Stundie Finals For March - Vote Now!

[William Rea]

Gravitational Energy (aka Gravitational Potential Energy, aka Potential Energy) is measured in Joules. Joules are scalar. There simply is no vectoral component to it.

It is dependent on a scalar mass, a vectoral acceleration (g), and a vectoral position (height), but it is not itself vectoral. Energy is not vectoral--ever.

J = Kg m^2/s^2

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving an object one metre along the direction of the force.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course you know that vector analysis requires a different set of skills to analyse and resolve for a chosen frame of reference so multiplication of them isn't a useful tool to use.

That was precisely my point, yes.

BTW I didn't say Gravitational Potential Energy wasn't scalar I said it acted vectorally. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like.

OK, let's look at what was written. You said,

"If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?"

A statement of the form, "If A is true then why is B also true when B contradicts A" tends, in normal usage, to imply an assertion on the part of the speaker that A is not in fact true. If you meant something other by the above statement than that gravitational energy is not a scalar, would you like to explain exactly what it was?

Just as a change in speed (speed being scalar) is an acceleration so is a change of direction (direction being vectoral), that is about as fundamental in dynamics as it gets, do you grasp that? That is why the man riding the motorcycle on the wall of death in the sideshows doesn't fall when travelling at constant angular velocity, he is accelerating due to a change in direction. If the direction of the velocity changes then there is a change in the acceleration, that is the element you are fundamentally missing.

Everything you've said there is fine, although you seem to be trying to reply to something I haven't said. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like. And yes, I can do simple vector calculations.

Potential Gravitation Energy is by its nature vectoral, it has no capability to act omnidirectionally without an energy conversion process.

So you're not saying that gravitational potential energy isn't a scalar, but you are saying that it's "by its nature vectoral", which is somehow different from actually being a vector - is that right? Because it's gibberish.

I can only suggest then that you contact Zdenek Bazant and ask him to remove the vectors from his energy analysis of the WTC collapse.

Zdenek Bazant does not, as far as I am aware, have any difficulties comprehending the difference between vectors and scalars. Parts of what you've written in this thread seem to suggest that you do have such difficulties, and Griffin's absurd statement says the same about him.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

J = Kg m^2/s^2

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving an object one metre along the direction of the force.

Correct. To obtain the work done when the object moves along some different direction to that of the force, take the dot product of the two vectors representing the force and the displacement. From Wikipedia,

"In mathematics, the dot product, also known as the scalar product, is a binary operation which takes two vectors over the real numbers R and returns a real-valued scalar quantity."

Therefore energy, calculated as the dot product of force and displacement is a scalar, not a vector.

How much further into your mouth do you think your foot can go?

Dave

 

[humingbrd]

So why do so many people seem unable to control themselves and stop answering my posts?

Sorry to intrude again mr. Rea, but could you clarify this statement? Are you suggesting that people who stop answering your posts are unable to control themselves? Thanks in advance for your explanation.

 

[chipmunk stew]

J = Kg m^2/s^2

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving an object one metre along the direction of the force.

Let's go back to Griffin's quote:
"...gravitational energy, which is vertical..."

When an object is suspended above the ground:
Its position (height) is vertical
The gravitational force acting on it is vertical
Its gravitational potential energy IS NOT VERTICAL

When the object is dropped:
Its displacement is vertical
Its gravitational acceleration (g) is vertical
Its kinetic energy IS NOT VERTICAL

You may as well argue that the object's mass is vertical.

Griffin is mixing up fundamental physics concepts. If he weren't making (or repeating) claims about how the twin towers should have collapsed without the aid of explosives, it would be no big deal. But he is (and he has many avid followers) so it is.

 

[William Rea]

That was precisely my point, yes.

OK, let's look at what was written. You said,

"If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?"

A statement of the form, "If A is true then why is B also true when B contradicts A" tends, in normal usage, to imply an assertion on the part of the speaker that A is not in fact true. If you meant something other by the above statement than that gravitational energy is not a scalar, would you like to explain exactly what it was?

Everything you've said there is fine, although you seem to be trying to reply to something I haven't said. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like. And yes, I can do simple vector calculations.

So you're not saying that gravitational potential energy isn't a scalar, but you are saying that it's "by its nature vectoral", which is somehow different from actually being a vector - is that right? Because it's gibberish.

Zdenek Bazant does not, as far as I am aware, have any difficulties comprehending the difference between vectors and scalars. Parts of what you've written in this thread seem to suggest that you do have such difficulties, and Griffin's absurd statement says the same about him.

Dave

How you choose to read what I write is your problem not mine. You chose the length of rope to hang yourself by, live with it.

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.

 

[A W Smith]

I Vote for a thread split! or someone call a whingealance for rea.


ut oh i feel a pepto bismol commercial coming on.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.

Then I suggest you contact him and point out his error. If you're correct, no doubt he'll be grateful. What exactly this has to do with anything I've said in this thread is a complete mystery to me, but I doubt I'll ever be able to follow your thought processes.

Dave

 

[chipmunk stew]

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.

???

This I gotta see. Show us some quotes with citations.

 

[William Rea]

I Vote for a thread split! or someone call a whingealance for rea.


ut oh i feel a pepto bismol commercial coming on.

Already done, I decided to get out of this thread to stop you all whingeing about me posting in it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Already done, I decided to get out of this thread to stop you all whingeing about me posting in it.

So you couldn't find any references to Bazant saying energy was a vector?

Dave

 

[William Rea]

So you couldn't find any references to Bazant saying energy was a vector?

Dave

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.

 

[HyJinX]

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.

Trust me, you're a liar.

 

[TjW]

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.

So, as far as this thread goes, Mr. Rea, you're a goner? You really should consider using that as a nickname.

 

[Minadin]

You mean like this :

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

 

[Gravy]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

Yes: the Viennese. They're justifiably proud of their pastry. Vienna is not a place to visit when you're dieting.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Yes: the Viennese. They're justifiably proud of their pastry. Vienna is not a place to visit when you're dieting.

I thought Vienna was famous for its cocktail wieners.

If I go off topic it is mostly because of my replies to the baseless personal attacks, if I am off topic report me to the Mods. I am firmly on topic disputing the basis of the nomination of these awards, 10% of which I have manged to debunk so far.

You can't debunk mine! I'TS UNDEBONKABLE!!!!1111!!!!LOL!!!!

 

[Horatius]

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.

Just in case anyone missed it, here's Mr. Rea's "proof" of "energy vectors":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2491662#post2491662


I'll let you read the rest of the thread to see how it all turns out.

 

[pagan]

I want to push for myself here. I voted on myself, of course.

pgn - "...a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit."

I think it is quite funny. But, I want to make a little disclaimer. It is taken out of context. The main message in it, was that Gravy was such a gullible patriot that he would accept being a missile in a batman suit, if the CIA asked him to.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I want to push for myself here. I voted on myself, of course.

I think it is quite funny. But, I want to make a little disclaimer. It is taken out of context. The main message in it, was that Gravy was such a gullible patriot that he would accept being a missile in a batman suit, if the CIA asked him to.

Much as I loved this nomination, I couldn't vote for it because I didn't think it qualified as a Stundie. It was more of a "coffee-on-monitor" nomination.