Debunking the Stundies - March Edition

[Horatius]

It appears as though he is in the process of constructing some sort of strawman that will have something to do with spontaneous changes in energy.

:con2:



To me it looks like he's taking some lessons from the Creationists. His pebble in the garden experiment is a lot like the tornado in the junkyard in concept.

[William Rea]

As has apparently already been pointed out, the quantities in the red box appear to be forces, which are vectoral in nature. The force due to gravity is mg, where g is a vector. Therefore the force is also a vector as a scalar multiplied by a vector remains a vector. By an identical analysis we were able to determine that energy is not a vector because it consists of a scalar mulitplying the dot-product between two vectors. This quantity must be scalar.

Energy is nothing but the dot product of a force with a displacement. This always results in a scalar quantity. The physics of forces is well understood and it's interation with (scalar) energy is also well understood.

I fail to see the relevance to the discussion of the concept of "vectoral energy". Are you implying that there is some relationship between forces and "vectoral energy"? And I repeat, there's nothing inherently wrong with "vectoral energy" other then the fact that there are no useful laws of physics that govern it's behavior. Furthermore, the entire presmise of the discussion is the ignorance that it belies when one tries to use the laws governing scalar energy to "vectoral energy".

In the context of our previous discussions and upon reflection I think I jumped into that Bazant example too early. I still believe that the way he used those terms (mg instead of F) was to acknowledge the energetic relationships in the system which he does elaborate on in the paper but, I accept the strict notation of the example makes it Force driven. I guess that being isolated from Academia and not having done Post-Graduate studies I am not in the habit of using that notation system.

I disagree with your second paragraph on the basis that the definition you give is the classic definition for Work, this has been quoted to me in previous posts. The more universal definition I understand for Energy is the capacity for doing Work. I don't consider myself a Physicist but the Force acting over a Distance definition rang alarm bells and I assumed it was a definition of energy peculiar to pure Physics. Hence my comments regarding a "Newton-centric view of Energy", "Energy is not an abstract concept" and "in which scientific sense the term Energy was being used".

I don't suppose that thermodynamics is something that comes up much in here but I don't consider Energy to be defined only by the Work it can do. I see Energy as a "tangible" quantity, some of which is potentially available to do Work. Since Energy is a universal currency I don't see how that concept of Energy cannot apply to Physics as well.

Since I trust your posts I was merely trying to get a rational view of the example to check how far I was diappearing up my backside. :)

Thanks for taking the time to check it out for me.

[beachnut]

Killtown post was clearly a good stundie, as is the pebble experiment 1.

Why is Jew Hating in William's avatar?

Is he protesting the Red Cross, or knocking neoNAZIs.
http://forums.randi.org/z/user/5/7/5/1/1/main.1172317457.jpg

Who are the Jew Hating people he is protesting in his avatar?

[slyjoe]

Physics is physics, and one of its characteristics is that it uses equations, as anti-Sophist pointed out. Some of the problems with your definition of energy is that you seem to be using terms in unfamiliar ways. Maybe if you stuck to equations we could figure out what you mean.

[Pipirr]

Killtown post was clearly a good stundie, as is the pebble experiment 1.

Why is Jew Hating in William's avatar?

Is he protesting the Red Cross, or knocking neoNAZIs.
http://forums.randi.org/z/user/5/7/5/1/1/main.1172317457.jpg

Who are the Jew Hating people he is protesting in his avatar?

Wild guess, the avatar was in response to accusations that had been levelled at him. That's what I assumed when I first saw it, but WR could tell you for sure. I don't think the avatar is accusing anyone of jew hating. Of course I may have missed the point of it entirely.

[William Rea]

Physics is physics, and one of its characteristics is that it uses equations, as anti-Sophist pointed out. Some of the problems with your definition of energy is that you seem to be using terms in unfamiliar ways. Maybe if you stuck to equations we could figure out what you mean.

I couldn't agree more that using mathematical models is an integral part of science and engineering.

I can understand that this concept of "Vectoral Energy" as it is being described appears left field but I don't understand how my definition of Energy is left field? Could you show me some examples so that I can possibly address them?

My concept of "Vectoral Energy" is no more than fairly basic thermodynamics.

[William Rea]

Wild guess, the avatar was in response to accusations that had been levelled at him. That's what I assumed when I first saw it, but WR could tell you for sure. I don't think the avatar is accusing anyone of jew hating. Of course I may have missed the point of it entirely.

You hit the nail on the head Pipirr.

Not that it is relevant to this thread in any way whatsoever but, as you seemed to be able to discern with relative ease in a single post the key word in the avatar is "Apparently". It is based upon the old Pepsi adverts (if you can recall them) and is an ironic take on many of the things I have been accused of in the past.

I think it goes well with my William Rea = Bill Rea = liBeRal user name.

The red cross on a white background is obviously the flag of my country of origin of which I am very proud.

Sorry that it's not a Conspiracy Theory.

[slyjoe]

I couldn't agree more that using mathematical models is an integral part of science and engineering.

I can understand that this concept of "Vectoral Energy" as it is being described appears left field but I don't understand how my definition of Energy is left field? Could you show me some examples so that I can possibly address them?

My concept of "Vectoral Energy" is no more than fairly basic thermodynamics.

Could you show the equations involving "Vectoral Energy" and how they work? I do not understand how this relates to basic thermo.

[Rob Lister]

My concept of "Vectoral Energy" is no more than fairly basic thermodynamics.


:dig:

[Anti-sophist]

I disagree with your second paragraph...

My second paragraph was just expounding on how the gravitational force(mg) relates to gravitational potential energy (mg dot h). In this case, GPE -is- a dot product between force and distance. The nuanced distinction between energy and work doesn't exist when we are talking about gravity. However, you are correct that in the more general case, the ability to do work isn't the same as energy.


I don't consider myself a Physicist but the Force acting over a Distance definition rang alarm bells ....

I understand what you are saying, specifically that there is a fundamental difference between work and energy. There is, yes. But not when we are dealing with only gravity.

All energy can be equated to a force acting over a distance. While it's true that some kinds of energy (thermal, for instance), can't be litterally be broken down into a specific force over a specific distance, that doesn't mean that the thermal energy doesn't have an 'equivalent' that is force times distance. We can say this amount of thermal energy is this many Joules... which means it corresponds to this many Newtons over this many meters.

When we are talking about gravity, the concepts of work and energy are one and the same. The only time the nuanced distinction makes an apperance is when we start to add thermal energy into the mix (or thermal producing processes, like friction).

[Mr.D]

I have stated my credentials at least three times on this forum, the last time being in this very thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2507410#post2507410

I cannot state any more than that since the industry I work in is extremely specialist, and any further information will compromise my anonymity.


(I can't find the at least two other times you posted your credentials) The above post is notable in that it does not answer my original question.


1) Do you have a degree from an accredited university? What kind?
2) Are you a certified engineer?


It is on record on the forum as I have stated it before, I am a Mechanical Engineer but in the US sense I majored in Structures.

If that is as far as you are willing to post about your credentials, then fine. I, for one will never ask again.

[slyjoe]

All energy can be equated to a force acting over a distance. While it's true that some kinds of energy (thermal, for instance), can't be litterally be broken down into a specific force over a specific distance, that doesn't mean that the thermal energy doesn't have an 'equivalent' that is force times distance. We can say this amount of thermal energy is this many Joules... which means it corresponds to this many Newtons over this many meters.


Great response. But "Newtons OVER meters"?

Sorry - I was doing the math, not the reading. I think I know what you mean :)

[William Rea]

My second paragraph was just expounding on how the gravitational force(mg) relates to gravitational potential energy (mg dot h). In this case, GPE -is- a dot product between force and distance. The nuanced distinction between energy and work doesn't exist when we are talking about gravity. However, you are correct that in the more general case, the ability to do work isn't the same as energy.

I understand what you are saying, specifically that there is a fundamental difference between work and energy. There is, yes. But not when we are dealing with only gravity.

All energy can be equated to a force acting over a distance. While it's true that some kinds of energy (thermal, for instance), can't be litterally be broken down into a specific force over a specific distance, that doesn't mean that the thermal energy doesn't have an 'equivalent' that is force times distance. We can say this amount of thermal energy is this many Joules... which means it corresponds to this many Newtons over this many meters.

When we are talking about gravity, the concepts of work and energy are one and the same. The only time the nuanced distinction makes an apperance is when we start to add thermal energy into the mix (or thermal producing processes, like friction).

Once again I am indebted to you for your response.

This isn't directed at you but I find it hard to reconcile this rather loose general use of the terms Energy and Work with the nit-picking attitude shown to my approach.

I was going to nit-pick and add that unless we assume that an object is falling in a vacuum there will be thermal energy from friction with the atmosphere anyway but I won't. Oh darn I just did. :)

[William Rea]

Could you show the equations involving "Vectoral Energy" and how they work? I do not understand how this relates to basic thermo.

Anti-Sophist has already shown much better than I ever could with mathematics that Energy is not a vector. You can catch up with this at the following link...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2516037#post2516037

There are two successive posts explaining it, and I accepted that due to Conservation of Energy the mathematics doesn't work.

The relationship to Thermodynamics is really about application of how the subject treats Energy more universally. The flow of Q from Hot to Cold potentials is directional, I am extending that to conceptualise that the Energy involved in the fall of a free body shows a similar directionality between two potentials High to Low. In the same way that Electrical Energy flows from a High to a Low Potential Voltage.

Ultimately, it revolves around a statement from someone called Griffin...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491103#post2491103

...which was called out as being dumb but which I argue is not conceptually that dumb. In the context of the whole quote it has been pointed out to me that saying the Potential Energy couldn't act sideways was even dumber but was not quoted.

I urge you to read the full thread to get the full journey to where we are now.

[slyjoe]

Thank you for the clarification.

[William Rea]

Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome, but that was written from my point of view and there are others.

[Mr.D]

All energy can be equated to a force acting over a distance. While it's true that some kinds of energy (thermal, for instance), can't be litterally be broken down into a specific force over a specific distance, that doesn't mean that the thermal energy doesn't have an 'equivalent' that is force times distance. We can say this amount of thermal energy is this many Joules... which means it corresponds to this many Newtons over this many meters.

Perhaps a better way of describing thermal energy is actually to break it down into tiny little energies. Put a thermometer into a cup of hot water - what the thermometer reads is basically a statistical sampling of the individual water molecules' kinetic energies summed over the exposed surface of the thermometer multiplied by the energy distribution of the water (modulo the thermal transfer properties of the water and thermometer).

Or perhaps in terms Mr. Rea might find more familiar - thermal energy is an integrated measure of individual particles capacity to do work over a distance.

Consider PV=nRT as it relates to a gedankenexperiment with a rectangular prism shaped chamber filled with an ideal gas. One of the chamber's walls is freely movable. (Frictionless etc. etc.) At STP, a given amount of gas "n" will come to equilibrium so that the volume of the chamber is given by nRT/P.

What happens when you heat the gas?

"Microscopically," the gas molecules hitting the movable wall from the inside are balancing the air molecules hitting it from the outside. When we heat the gas, the molecules closest to the heat source will receive energy from said heat source (generally through collision or radiation) and proceed to transfer energy to other gas molecules (etc. etc.) until the entire collection of molecules come to statistical equilibrium. As this is happening, the now more energetic gas particles are colliding with the movable wall, pushing it outward until a new equilibrium position is reached.

Take the "Macroscopic" point of view. Since the amount of gas doesn't change and external atmospheric pressure is constant, the volume of gas will expand until a new pressure equilibrium is reached.

Same thing (Kinetic energy integrated over each molecule =~ Temperature), same result!

But notice. In both ways of looking at the system, the movable wall moves due to Pressure|Energy Transfer. Does this not mean that the KE/Thermal Energy has a direction that points towards the wall?

No. Consider the same experiment, but with two movable walls. In which direction does the energy point? Or three. Or model a balloon as an infinite set of infinitely small walls.

The answer is that in the first case, the action is in the direction we put the movable wall, because that's where we put the movable wall!

Put another way. In Mr. Rea's example of heating one end of a metal bar, the heat moves from one end to another because that's the shape of the bar. The apparent "vector-like" direction of energy transfer in this case is not a property of the thermal energy itself, but with the vector-like setup of the experiment!

"Hot to Cold" is a 'direction' in the same sense that "Radially Outward" is a 'direction' in the expanding balloon case or the heated disk I asked about elsewhere. It is descriptive terminology, not an inherent property of the energy itself.

[Mobyseven]

This is getting further and further away from the only question that really needs to be asked here.

William - is gravitational potential energy a vector?

[Cuddles]

This has been said before, but apparently William has either missed it or decided it only applies in the real world and not his special one. Energy is defined to be a scalar. It is simple as that. There is no argument possible about it, it is a definition. Energy is a scalar. If you find something that has a direction, it is not energy, because that is how energy is defined. No matter how much you argue about something having "vectorial properties", if it does, it is not energy. Energy does not and cannot have any direction at all, because is it did it would be a vector, which energy is not. It doesn't matter what you believe or whether you claim to only be playing Devil's advocate or whatever, energy is energy as it is defined to be, and that definition rules out any possibility of it ever having any kind of directional property. That is what "scalar" means. Did I mention that energy is a scalar?

[slyjoe]

I think he accepted that in post 264. However, in the same post, he also said electrical energy flows from a high to low potential. Current flows, not energy. I'll leave the thermo stuff from that post to the thermo guys.

[Belz...]

1) Saying that you don't think that Killtown was asking for a link to a non-internet video because you don't believe Killtown would be stupid enough to ask for a link to a non-internet video is pretty much a textbook case of the argument from incredulity. Not speculation on my part.

That was a joke. Hence the smiley. It indeed was incredulity, but I wasn't making an argument from it.

As for why this is the more probable explanation - I've already gone over this in my previous posts to William. There doesn't seem to be anything you've brought up that I haven't already addressed in my analysis.

Well, I just feel that the fact that not one of the two posters followed through about that remark doesn't really tell us which one's more likely. That's why I find your certainty about it puzzling.

But in any event, it really isn't important.

[William Rea]

I think he accepted that in post 264. However, in the same post, he also said electrical energy flows from a high to low potential. Current flows, not energy. I'll leave the thermo stuff from that post to the thermo guys.

I said it flows from high to low potential, I didn't say it flowed in the conductor.

[Oliver]

I said it flows from high to low potential, I didn't say it flowed in the conductor.


Where is you humor, William? I mean it's getting summer and
I already feel it ... literally - at least here in germany. Enjoy
life and the stundies! :D

[Anti-sophist]

I said it flows from high to low potential, I didn't say it flowed in the conductor.

If by "it" you mean energy, you are wrong! Har! (erm, just kidding!?)

More importantly, this goes back to the concept of faux-pas versus ignorance. It's technically incorrect to say electrical energy flows from high potential to low potential, but everyone knows exactly what that means, and as long as we don't take the concept of "enegy-flow" too far and start applying incorrect physical laws to it, it's no big deal.

[Mobyseven]

That was a joke. Hence the smiley. It indeed was incredulity, but I wasn't making an argument from it.

Fair call about it being a joke, but one of yor statements was that you 'couldn't believe' that KT would ask for a link to a non-internet video. That IS an argument from incredulity.

Well, I just feel that the fact that not one of the two posters followed through about that remark doesn't really tell us which one's more likely. That's why I find your certainty about it puzzling.

But one of the two posters DID follow through about the remark, in a way that distinctly supports the interpretation I suggest is far and away the most probable. That Killtown ignores WWGHA pointing out his mistake is no more than would be expected from what we know of Killtown.

But in any event, it really isn't important.

I wouldn't say that, but I definately wouldn't say it is worth arguing over too much. I'd just like William to apologise for his actions and retract his accusations.

[Mobyseven]

I said it flows from high to low potential, I didn't say it flowed in the conductor.

So you accept that gravitational potential energy cannot, by definition, be 'vertical'?

[Belz...]

Fair call about it being a joke, but one of yor statements was that you 'couldn't believe' that KT would ask for a link to a non-internet video. That IS an argument from incredulity.

Well, I didn't mean it as an argument, just my personal observation. Sorry for the confusion.

But one of the two posters DID follow through about the remark, in a way that distinctly supports the interpretation I suggest is far and away the most probable. That Killtown ignores WWGHA pointing out his mistake is no more than would be expected from what we know of Killtown.

Well, Killtown's silence on that subject doesn't help his case (or mine), but it really doesn't make anything clearer, either.

I wouldn't say that, but I definately wouldn't say it is worth arguing over too much. I'd just like William to apologise for his actions and retract his accusations.

Good luck with that.

[Mobyseven]

William:

You've clearly been around these parts, and it was you who started this thread in the first place.

As such, I'm going to ask you politely now - please apologise for your attempt to deliberately mislead the other members of this forum, and please retract your accusation that The Stundies are all about ad hominem attacks. Also please retract your specific accusations about the two nominations you set out to debunk, as it has been fairly clearly shown that you were wrong about both of these things.

I take personal offense to this, as it was me who organised the March Stundies (and likely the April ones too the way things are going), and I took care to eliminate exactly the types of things you have accused me (yes, me) of including in the finals.

Before you even started this thread, there was already a discussion underway as to trial rules to set in place for the April Nominations. These have been put in place, and any nominations breaching said rules will be disqualified automatically.

I eagerly await your response.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

[William Rea]

If by "it" you mean energy, you are wrong! Har! (erm, just kidding!?)

More importantly, this goes back to the concept of faux-pas versus ignorance. It's technically incorrect to say electrical energy flows from high potential to low potential, but everyone knows exactly what that means, and as long as we don't take the concept of "enegy-flow" too far and start applying incorrect physical laws to it, it's no big deal.

Well at least I didn't say it flows in the charge of the current!

I know from how you answer me that you understand my take on this and I'm fine that you're sensibly critical of it. I personally don't see any contradiction between saying that Energy is scalar and also saying that there are directional restrictions on how it can be turned into Work or Heat.

Purely as a point of interest, do you have any links for educational material on exchanges of photons and gravitons and an understandable explanation of Poynting Fields? I think my knowledge of Electromagnetics is way out of date.

[Mr.D]

I personally don't see any contradiction between saying that Energy is scalar and also saying that there are directional restrictions on how it can be turned into Work or Heat.


Mr. Rea,

Is this an admission that you were wrong asserting that energy has a "vectoral quality" or direction inherent to it?

[Mobyseven]

William, you have been online and posting in this very thread, but you have ignored my post here:

William:

You've clearly been around these parts, and it was you who started this thread in the first place.

As such, I'm going to ask you politely now - please apologise for your attempt to deliberately mislead the other members of this forum, and please retract your accusation that The Stundies are all about ad hominem attacks. Also please retract your specific accusations about the two nominations you set out to debunk, as it has been fairly clearly shown that you were wrong about both of these things.

I take personal offense to this, as it was me who organised the March Stundies (and likely the April ones too the way things are going), and I took care to eliminate exactly the types of things you have accused me (yes, me) of including in the finals.

Before you even started this thread, there was already a discussion underway as to trial rules to set in place for the April Nominations. These have been put in place, and any nominations breaching said rules will be disqualified automatically.

I eagerly await your response.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

Would you please respond to this post? In case he has me on ignore, can somebody please quote this post for me?

[William Rea]

Thank you for your reasoned response, it is very welcome and absolutely in keeping with how I'd like the thread to be.

I was sure when I visited the thread that I read it exactly as I quoted. I cannot get back into the original thread on LCF to check it again (it appears to be closed down). Without any further evidence to back me up I have no option but to agree with your analysis completely. Thank you for pointing this out in a very rational manner and please accept my apology for initially misleading you.

I fully agree with you that this apparent discrepancy on my part does not invalidate the rational argument that asking for a link to "normal" video does not qualify the nomination.

In addition, to reiterate what I have already said on here I do not use the ignore function.

[Anti-sophist]

I personally don't see any contradiction between saying that Energy is scalar and also saying that there are directional restrictions on how it can be turned into Work or Heat.


This is entirely correct. The missing ingredient is what those restrictions are and how they relate to energy. Namely, they don't relate to energy, at all. The directional restrictions come from the environment in the form of forces. The environment places the restrictions on how the energy can change forms.

It's important to keep the original point in mind when thinking about this, namely that the WTC towers couldn't have had lateral ejections because "gravitational energy points down". The problem is the GPE doesn't "point down" and the restrictions that define how the energy can change doesn't come from the nature of gravity, but from the nature of the building.

The wagon example provides an excellent example of how a slope uses a normal force (and newton's third law) to counteract the gravitational force, and consequently puts a net force on the wagon that causes the GPE to result in horizontal motion.


Purely as a point of interest, do you have any links for educational material on exchanges of photons and gravitons and an understandable explanation of Poynting Fields? I think my knowledge of Electromagnetics is way out of date.Whoa, whoa. You know of a way to explain gravitons electromagnetically? That'd win you a nobel prize and a place near Einstein & Newton in the pantheon of Science :P

I'm afraid I see what's happening with this question and hope I'm not being too cynical. However, it appears you want to bring up the concept of Poynting vectors as a way of explaining vectoral-energy. Poynting is a vector that does correspond to energy-flux. Saying more is difficult w/o busting out the technical mathematical language. This is a non-trivial issue to tackle in any detail as it requires extensive use of vector-calculus (contour and surface integrals, and the associated differential operators). I fear, however, that this is a case of losing the forest for the trees if this is an attempt to make some justification for 'vectoral energy' because none of these concepts apply to gravity as the original statement intended.

If I've been too cynical and you really just wanted more information, I'd start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

[William Rea]

Whoa, whoa. You know of a way to explain gravitons electromagnetically? That'd win you a nobel prize and a place near Einstein & Newton in the pantheon of Science :P

It was just something I was working on in my spare time between sleep and my Patent Office job.;)

I'm afraid I see what's happening with this question and hope I'm not being too cynical. However, it appears you want to bring up the concept of Poynting vectors as a way of explaining vectoral-energy. Poynting is a vector that does correspond to energy-flux. Saying more is difficult w/o busting out the technical mathematical language. This is a non-trivial issue to tackle in any detail as it requires extensive use of vector-calculus (contour and surface integrals, and the associated differential operators). I fear, however, that this is a case of losing the forest for the trees if this is an attempt to make some justification for 'vectoral energy' because none of these concepts apply to gravity as the original statement intended.

If I've been too cynical and you really just wanted more information, I'd start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

I wasn't intending to link Gravitons and Photons to Electromagnetism, I was just interested.

Your cynicism about Poynting wasn't wholly misplaced. I did start to think that way but quickly pulled back when I realised the detailed science of it was beyond me. I was looking for a conceptual overview of it because it seemed interesting.

[William Rea]

This is entirely correct. The missing ingredient is what those restrictions are and how they relate to energy. Namely, they don't relate to energy, at all. The directional restrictions come from the environment in the form of forces. The environment places the restrictions on how the energy can change forms.

It's important to keep the original point in mind when thinking about this, namely that the WTC towers couldn't have had lateral ejections because "gravitational energy points down". The problem is the GPE doesn't "point down" and the restrictions that define how the energy can change doesn't come from the nature of gravity, but from the nature of the building.

The wagon example provides an excellent example of how a slope uses a normal force (and newton's third law) to counteract the gravitational force, and consequently puts a net force on the wagon that causes the GPE to result in horizontal motion.

I understand what you are saying but I don't see that these directional restrictions only result from human interventions. Even without the human interventions such as a slope or a building, energy has a natural direction. I see it in reverse, in that we exploit this natural direction to make energy work for us.

Forces result from the exploitation of energy, for instance, pulling a lever requires a Force but if I have no energy available to exert a Force then the Force cannot exist.

That is why I disagree with the assumption that Energy and Work can be interchangeable terms. Energy is the resource and Work is the amount of that resource that we can make use of by exploiting the natural phenomena of Energy.

I fully agree that it is absurd to propose that GPE could not have resulted in sideways ejections of material. I will also reiterate that if the proposed Stundie had encompassed this rather than what it did attack then I would probably only have a moral objection to it.

As it stands on its own the nomination is not justified in my opinion.

[Anti-sophist]

Your cynicism about Poynting wasn't wholly misplaced. I did start to think that way but quickly pulled back when I realised the detailed science of it was beyond me. I was looking for a conceptual overview of it because it seemed interesting.
A Poynting vector is intimately related to the subject of electromagnetic waves (ie, light). Therefore, in a very real sense we have a particular amount of energy and a particular direction associated with it. In fact, a light beam is about as good an example of "directed" energy as you are going to get.

I could give you a 1-page crash course on vector fields, flux integrals, the E field, the B field, maxwell's equations as applied to electromagnetic waves, and what a poynting vector is, roughly, but I'm not sure I'd do much better then wikipedia.


Forces result from the exploitation of energy, for instance, pulling a lever requires a Force but if I have no energy available to exert a Force then the Force cannot exist.

Every electron in the universe experiences a force from every proton in the universe (both gravitationally and electromagnetically). I'm not sure what 'energy' is needed to exert these forces. I think you may have this conceptually backward, namely, energy as a concept only exists because of the 4 forces, as opposed to the other way around. Without any forces, there'd be no energy.


That is why I disagree with the assumption that Energy and Work can be interchangeable terms. Energy is the resource and Work is the amount of that resource that we can make use of by exploiting the natural phenomena of Energy.
I have no problem with this. Work and energy are not the same thing in practice entirely because of the second law of thermodynamics. In our mental experiments, however, we have the power to suspend the second law and the distinction between the two becomes less apparent.


I fully agree that it is absurd to propose that GPE could not have resulted in sideways ejections of material. I will also reiterate that if the proposed Stundie had encompassed this rather than what it did attack then I would probably only have a moral objection to it.

As it stands on its own the nomination is not justified in my opinion.As you might have guessed, I got involved in this conversation because it touches on a subject near and dear to me and I'm the intellectually adventurous type, not because I really care about humiliating CTists any more then they already humiliate themselves. I think it's safe to say I see both sides of the argument.

[William Rea]

Every electron in the universe experiences a force from every proton in the universe (both gravitationally and electromagnetically). I'm not sure what 'energy' is needed to exert these forces. I think you may have this conceptually backward, namely, energy as a concept only exists because of the 4 forces, as opposed to the other way around. Without any forces, there'd be no energy.

I think you guessed exactly that I was thinking about the four forces in terms of any energy exchanges that occur when each of their specific virtual exchange particles interact. Perhaps the forces are the results of governed exchanges of packets of energy in these particles.

This is going way outside my knowledge so I don't see that I can take it any further than to speculate but it has inspired me to look a little deeper into the subject so that must be a result.

[William Rea]

As you might have guessed, I got involved in this conversation because it touches on a subject near and dear to me and I'm the intellectually adventurous type, not because I really care about humiliating CTists any more then they already humiliate themselves. I think it's safe to say I see both sides of the argument.

I think your lack of emotional attachment to what I call the politics (small p) of it is clear and is actually very helpful.

You have certainly done more to convince me that this forum is not exclusively inhabited by rabidly political (small p) "skeptics". I know you don't want to get involved in that conversation but I thought it was worth saying to you anyway because you have been incredibly helpful and patient with me.

Thanks very much.

[Mobyseven]

In addition, to reiterate what I have already said on here I do not use the ignore function.

Wonderful. So you're not not seeing the posts that disagree with you and present arguments against your position, you're seeing them and then wilfully choosing to ignore them.

As I've stated before I find your allegations insulting and offensive. If you can see my posts, the least you could do is respond.

[William Rea]

Bump to accompany the March voting.

[chipmunk stew]

Bump to accompany the March voting.
Sure. Let's review:

RE: Killtown quote (current votes: 6)--
You lied.

RE: Griffin quote (current votes: 0)--
You were wrong.

Nice job debunking the Stundies.

[Mobyseven]

Bump to accompany the March voting.

After everything you've done, do you really think that bumping this thread is going to help your cause?

You have now been shown in this very thread to have lied numerous times, and to have been wrong about the very things you were 'debunking'!

To reiterate CS's summary:

Sure. Let's review:

RE: Killtown quote (current votes: 6)--
You lied.

RE: Griffin quote (current votes: 0)--
You were wrong.

Nice job debunking the Stundies.

I'm getting very tired of this, William. You could at least be a man of your word and admit when you've done something wrong, or been wrong. Remember when you told us that?

[Rob Lister]

After everything you've done, do you really think that bumping this thread is going to help your cause?

You have now been shown in this very thread to have lied numerous times, and to have been wrong about the very things you were 'debunking'!

To reiterate CS's summary:



I'm getting very tired of this, William. You could at least be a man of your word and admit when you've done something wrong, or been wrong. Remember when you told us that?

I think his best bet now is just to change his user account and avatar and pretend to be a newbe.

[William Rea]

Bump to accompany the March voting.

Bump again to accompany voting.

[Horatius]

After everything you've done, do you really think that bumping this thread is going to help your cause?


Bump again to accompany voting.



Apparently so....

[Mobyseven]

Apparently so....

Well then, to recap for those who are just joining the thread:

William alleges that The Stundies are no more than unwarrented ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose other than to ridicule the nominees.

This is not the case - in all the nominations, it is the argument, claim, or experiment that is being nominated for its less-than-well-thought-out reasoning. Not the poster. That some people are nominated more than others is what would be expected of such a competition, but nominations are not limited to conspiracy theorists - debunkers can be nominated also.

William further alleged that "at least two" of the March nominations are out-and-out ad hominems, and started this thread with the promise to 'debunk' The Stundies.

He started by 'debunking' the Killtown nomination for this month. However, he was caught out in the middle of a deliberate deception, having altered both the context of the nominated quote and the quote itself in order to strengthen his argument.

He also attempted to 'debunk' the David Ray Griffin quote, "...gravitational energy, which is vertical..." For those of you who are not particularly physically minded, it may help you to know that energy, by definition, is scalar - i.e. It has no direction, and cannot therefore be 'vertical'.

He has refused to acknowledge either his deception in the Killtown 'debunking' or his blatant mistake in the David Ray Griffin 'debunking'.

He also promised a while ago that he would be debunking a third March Stundie finalist. This has not happened.

That should about do it. I just thought that if William is going to be bumping the thread all the time to keep it near the Stundie voting thread, that someone should provide a run down of what actually happened in this thread.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

[beachnut]

please update it every month, you have saved reading tons

[William Rea]

To any newcomer, as far as I am concerned this thread is now dead with the main arguments proven and little left to discuss except side issues. Some of the sidetracking has been interesting. I now eagerly await the April nominations which should soon supercede this, particularly as I have been nominated which could make it fun.

I won't personalise this or turn it into some kind of beauty contest but will leave it to you to read and decide who has put forward the credible rational argument.

[Mobyseven]

To any newcomer, as far as I am concerned this thread is now dead with the main arguments proven and little left to discuss except side issues. Some of the sidetracking has been interesting. I now eagerly await the April nominations which should soon supercede this, particularly as I have been nominated which could make it fun.

I won't personalise this or turn it into some kind of beauty contest but will leave it to you to read and decide who has put forward the credible rational argument.
I'm curious as to whether William will constantly try to get the last word here...lets test this.
In addition to my previous post, I would like to point out that William has been simply ignoring those who have engaged him in debate when he can no longer respond to them.

[Horatius]

with the main arguments proven and little left to discuss except side issues. ...

leave it to you to read and decide who has put forward the credible rational argument.

I'm curious as to whether William will constantly try to get the last word here...lets test this.
In addition to my previous post, I would like to point out that William has been simply ignoring those who have engaged him in debate when he can no longer respond to them.



Now now, can't we agree that we've proven our points?

Perhaps we should create a poll, to see what others think on the question of "who has put forward the credible rational argument".

[Whiplash]

To any newcomer, as far as I am concerned this thread is now dead with the main arguments proven and little left to discuss except side issues. Some of the sidetracking has been interesting. I now eagerly await the April nominations which should soon supercede this, particularly as I have been nominated which could make it fun.

I won't personalise this or turn it into some kind of beauty contest but will leave it to you to read and decide who has put forward the credible rational argument.


It's a no brainer. It wasn't you. Not even close. You must be delusional the way you just ignore total ownage upon you and then declare victory.

[JonnyFive]

If William still wants to debunk something, perhaps he could take a shot at Rosie's "first time fire melted steel" or the Egg Tower experiment - those are the current poll leaders. ;)

[Mobyseven]

I, for one, would like to see the Egg Tower experiment debunked, and maybe also pagan's "Gravy in a batman suit" nomination.

[Mr.D]

little left to discuss except side issues.


Like this one? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2521418#post2521418)

Mr. Rea's behavior reminds me of someone I used to know. Reasonably bright fellow in a few select topics, but in possession of far more stubbornness and ego than knowledge in many other areas. Due to (let's call it) politics, he was often in a position of some authority with respect to one of those topics and in that position was usually right about things.

His problem was that he acted as if his authority and knowledge in one area made him correct by definition in everything. Anyone who pointed out something conceptually incorrect, logically incomplete or factually wrong would end up on his [rule8] list for weeks. Unless of course he felt like arguing right then and there, in which case you'd be in for a tour-de-force of invalid debate techniques; Move the goalposts. Redefine terms on the fly. Make vague references to previous statements that upon further reflection aren't actually on point. And my personal "favorite" of his: Answer a question (metaphorically) next to the question you really asked.

I'm glad I never had to deal with him on a professional level.

Now I'm not saying that Mr. Rea is exactly like this former acquaintance of mine, but this whole energy thread sure does feel familiar. (And it really does put his "orthodoxy" comments in a new light, doesn't it?)

ETA: I suppose one could skim this post and accuse me of attacking the person (and not the argument) by analogy, but I will posit that I am commenting on argument techniques used in this very thread by drawing an analogy to a personality type that many people have some personal experience with, thus attempting to put the techniques in a context that may be familiar to others.

An invalid technique invalidates the argument, not the user.

[beachnut]

To any newcomer, as far as I am concerned this thread is now dead with the main arguments proven and little left to discuss except side issues. Some of the sidetracking has been interesting. I now eagerly await the April nominations which should soon supercede this, particularly as I have been nominated which could make it fun.

I won't personalise this or turn it into some kind of beauty contest but will leave it to you to read and decide who has put forward the credible rational argument.
Ah, proof the ideals of the Stundie are being continued by your very post. Similar to truthers, without proof, you make your last post and declare victory after being soundly crushed. Tally ho.

Of interest, but not to waste time, would be the number of times this has occurred.