Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

So, what is "KE"?

And how do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

What is "thermal energy due to friction"?

And how do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

In physic we talk about different kind of energy.
Energy can convert from one kind to another, but it should not be possible that it can be lost..

Therefore it is always important to be able to track which path energy follows.

• KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy
• Thermal energy is heat

These are the most simple and known we have used.

For example when a planet or a moon emits more energy (heat) as we can account for, - we must try to understand the "path" that energy possible could have taken, - to become thermal heat. – For example simple motion / friction due to gravity, but that motion could also come from the electromagnetic or even the atomic level. – For example at that level where the curvature of space is “created”, and therefore a part of that process.

Since there are several possibility we must be carefully which option we believe in, and especially carefully to take on the anti crackpot glasses when we self are on very thin ice. .

I mean if we for example do not know if the strong force and gravity is a united, we could very easy be blindfolded, and even teaching “truth” we self have completely failed to understand.

We can also not on the one hand conclude that energy never can disappear, but when it comes to the ((“apparently”)) lost of photon energy, it is “suddenly” a possible all right option…… (due to the expanding Universe). Also when it comes to such silly conclusions it is important NOT to compromise: Energy can NOT disappear. Either can photon frequencies. - It is obviously that there is something serious wrong.

You can say the path energy moves always is a smoking gun, - it MUST be.
But because of all the incoherent crap science now a days are dealing with, things get very easy worse, when first the carrier already is derailed.

Very suddenly it is also “necessary” even to event new dimension where energy and even gravity possible can disappear.
And that is also not enough also new universes have now been invented, in the name of science / energy. I mean are there any higher (sick) bid?

Such only demonstrate desperate ideas, that we much too often witnesses, and that much too often leads to that we (all) MUST accept / believe, - and from that completely nuts foundation things very easy escalates out in plenty of dimension, and even worse; also mass hypnotizing such wrong conclusions into innocent brains do also become necessary, - Off course instead of asking the simple question: is the ground connection all right, and have something pretty simple been overlooked?
......

It is sooooo easy using a Scientific Calculator. At what percent of the speed of light would an object weight double its weight?
2 divided into 1 or hit the 1/x function = .5
Then all you have to do is hit the Arc (INV) Sin = (30) and than the Cos = (0.8660 etc) x 100 you have the answer in percent (86.60%) the speed of light.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Paul

I don't know what you are talking about...(?)

 

[Paulhoff]

I don't know what you are talking about...(?)

You are the only one, so think about it.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.
How do you explain what really happens?
Don't just cover this like > bla bla "inertia" bla bla expression, - but explain WHY you must use more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Your ignorance is showing yet again Bjarne: Special relativity explains what really happens.
But then you should know this being the genius that you think that you are .

 

[Reality Check]

In physic we talk about different kind of energy.
Energy can convert from one kind to another, but it should not be possible that it can be lost..



Therefore it is always important to be able to track which path energy follows.

• KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy
• Thermal energy is heat

...

Not totally wrong for once but showing a massive gap in your knowledge (the "smoking gun" you mention).

In physics we talk about two main kinds of energy and many kinds of energy within these 2 main kinds.
Energy can convert from one kind to another, but it should not be possible that it can be lost.



Therefore it is always important to be able to track which path energy follows.

• KE (kinetic energy) is energy of motion. This is called thermal energy when the things in motion are atoms.
• PE (potential energy) is the energy that is available to a body in an external field like an electromagnetic or gravitational field.

So when a body falls in a gravitational field it gains KE and loses PE.
A body in circular orbit is moving at a constant speed (KE does not change) and at a constant height (PE is constant).

This gets more complicated for elliptical orbits but they have been well understood for about 400 years (since Kepler).

Add in relativity and things get really complicated, e.g. energy by itself is not longer conserved - it is the components of the energy-momentum 4-vector that are conserved. Luckily planets rarely move at relativistic speed and so we can ignore generally relativistic effects.

 

[ArcturusA]

Energy can NOT disappear.

Why?

Seriously. Why should energy be conserved?

If you can't answer that question, and I suspect you can't, then you really have no right to be talking about whether GR is wrong or not.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If you must used force to get a car uphill it MUST come down when the force suddenly (halfway up) disappear.

Nope.

Drive a car halfway up a hill. Park the car, but keep the engine running. Engage the emergency/parking break. Place the car in neutral gear. Turn off the car. Notice the car does not roll down the hill.

Place a coin flat on the ground. Push the coin halfway up a hill. Notice the coin does not come down the hill.

Drive a car to the bottom of a hill. Park the car in neutral with the parking break on. Get several people to push the car halfway up the hill. Notice that it doesn't go down the hill.

Please explain what is, or is not, happening in this photo (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/981197857_3b1be44587.jpg) taken from this article (http://clog.dailycal.org/2008/07/13/berkeley-dust-used-to-improve-san-francisco-parking/)

 

[Bjarne]

Your ignorance is showing yet again Bjarne: Special relativity explains what really happens.
But then you should know this being the genius that you think that you are .

Wrong it explains it happens NOT why it really happens
I can explain that a cow say: Muuuhhh, but this is not what REALLY happens, but only sounds that reach my ears.

You are the only one, so think about it..

Ok...let me put it in other words.
Mass increase has nothing with the discussion to do, except that this express the potential energy. It doesn’t explain why you have resistance against motion, but only that potential energy is converted and preserved.

Add in relativity and things get really complicated, e.g.

So “complicated” that nobody no longer understand anything.
Hence it allows the fourth dimension junkyard, - where all kind of scientific poison and junk (that do not fit to reality) is allowed to be thrown, without any question or opposition. .,

energy by itself is not longer conserved - it is the components of the energy-momentum 4-vector that are conserved.

Let us have an concrete example of the meaing with such 4D junk yard expression.
For example where does the photon energy disappears or the frequencies, when the Universe keep expending
Or try you to come up with better strange examples

Bjarne
Energy can NOT disappear
ArturusA
Why?
Seriously. Why should energy be conserved?

A cow is conserved energy too.
I do not believe it suddenly can disappear, (!) - do you ?
I mean yess when the grass is very high, but this is not what I mean.
Ohhh off course also a UFO can kidnap the cow and bring it to unknown dimensions, but you know this is not science.
Maybe someone believes also GR also can bring the cow to other dimensions, and completely hide if from reality (not only for Reality-Check but hidding it also for REALITY) ? Should that be possible ? - do you belive it ?
I don’t think this is a smart solution, and the cow certianly would not like it either.

Drive a car halfway up a hill. Park the car, but keep the engine running. Engage the emergency/parking break.

Good handbrake point.
Space have such handbrake too, you just can’t see it. – And it is not very strong.

Please explain what is, or is not, happening in this photo (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/981197857_3b1be44587.jpg) taken from this article (http://clog.dailycal.org/2008/07/13/berkeley-dust-used-to-improve-san-francisco-parking/)

Nothing happens here..

 

[Reality Check]

This response to Bjarne really deserves 2 laughing dogs given how much amusement that this display of ignorance from Bjarne is giving the world and will give the everyone for decades if not centuries to come.
So here is the first one:

​

Wrong it explains it happens NOT why it really happens
I can explain that a cow say: Muuuhhh, but this is not what REALLY happens, but only sounds that reach my ears.

Science explains both what happens in special relativity and how it happens.

Ok...let me put it in other words.
Mass increase has nothing with the discussion to do, except that this express the potential energy. It doesn’t explain why you have resistance against motion, but only that potential energy is converted and preserved.

Ok...let me put it in other words.
Mass increase has nothing with the discussion to do, except it has nothing to do with potental energy.
Mass increase states nothing about resistance against motion.
Relativistic mass increase is to do with the difference in velocity between observers.
Relativistic mass increase has nothing to do with potential energy.

Inertia is the resistance to motion. It has nothing to do with either relativistic mass increase or potential energy.

So “complicated” that nobody no longer understand anything.

No: so "compilcated" that you do not understand it since the Lorentz factor invoves addition, division, square roots and velocity:

• Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
    First asked 23 October 2009
    So far the answer is no !

Hence it allows the fourth dimension junkyard, - where all kind of scientific poison and junk (that do not fit to reality) is allowed to be thrown, without any question or opposition. .,

Hence the fourth dimension (time) that actually matches the real universe instead of your fantasy:
The real universe: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity.
Bjarne's fantasy: The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads.

Let us have an concrete example of the meaing with such 4D junk yard expression.
For example where does the photon energy disappears or the frequencies, when the Universe keep expending
Or try you to come up with better strange examples

Now your ignorance has lead you into the trap of confusing geneneral realtivity with special realtivity.
It also reveals that you still canot read posts or keep what they say in your head:

General Relativity is the theory that describes cosmological redshift. Energy is not known to be conserved in GR except in the limit where it becomes Special Relativity (and then further limits to classical mechanics).

As to where the energy goes, there are a couple of options

• It appears as gravitational energy.
• It simply vanishes (after all if energy is not conserved it can vanish!).

See: Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? (warning - contains real mathematics!)

Energy is Not Conserved

Sci.astro (1988)

I.17 Since energy is conserved, where does the energy of redshifted
photons go? [1998-12-03]
The energy of a photon is given by E = hc/lambda, where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and lambda is its wavelength. The cosmological redshift indicates that the wavelength of a photon increases as it travels over cosmological distances in the Universe.
Thus, its energy decreases.

One of the basic conservation laws is that energy is conserved. The decrease in the energy of redshifted photons seems to violate that law. However, this argument is flawed. Specifically, there is a flaw in assuming Newtonian conservation laws in general relativistic situations. To quote Peebles (_Principles of Physical Cosmology_,1995, p. 139):
Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space, there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory.

In other words, on small scales, say the size of a cluster of galaxies, the notion of energy conservation is a good one. However, on the size scales of the Universe, one can no longer define a quantity E_total, much less a quantity that is conserved.

...snipped Bjarne beastly obsession with cows...

A cow is a cow not energy . It cannot suddenly disappear unless Bjarne is really, really hungry or has a teleport machine !

And the second laughing dog:

​

 

[ArcturusA]

A cow is conserved energy too.
I do not believe it suddenly can disappear, (!) - do you ?
I mean yess when the grass is very high, but this is not what I mean.
Ohhh off course also a UFO can kidnap the cow and bring it to unknown dimensions, but you know this is not science.
Maybe someone believes also GR also can bring the cow to other dimensions, and completely hide if from reality (not only for Reality-Check but hidding it also for REALITY) ? Should that be possible ? - do you belive it ?
I don’t think this is a smart solution, and the cow certianly would not like it either.

You can just say 'I don't know'. It works just as well, if not better, than dodging the question with such nonsense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.
How do you explain what really happens?
Don't just cover this like > bla bla "inertia" bla bla expression, - but explain WHY you must use more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

OK, one more time, just because you are Danish :

Read carefully, because you are not likely to get many repeats.

Do you know kinetic energy? If not, carefully place a fist-sized rock on your toe. Did it hurt? No. Now drop it from about a meter on your toe. Ouch! What was the difference? Kinetic energy. An object in motion possesses kinetic energy ( KE ).

Where does KE come from? Well let us imagine a car on a frictionless railway. It stands still. It has no KE. Now we give it a push. To push the car, we spend energy. Where did the energy go? It became KE, because the car now moves.

I hope you are with me still, because now comes the hard part:

The moving car has been given some energy, and as long as there is no friction and no other forces act on it, it will keep that energy, and it will keep rolling. But how is the car changed? If you ignore the fact that the car is moving and just examine it, it is the same car as before. .... EXCEPT:

If you measure its mass VERY carefully, you will discover that it has gained mass. For normal velocities, this mass change is hardly measurable, but it is there.

So if you give the car a new push, with the same energy as before, the speed gain will be slightly lower, because the mass you accelerate is slightly larger.

This is what inertia is: The conversion of energy. To get an object moving, you must transfer energy to it. To stop it again, you must transfer that energy to something else (that is the reason you car brakes get hot).

Mind you, all this is not something you will notice at the speeds of cars, trains, and such stuff. Even for aircraft, the mass gain due to velocity is negligible. That is the reason it took someone like Einstein to figure it out.

Ka' du se pointen? - Ellers trænger du godt nok til briller.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

OK, one more time, just because you are Danish :

Read carefully, because you are not likely to get many repeats.

Do you know kinetic energy? If not, carefully place a fist-sized rock on your toe. Did it hurt? No. Now drop it from about a meter on your toe. Ouch! What was the difference? Kinetic energy. An object in motion possesses kinetic energy ( KE ).

Where does KE come from? Well let us imagine a car on a frictionless railway. It stands still. It has no KE. Now we give it a push. To push the car, we spend energy. Where did the energy go? It became KE, because the car now moves.

I hope you are with me still, because now comes the hard part:

The moving car has been given some energy, and as long as there is no friction and no other forces act on it, it will keep that energy, and it will keep rolling. But how is the car changed? If you ignore the fact that the car is moving and just examine it, it is the same car as before. .... EXCEPT:

If you measure its mass VERY carefully, you will discover that it has gained mass. For normal velocities, this mass change is hardly measurable, but it is there.

So if you give the car a new push, with the same energy as before, the speed gain will be slightly lower, because the mass you accelerate is slightly larger.

This is what inertia is: The conversion of energy. To get an object moving, you must transfer energy to it. To stop it again, you must transfer that energy to something else (that is the reason you car brakes get hot).

Mind you, all this is not something you will notice at the speeds of cars, trains, and such stuff. Even for aircraft, the mass gain due to velocity is negligible. That is the reason it took someone like Einstein to figure it out.

Ka' du se pointen? - Ellers trænger du godt nok til briller.

Hans

Right, and at 86.6% of the speed of light the kinetic energy of an object, say the car, would be equal to the mass of the car.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Science explains both what happens in special relativity and how it happens.
Really?

Then explains why you have: increasing resistance against motion.
Mother Cow want very concrete to know: - your version.
So now tell it simple and nice, in a down to Earth cow understanable language....

Ok...let me put it in other words.
Mass increase has nothing with the discussion to do, except that these express the potential energy. It doesn’t explain why It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. but only that potential energy is converted and preserved.

Agree, - like the potential grass is conserved inside the cow (as milk).

No: so "complicated" that you do not understand it since the Lorentz factor involves addition, division, square roots and velocity:
Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.

Try to get to the point, what phenomena are you trying to EXPLAIN, - the facts that there It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?
I wonder if you self know / what phenomena you really are trying to explain.

Hence the fourth dimension (time) that actually matches the real universe instead of your fantasy:

Still I wonder what you really are really tries to explain.
YES time is not the same everywhere.
But this doesn’t give you the right to mass produce science fiction in the name of GR.
At least I do not need a ticket to such junk universe, - either does mother cow. Everything down to earth is fine, - you (should) know that, - so who really need this desperate junk?

Now your ignorance has leaded you into the trap of confusing general relativity with special relativity.
It also reveals that you still cannot read posts or keep what they say in your head:

Not at all
“Speed” of the expanding universe has nothing to do with SR.
GR have a lot to do what that.
You are totally confused my friend.

A cow is a cow not energy

I can guarantee you that the energy off a cow would be enough to send you to Andromeda. (E=Mc^2) ..

The cosmological redshift indicates that the wavelength of a photon increases as it travels over cosmological distances in the Universe.
Thus, its energy decreases.

And that message is not a solution BUT a problem.

The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space, there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory.

GR applies also here down to our (flat) Earth.
Either the cow is here or it is not here.
You cannot say according to the flat space (the energy of the) the cow is here, - but according to GR it is not. – This is contradiction waffle.
So please make up your mind.

In other words, on small scales, say the size of a cluster of galaxies, the notion of energy conservation is a good one. However, on the size scales of the Universe, one can no longer define a quantity E_total, much less a quantity that is conserved.

Crap the cow is here, it have NOTHING to do with the big or small scale.
Cow-Energy is here right now, and this is the point.

What you and many others attempt to do; is to blab la bla a HUGE dilemma / problem away right ? - admit it !

Energy can NOT just disappear, - in the same way that a cow not can.
This should have lead us to ask: - if our understanding of GR COMPLETE ?

Answer: No it is not.
Distances too are changing proportional with the Universe expansion, hence NOTHING in the universe is not getting - "larger” – simply because everything gets larger, and therefore you have in fact no size increase relative to something else.

The ONLY thing what will change over time (except everything) is time itself, and this is exactly what : the believed "lost" of photon energy reveals.

But this fact will first get through to you when it is proven that gravity itself is made of the same “stuff” responsible for the expanding nature of space, - and therefore already mathematically comprehended by the GR equation you already know.

THIS solves the problems according to; both the fact that energy can NOT disappear, as well as the fact that there are no strange dark energy (acceleration of the expanding universe) .

You cannot use the meter stick you have today and measure the Universe when it was only the half size.

BUT this is what we want to do, and this off course gives you nothing but illusion on illusion, - escalations.

You (and many others) are building your own universe out there in the big blue 4D dimension.

My friend such 4D universe “out there” DO NOT EXSIST except in your fantasy. There is not one single REAL cow in that 4D universe either, the cow don't care about 4D everything that matter is time and distances.

Yes time is different out there, so are the meter stick, and that's it.

--

 

[Paulhoff]

Then explains why you have: increasing resistance against motion.

This does not take energy away from the system being moved, it does not slow down because of it.

Geeezzzzz

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then explains why you have: increasing resistance against motion.
Mother Cow want very concrete to know: - your version.
So now tell it simple and nice, in a down to Earth cow understanable language....
--

Hellooo, Bjarne, I have a message for you from Mother Cow: SHE just read my explanation, above, and understood it perfectly. Why don't YOU give it a try?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Right, and at 86.6% of the speed of light the kinetic energy of an object, say the car, would be equal to the mass of the car.

Paul

Yey! I want a car like that!

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Hellooo, Bjarne, I have a message for you from Mother Cow: SHE just read my explanation, above, and understood it perfectly. Why don't YOU give it a try?

Hans

That would be because it is not what he wants to hear. He wants his universe to be what he wants it to be.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

OK, one more time, just because you are Danish :

Read carefully, because you are not likely to get many repeats.

Do you know kinetic energy? If not, carefully place a fist-sized rock on your toe. Did it hurt? No. Now drop it from about a meter on your toe. Ouch! What was the difference? Kinetic energy. An object in motion possesses kinetic energy ( KE ).

Where does KE come from? Well let us imagine a car on a frictionless railway. It stands still. It has no KE. Now we give it a push. To push the car, we spend energy. Where did the energy go? It became KE, because the car now moves.

I hope you are with me still, because now comes the hard part:

The moving car has been given some energy, and as long as there is no friction and no other forces act on it, it will keep that energy, and it will keep rolling. But how is the car changed? If you ignore the fact that the car is moving and just examine it, it is the same car as before. .... EXCEPT:

If you measure its mass VERY carefully, you will discover that it has gained mass. For normal velocities, this mass change is hardly measurable, but it is there.

So if you give the car a new push, with the same energy as before, the speed gain will be slightly lower, because the mass you accelerate is slightly larger.

This is what inertia is: The conversion of energy. To get an object moving, you must transfer energy to it. To stop it again, you must transfer that energy to something else (that is the reason you car brakes get hot).

Mind you, all this is not something you will notice at the speeds of cars, trains, and such stuff. Even for aircraft, the mass gain due to velocity is negligible. That is the reason it took someone like Einstein to figure it out.

Cow logic simple

The only basic point you have failed to understand is : THAT MATTER AND SPACE IS CONNECTED.
Otherwise matter could not curve space.

Hence you also MUST admit that when something moves, deformed space around that body MUST move too.
Otherwise you would not be able to measured gravity above that body, for example above the Earth.

So amigo it is sooooooo simple that when you put matter in motion you also put (deformed) space in motion . YOU CAN NOT DENY THAT.

More facts: a grain of sand affects THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.
This mean if you only put a grain of sand into motion, you are in fact disturbing THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.

What on Earth make you believe you can disturb the whole universe without energy lost?

The main thread doesn’t stop here…
Because all matter is “woven into space” “somehow” (since it is a fact that matter is connected with space and also a fact that deformed space moves when matter moves) - it should not surprise you that the motion of just a grain of sand disturbs anything else (objects) in the Universe, since everything is connected to that the same space.

Therefore motion also must effects other bodies fare away.
Do you believe that too can happen without “lost” consumption” of energy?

THIS is what inertia ALSO is about, and THIS is what you and unbelievable many fools forget..

 

[Paulhoff]

What on Earth make you believe you can disturb the whole universe without energy lost?

Simple, that matter and energy that makes the earth has always disturb (so-called by you) the whole universe. If the curving of space would take energy, that was already paid for from the being of the universe when that energy and matter where made.

If you want to play games with this idea of yours (which is wrong), an object that would have to put energy into curving space has it went thru it, would have that energy returned after it left that space it curved, else where was that energy going. Into the space, and why doesn't that show up?

Your idea does not hold up.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Cow logic simple

The only basic point you have failed to understand is : THAT MATTER AND SPACE IS CONNECTED.
Otherwise matter could not curve space.

It is. I notice you have adapted the 'curved' space notion, now.

Hence you also MUST admit that when something moves, deformed space around that body MUST move too.

The deformation moves, not space. Like if you roll a ball on a rubber sheet.

Otherwise you would not be able to measured gravity above that body, for example above the Earth.

Depends on what is the cause and what is the action, gravity or curved space.

So amigo it is sooooooo simple that when you put matter in motion you also put (deformed) space in motion . YOU CAN NOT DENY THAT.

You are mistaken. You do not put space in motion.

More facts: a grain of sand affects THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.
This mean if you only put a grain of sand into motion, you are in fact disturbing THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.

Well, theoretically, yes.

What on Earth make you believe you can disturb the whole universe without energy lost?

What makes you think I belive that? I just explained to you that it requres energy to set something in motion. Can't you read?

Hans

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Nope.

Drive a car halfway up a hill. Park the car, but keep the engine running. Engage the emergency/parking break. Place the car in neutral gear. Turn off the car. Notice the car does not roll down the hill.

Place a coin flat on the ground. Push the coin halfway up a hill. Notice the coin does not come down the hill.

Drive a car to the bottom of a hill. Park the car in neutral with the parking break on. Get several people to push the car halfway up the hill. Notice that it doesn't go down the hill.

Please explain what is, or is not, happening in this photo (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/981197857_3b1be44587.jpg) taken from this article (http://clog.dailycal.org/2008/07/13/berkeley-dust-used-to-improve-san-francisco-parking/)

Drive a car halfway up a hill. Park the car, but keep the engine running. Engage the emergency/parking break.

Good handbrake point.
Space have such handbrake too, you just can’t see it. – And it is not very strong.

http://www.science27.com/forum/house.jpg

Nothing happens here..

Learn how to use the quote and multiquote buttons. If you can't learn how to do simple things, perhaps you should slow down.

I notice that you did not respond to my FULL AND UNEDITED postings. I don't care that you only answered one paragraph, I care that you didn't keep the paragraph together. And don't give me the, "But you did the same thing" line of BS. I took your paragraph of "If you must used force to get a car uphill it MUST come down when the force suddenly (halfway up) disappear" and replied.


First paragraph is "Drive a car halfway up a hill. Park the car, but keep the engine running. Engage the emergency/parking break. Place the car in neutral gear. Turn off the car. Notice the car does not roll down the hill."

This breaks your "claim" of

If you must used force to get a car uphill it MUST come down when the force suddenly (halfway up) disappear.

Second paragraph, which you ignore, completely shatters your "claim" since the force to move the coin uphill does disappear and the coin doesn't move.

Third paragraph is just a expansion of the second paragraph.

Fourth paragraph: Nice way to spend time in Photoshop instead of answering the question.

My original link included this picture (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/981197857_3b1be44587.jpg)

which is from this article (http://clog.dailycal.org/2008/07/13/berkeley-dust-used-to-improve-san-francisco-parking/).

You however provide this picture:

which when I quote your message shows a link of http://www.science27.com/forum/house.jpg.

What's your excuse?

EDIT: How nice. Your website is www.science27.com