is Victor Schauberger.
You can say I idoise him also. I don’t. But I have enormous respect for the
work he has done and given me much better insights then studying classical physics had. (I have studied physics and math at university level…alas).
And there are more people like that who’s work I admire, like Bruce Cathie.
There is nothing wrong with that as long as the works are ok and insightfull and what have you.

But at school and university we are indoctrinated with deep bullshit and bollocks.
And all by design! Provable also.

Furthermore, because you write ‘we’ and mean the ‘scientists’, I conclude you are one yourself. Hence you are heavily indoctrinted into a lot of bullshit.
That means in orde to understand a lot of this you have to unlearn all that bullshit.There is no other way.

But I suspect you have too heavily invest in the bullshit so it won’t be easy to let it go.

And that is ok with me

And if you want to, you are the one that has to do the work in this case.

But something is bothering you. 🙂

Namaste!

Galacar.

Like

• Galacar  On January 29, 2016 at 8:15 pm

A different Alex wrote:

“you talk so much about how we have been taught to look up to scientists for their contributions to the world, and you seem to think that this is evidence of how messed up and indoctrinated we have become .

What you write here is not what I have written (as far as I know)

If I understand you correctly here, you are writing hat looking up to scientists s being evidence of how messed up and indoctrinated we have become ?

It is much more complex then that.If you really have read my posting you will have read that I also state a lot of the times that I can go on for hours.

So, I can understand that the picture painted by me here is not cmplete,
And that might led to confusion like above.If I am to blame I am sorry for that,
Let’s say ‘it comes with the territory”

But well, the core is that we are being spoonfed bullshit by the indoctrin oeps
educational system,

Let’s put it another way. he ‘educational system’is or was ment to
steer the public opinion a certain way. NOTHING MORE.
( oh well, yes also reducing creativity, heighten conformity, mass dumb downing etc)

There is no truth finding and what have you in the ‘educational system anywere’

As I have written elsewhere here. Einstein was used as a FAKE HEROE

to ‘get rid’ of the aether in the public mind.(among other things)

As said, I can go on for hours!

Namaste

Galacar

Like

• aether  On February 12, 2016 at 9:56 pm

Interesting site. FYI, about 35 years ago, physics teachers used to caution that the FxD principle was a specific definition of “work”. Moreover, one of my college physics professors openly taught that Einstein’s relativity theories only held if one accepted the premise of constant SOL.

Somewhere along the way, Einstein’s “theories” have become gospel. History is full examples where lies have become “facts”.

Liked by 1 person

• Galacar  On February 13, 2016 at 12:10 pm

aether wrote:

“Somewhere along the way, Einstein’s “theories” have become gospel. History is full examples where lies have become “facts”.

You are so right!
And most of the time ‘facts’ are made ‘facts’ by repetition.
Hence the indoctrination (e.g. reptition of ‘facts’) at a very young age!)

Hitler was aware of this:

Make the lie big enough and repeat it enough!

Btw how about this quote:

“http://truthstreammedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ciaquotememe.jpg”

It is the same the world over.

Do I need to say more?

Like

• Aether  On February 14, 2016 at 4:02 am

Galacar,

That quote from Casey is hearsay at best – check for yourself. And your Hitler quote is almost never given in its full context. Why?

Facts are Facts! Google it! Seriously, you may even gain some insights into the cult Einstein.

Like

• The truth is out there  On February 14, 2016 at 2:07 pm

Hey fellas,
Bet you all are as stoked as I am about the recent direct detection of gravitational waves at the aLIGO facility (lol who am i kidding, it’s WAVES IN THE AETHA amirite gaiz?!?)
Always glad to see strong evidence supporting the unambiguous claims of the widely successful theory of general relativity. That’s something you all are missing: unambiguous, testable predictions and some good old experimental evidence—–

Like

• drgsrinivas  On February 14, 2016 at 6:29 pm

One may predict that if the Emperor’s costume was marvelous, it would have some glitters. No one would contradict that prediction. But it would amount to stupidity if one argues the light reflections from the sweat droplets on the Emperor’s nude body as proof of glitters and claims that as evidence of His majesty’s marvelous costume. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/05/09/relativity-and-the-nude-emperor/

And just like how the ‘glitters’ on the body of the nude Emperor isn’t proof of his marvelous costume, the feeble vibrations detected by your authorities isn’t proof of your religious theory. Ether model better explains the so called gravitational waves observed by your religious prophets. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/29/the-divine-stuff-explains-all/

Like

• Galacar  On February 14, 2016 at 6:10 pm

@Aether

You wrote:

“That quote from Casey is hearsay at best – check for yourself. ”

I am aware that some people are trying to convince it is ‘hearsay’
But I guarentee you it is not.

(btw I just mostly books.)

Besides that, even if it is hearsay, it doesn’t realy matter,
I have put it there because the message is spot on!
We are really being lied to on a HUGE scale.
For most people nearly incomprehensible in the beginning.

If you do the research the quote is exactly right.

I am also aware that HUGE armies of agents behind computersscreens are trying to discredit this sort of information.

and “Google” it? Ask yourself why ‘google’ is so popular.
That is not by change at all!

In reality “Google” is a very very dark organisation.
No kidding.

you wriote

“Facts are Facts! ”

Indeed! They are the only things I deal in, as far as I can..

you wrote:

“you may even gain some insights into the cult Einstein.”

I do not understand what you mean here.Can you explain?

Actually I can’t understand where you are coming from, because

you yourself are talking about the lies sold to us at school.

Well, the ‘rabbithole’ goes much deeper then this. It is huuugeeeee.

People who haven’t researched it have no idea how deep it all goes.

Not that I know all, far far from it.

But I know it runs very very very deep.

Nuff said

Galacar

Like

• John Davis  On April 27, 2016 at 10:13 pm

I’ve been back and forth with some people on other forums about whether or not the moon spins. It’s fascinating when such a simple question can cause uproar on various physics and astronomy forums. I came across a looooong thread that really made me laugh multiple times. I highly recommend reading!

http://marilynvossavant.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1876

At any rate my contention is that it does not spin. This goes against every known teaching of astronomy and physics – They all contend it spins exactly once per orbit. However I found that Nikola Tesla stated it was FACT that the moon did not spin. He used an energy formulae to show this. He went further to say it was not just his theory but provable fact that any person could figure out.

Is there mass delusion regarding this subject?

I have been working an an alternate definition to try and clear things up – this is what I have come up with …….

Complete Internal Axial Rotation – Definition

A body can be considered to have completed a full axial rotation upon an internal axis when a point along the equatorial perimeter perpendicular to the axis of rotation has faced every point along the same equatorial plane at least once.

In the case of the moon – It can not be considered to have complete axial rotation inherent in it’s motion as many points on the far side equatorial perimeter never face points on the near side equatorial plane. (ie: dark side will never face the earth)

Todays understanding confuses complete axial rotation with complete orbital translation. These are not the same as orbital translation is rotation around the barycenter and does not fulfill the definition of complete axial rotation around an internal axis. – John Davis

Liked by 1 person

• Galacar  On April 28, 2016 at 8:46 pm

John Davis wrote

“Is there mass delusion regarding this subject?”

Absolutely!!!! (btw like everything else in this world)

I have written here somewhere before that the whole thing is artificial!

And is has a very important connection with Saturn:

Anyway, some quotes:

I will number them so it is an easier read I hope.

1

I”saac Asimov,
American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University and Science Fiction writer. Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time.

“We cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Moon by rights ought not to be there. The fact that it is, is one of the strokes of luck almost too good to accept… Small planets, such as Earth, with weak gravitational fields, might well lack satellites… … In general then, when a planet does have satellites, those satellites are much smaller than the planet itself. Therefore, even if the Earth has a satellite, there would be every reason to suspect… that at best it would be a tiny world, perhaps 30 miles in diameter. But that is not so. Earth not only has a satellite, but it is a giant satellite, 2160 miles in diameter. How is it then, that tiny Earth has one? Amazing.”

“The Moon, which has no atmosphere and no magnetic field, is basically a freak of nature”

2.

“Irwin Shapiro,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

“The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist.’

“The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties are none of them could be considered remotely watertight.”

3.

“Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter
Book: Who Built the Moon?

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?”

4

“Farouk El Baz,
NASA

“If water vapour is coming from the Moon’s interior is this serious. It means that there is a drastic distinction between the different phases of the lunar interior – that the interior is quite different from what we have seen on the surface.””

5

“Mikhail Vasin, Alexander Shcherbakov,
Societ Academy of Sciences, 1970.

“Is the moon a creation of an alien intelligence?”

6

“Dr Harold Urey,
Nobel Prize for Chemistry

“I’m terribly puzzled by the rocks from the Moon and in particular of their titanium content.”

7

“Dr S Ross Taylor,
Geochemist of lunar chemical analysis,

Said the problem was that maria plains the size of Texas had to be covered with melted rock containing fluid titanium. He said you would not expect titanium ever to be hot enough to do that, even on Earth, and no one has ever suggested that the Moon was hotter than the Earth.

“What could distribute titanium in this way? Highly advanced technology developed and operated by entities that are immensely more technologically advance than humans.”

8

“Dr. Gordon MacDonald,
NASA

“it would seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogenous sphere’. He surmised that the data must have been wrong – but it wasn’t.”

9

“Carl Sagan,
Cosmologist,

“A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object.””

10

“Dr. Sean C Solomon,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“The Lunar Orbiter experiments had vastly improved knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field and indicated the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow.”

11

“University of Arizona Lon Hood
“We knew that the Moon’s core was small, but we didn’t know it was this small… This really does add weight to the idea that the Moon’s origin is unique, unlike any other terrestrial body”

12

“NASA scientists
The Apollo 12 mission to the Moon in November 1969 set up seismometers and then intentionally crashed the Lunar Module causing an impact equivalent to one ton of TNT. The shockwaves built up for eight minutes, and NASA scientists said the Moon ‘rang like a bell.”

13

“Maurice Ewing,
American geophysicist and oceanographer

“As for the meaning of it, I’d rather not make an interpretation right now, but it is as though someone had struck a bell, say, in the belfry of the a church a single blow and found that the reverberation from it continued for 30 minutes.””

14

“Ken Johnson,
Supervisor of the Data and Photo Control department during the Apollo missions

“The Moon not only rang like a bell, but the whole Moon wobbled in such a precise way that it was almost as though it had gigantic hydraulic damper struts inside it.”
Moon rocks have been found to contain processed metals, including brass and mica, and the elements Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237 that have never been found to occur naturally.

15

“Dr. D L Anderson,
Professor of geophysics and director of the seismological laboratory,
California Institute of Technology

“The Moon is made inside out and that its inner and outer compositions should be the other way around.”

16

“Dr. D L Anderson,
Professor of geophysics and director of the seismological laboratory,
California Institute of Technology

“The Moon is made inside out and that its inner and outer compositions should be the other way around.”

So, I hope this answers your question “Is there mass delusion regarding this subject?”” with a definite YES.

Namaste

Galacar

Liked by 1 person

• John Davis  On April 29, 2016 at 12:57 am

Thanks Galacar – some excellent information there. Aether – I did see that Tesla article… It got me thinking about gyroscopes. I’ve stated on here before that I think they help prove the existence of ether. The gyroscopic resistance feels SO similar to magnetic resistance that I can’t help but wonder if there is some correlation. I’ll concede this is just wild intuition acting at the most random level – it may be a spitball way off course… but who knows.

Like

• Galacar  On August 15, 2016 at 12:15 am

Trevin On August 12, 2016 at 6:14 am wrote::

“Galacar: “Why is the ‘force of gravity’ not dimished when it is ‘used”, what is the powersource?”
What physical laws is this in conflict with? I do not notice them as being in conflict with gravity.
Galacar: “when light enters something like glass, it will slow down,
but when it leaves the glass it will speed up again! How is this possible?”
The proposed explanation for this is that when light is in the glass there are more charged particles to slightly alter the direction the photon is moving in the glass than in the air. This makes the light seemingly go slower. The reason the light does not change the general direction within the glass is because the charges are not strong enough to change the light’s general direction.
Galacar: “when water freezes it will be able to do a lot of ‘work’ like bursting waterpipes, Isn’t that strange? Energy is taken away from water when it freezes and it expans! weird! and don’t mention ‘water bridges’ because they only shift the problem”
It seems to me that you are right about this one, even though I do not know what a ‘water bridge’ is.”

I will adress all these point below:

1.
“Galacar: “Why is the ‘force of gravity’ not dimished when it is ‘used”, what is the powersource?”
What physical laws is this in conflict with? I do not notice them as being in conflict with gravity.”

Gravity is in conflict with the ‘law of conversation of energy”
e.g. the moon is orbiting the earth because of gravitation, according to physics.
However, this force is not diminshed over time. It goes on and on and on, According to classical physics that is. In this way it is a form of ‘free energy”, which at the same time is impossible according to ” ‘law of conversation of energy”

Anyway,

But mind you, I have changed my mind entirely in te last years about ‘gravity’
There very simply is NO gravity at all. Like there is also NO nuclear atom.
( I mentioned them both because I studied them both lately, they are both non-existent!).

I am not saying things don’t ‘fall’. Of course they do, but most people seem to confuse these two.

2
“Galacar: “when light enters something like glass, it will slow down,
but when it leaves the glass it will speed up again! How is this possible?”
The proposed explanation for this is that when light is in the glass there are more charged particles to slightly alter the direction the photon is moving in the glass than in the air. This makes the light seemingly go slower. The reason the light does not change the general direction within the glass is because the charges are not strong enough to change the light’s general direction”

I don’t get you here. I haven’t talked about the ‘direction” at all.
And you agree it is slowing down but you don’t adress that it is going FASTER when exiting the glass.
That means it has to accelarate. Where is the power for this coming from? It is nowhere, as far as I could find, explained.
So again, it is in conflict with the ‘law of conversation of energy”.

3

“Galacar: “when water freezes it will be able to do a lot of ‘work’ like bursting waterpipes, Isn’t that strange? Energy is taken away from water when it freezes and it expans! weird! and don’t mention ‘water bridges’ because they only shift the problem”
It seems to me that you are right about this one, even though I do not know what a ‘water bridge’ is.”

waterbridges are used as explanation for this one.
Just do a search on google and you will find it. as I wrote, it just shifts the problem and doesn’t explain it at all.

And so the WHOLE of classical physics is filled with HOLES. And as you look close at it all you will also see a LOT, and I mean a LOT of circular reasoning in ‘physics’.

In my eyes, the whole of physics is obsolete.

Like

• relativity-is-a-spoof  On November 15, 2019 at 10:00 pm

Some LaTeX or really any formatting would be nice. And why are you using such coercive, prescribed SI units? Why not make your own, founded on the TRUTH.

Like

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.