| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 08:53:31 PM |
| Object: |
Conservation of energy |
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to? It seems like the only way it could be independent of
inertial frame is if the total kinetic energy of the universe is 0(even
then I'm not sure). Like if there was an overall drift in one direction
then an inertial frame moving in the opposite direction would register
larger kinetic energy, no? Any help is appreciated.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
16 Sep 2005 11:30:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe,
It need not be - General Relativity. Mass-energy is definitely
locally conserved (call it a lightyear radius).
and kinetic energy is
one form of this,
Kinetic energy, being a function of velocity, only exists as a
comparison of inertial reference frames. You want soemthign like ds^2
as the conserved quantity. Particle phsyics does this trivial
exercise routinely.
then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to?
Center of mass, whatever. See how particle physics calculates
conserved properties from relativistic interactions.
It seems like the only way it could be independent of
inertial frame is if the total kinetic energy of the universe is 0(even
then I'm not sure). Like if there was an overall drift in one direction
then an inertial frame moving in the opposite direction would register
larger kinetic energy, no? Any help is appreciated.
The entire visible universe apparently sums to exactly zero.
Everything algebraically added exactly cancels - as it should from a
vacuum fluctuation.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
15 Sep 2005 09:42:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to?
Energy is not conserved, throughout the universe.
Which is why GPS even works.
The speed of light is conserved in inertial
reference frames.
And kinetic energy is just energy that's chemically
bonded in an inertial frame. So it's what
all the other energy is measured relative to.
It seems like the only way it could be independent of
inertial frame is if the total kinetic energy of the universe is 0(even
then I'm not sure). Like if there was an overall drift in one direction
then an inertial frame moving in the opposite direction would register
larger kinetic energy, no? Any help is appreciated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
15 Sep 2005 10:04:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
legomir2000@yahoo.com wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to?
Energy is not conserved, throughout the universe.
Which is why GPS even works.
The speed of light is conserved in inertial
reference frames.
And kinetic energy is just energy that's chemically
bonded in an inertial frame. So it's what
all the other energy is measured relative to.
Of course most of this is *****!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
16 Sep 2005 06:01:10 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
legomir2000@yahoo.com wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to?
Energy is not conserved, throughout the universe.
Which is why GPS even works.
The speed of light is conserved in inertial
reference frames.
And kinetic energy is just energy that's chemically
bonded in an inertial frame. So it's what
all the other energy is measured relative to.
Of course most of this is *****!
It's only ***** in Cern. But since the
only energy they do is plane tickets to
Sydney, it makes no differnce, or is
invariant, in the moron-gestapo-villa
of science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
15 Sep 2005 09:29:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to?
Any one that convenient.
Don't restrict yourself to just the kinetic part of energy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
16 Sep 2005 11:42:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to? It seems like the only way it could be independent of
inertial frame is if the total kinetic energy of the universe is 0(even
then I'm not sure).
Conservation of energy (or anything else) doesn't mean that all
inertial frames must measure the same value.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
16 Sep 2005 11:15:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to? It seems like the only way it could be independent of
inertial frame is if the total kinetic energy of the universe is 0(even
then I'm not sure). Like if there was an overall drift in one direction
then an inertial frame moving in the opposite direction would register
larger kinetic energy, no? Any help is appreciated.
Let's be careful. The principle of relativity says the *laws of
physics* are the same in any inertial frame. It does not say that the
*values of the quantities* in the laws are the same in any inertial
frame.
As an example, if you saw two hockey players on ice and could measure
their velocities and masses, and they collided, you would find that
adding up their momenta beforehand and afterwards, the momenta before
and after would be identical -- momentum is conserved.
If, however, you looked at that same collision while riding on a
Zamboni, all of the values of the velocities would change, and so would
their momenta. But it would *still* be true that the sum of the momenta
before would be the same as the sum of the momenta afterwards. The
*law* holds in any reference frame, not the values of the momenta.
Thus, choosing a reference frame and coming up with a value of the
kinetic energy in the universe is independent of the claim that the
energy is *conserved*.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: The net Mass_Energy of the universe is slightly negative. |
15 Sep 2005 10:36:56 PM |
|
|
Hi legomir2000,
You asked about the conservation of kinetic energy in the universe.
Entropy, the second law of thermodymanics, means that
Mass_Energy, a.k.a. Wave_Particles, tend to dissipate,
....making them unavailable for useful work !
We suffer from an entropy crises, not an energy crises.
Whether an entity is a wave or a particle depends on how one measures it.
I posit that randomness is ever virtual, never real,
....randomness is naught but incomplete information.
So_Called Cosmic_Time is really entropy, the fifth _Spatial_ dimension,
....it's Space_Time_Entropy... the entire universe, including protons
are on course to become relatively nothing... a vacuum.
Data from standard candles, e.g type 1-A supernovae,
tell us that space_time is expanding at an accelerated rate
where Einstein's cosmological constant, lambda, is the best fit.
The universe is observed to be dissipating, that is, going from
relatively infinite density and no entropy, to relatively no density,
a perfect vacuum, infinite entopy.
So the net mass_energy of the universe is slightly negative,
i.e. there's a deficit and it's gravitationally repulsive.
I posit that gravity and long_lived protons are naught but left_over density,
from the so_called start of the big bang.
What is the density of protons anyway ? We don't know.
Gravity is like casino winnings,
....irregardless of short_term gains, it loses to the house in the long_run.
The only thing anyone or _Anything_ ever did was burn bright, like a star,
dissipating into the night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The net Mass_Energy of the universe is slightly negative. |
16 Sep 2005 02:05:23 AM |
|
|
crises -> crisis
irregardless -> irrespective
Observe the dark energy and matter and you'll change your mind about
entropy. Cheat the house by changing the rules.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Entropy reversals are naught but virtual. |
16 Sep 2005 03:18:38 AM |
|
|
Hi Autymn, I said Entopy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, and you replied:
Observe the dark energy and matter and you'll change your mind about entropy.
Cheat the house by changing the rules.
Oh great, you think you can change nature's rules ? Nice sketch.
You take proscribed and prescribed drugs for that, don't you ?
Dark energy, described best by Einstein's Cosmological_Constant, is entropy.
Just as randomness is incomplete information, ever virtual, never real,
so too is any reversal of entropy... it's naught but virtual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Entropy reversals are naught but virtual. |
16 Sep 2005 05:38:30 AM |
|
|
Jeff_Relf wrote:
Hi Autymn, I said Entopy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, and you replied:
Observe the dark energy and matter and you'll change your mind about entropy.
Cheat the house by changing the rules.
Oh great, you think you can change nature's rules ? Nice sketch.
You take proscribed and prescribed drugs for that, don't you ?
Dark energy, described best by Einstein's Cosmological_Constant, is entropy.
Just as randomness is incomplete information, ever virtual, never real,
so too is any reversal of entropy... it's naught but virtual.
I think so, and it needn't be virtual (pseudoparticulate). Read my
messages in the gimme money and second law threads. Energy is not
entropy; stop conflating different properties, retard.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
15 Sep 2005 09:16:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1126835611.696602.161120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, writes:
If energy is conserved throughout the universe, and kinetic energy is
one form of this, then what inertial frame is everything measured
relative to? It seems like the only way it could be independent of
inertial frame is if the total kinetic energy of the universe is 0(even
then I'm not sure). Like if there was an overall drift in one direction
then an inertial frame moving in the opposite direction would register
larger kinetic energy, no? Any help is appreciated.
Two points.
1) Once you get to General relativity the issue of global energy
conservation becomes ill defined, at least.
2) Abstracting from the above and staying within the framework of
Newtonian physics or, at most, special relativity, you're confusing
two different things, "conserved" and "invariant". A quantity is
conserved if its value, relative to *whatever* inertial frame remains
constant in time. A quantity is invariant if if its value at a given
point in time is the same relative to all possible inertial frames.
Not the same thing. Thus, in newtonian physics (and SR) energy is
conserved but not invariant. The relative velocity between two
particles is invariant, but not conserved. As I said, different
things.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
16 Sep 2005 05:42:57 AM |
|
|
In article <rWpWe.18$45.5781@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
<snip>
2) Abstracting from the above and staying within the framework of
Newtonian physics or, at most, special relativity, you're confusing
two different things, "conserved" and "invariant". A quantity is
conserved if its value, relative to *whatever* inertial frame remains
constant in time. A quantity is invariant if if its value at a given
point in time is the same relative to all possible inertial frames.
Not the same thing. Thus, in newtonian physics (and SR) energy is
conserved but not invariant. The relative velocity between two
particles is invariant, but not conserved. As I said, different
things.
This should go into the FAQ. I don't remember being explicitly
told this when I took a kindergarten physics course.
To this day, I confuse the two concepts.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
16 Sep 2005 12:57:56 PM |
|
|
In article <dge7jh$8qk_002@s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <rWpWe.18$45.5781@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
<snip>
2) Abstracting from the above and staying within the framework of
Newtonian physics or, at most, special relativity, you're confusing
two different things, "conserved" and "invariant". A quantity is
conserved if its value, relative to *whatever* inertial frame remains
constant in time. A quantity is invariant if if its value at a given
point in time is the same relative to all possible inertial frames.
Not the same thing. Thus, in newtonian physics (and SR) energy is
conserved but not invariant. The relative velocity between two
particles is invariant, but not conserved. As I said, different
things.
This should go into the FAQ. I don't remember being explicitly
told this when I took a kindergarten physics course.
To this day, I confuse the two concepts.
Can't blame you for confusing them as this is rarely discussed in
introductory physics. Don't recall eveer hearing about the
distinction in high school. In fact, as I recall, it was only during
my sophomore year in college that this was more or less spelled out.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
06 Oct 2005 02:03:59 PM |
|
|
The conservation of energy states that any self contained system has a
total energy which is a constant. This means potential, kinetic,
nuclear, etc.
As to what fram of reference we are using, it doesn't matter. If we
establish an inertial reference frame and measure the energy of the
system. When we calculate teh total energy of the system we may get a
different total energy in the new reference frame, however all
measurements in either frame will have the same total energy as the
initial measurement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EugeniuszW" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
18 Oct 2005 09:19:24 PM |
|
|
<tdennis14@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128625439.661897.262450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The conservation of energy states that any self contained system has a
total energy which is a constant. This means potential, kinetic,
nuclear, etc.
As to what fram of reference we are using, it doesn't matter. If we
establish an inertial reference frame and measure the energy of the
system. When we calculate teh total energy of the system we may get a
different total energy in the new reference frame, however all
measurements in either frame will have the same total energy as the
initial measurement.
******
******
Welcome
I would ask you , if is it impossibly to get " free energy"
pumping the water from deep ocean.
Pumping the impetus, speed water, give it for us surplus energy
This impetus water ,we drop on turbine , which is on the same level as
water in the ocean.
The turbine is connected to generator of electrical energy.
sincerely E.W.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservation of energy |
17 Nov 2005 03:18:04 PM |
|
|
How are yo intending to pump this water and where is the energy for the
pump coming from?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
