#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2019, 07:20:38 PM »
One of the "flaws" you're claiming relies on assumptions that you're refusing to justify. Naturally, one has to assume that you have a reason to refuse that.
Pete, let me apologize.   The reason I'm not declaring whether or not the FE universe is isolated is because it is not fully pertinent top the question.  However, I did not invent the FE UA system.  I assume you guy's did, so the definitions are up to you.  You can approach the problem either way.  If the description of FE UA in the wiki does encompass an isolated system, then you just show how energy is conserved within that system.  If it does not encompass an isolated system, then just show where the energy is coming from so that an isolated system can be defined (the FE UA system + the Energy system) wherein the energy is conserved.

As to whether or not the universe most RE folk adhere to is and isolated system,  in thermodynamics and isolated system is a system which does not or can not exchange either energy or matter with its surroundings.   By definition, the universe is self contained and therefore cannot exchange energy or matter.

Or you can read this excerpt from Quora:
Quote
The (entire) universe is an isolated system. The observable universe is an open system.

There are 3 main types of thermodynamic systems, defined by what the system can exchange with its surroundings:

An open system can exchange both energy and matter.
A closed system can exchange only energy.
An isolated system cannot exchange anything.

The entire universe, meaning everything there is, including things we cannot see, is an isolated system because it has no "surroundings"; it's literally everything there is. Obviously, a system cannot exchange energy or matter with "surroundings" that do not exist.

The observable universe, meaning only the part of the universe that we can see, is an open system, because the "boundary" of our observable universe is not actually a physical "boundary" in any possible meaning of the word, and both matter and energy can freely pass through it.

What I mean is that our observable universe has a "boundary" because if something is beyond this "boundary", the light from it has not had time to reach us yet (and may never will). Aliens living on the "boundary" of our observable universe will have their own definition of "observable universe" and it will not be the same as our definition, because there are things in the universe they can see that we can't, and vice versa.

what I want
Yeah, I asked this question: "What I want to know is if you can give me a  reasonable and self-complete hypotheses as to how energy is conserved in the FE UA concept with which I cannot find a demonstrable physical flaw in." That's what I want answered, and I asked it before you got involved.  If you have specific things for me to outline for you before taking a stab at it please ask.

One of the "flaws" you're claiming relies on assumptions that you're refusing to justify. Naturally, one has to assume that you have a reason to refuse that.
Justify that the universe is an isolated system?  See above.  Pete, if you don't understand thermodynamics, then why did you involve yourself in this?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #81 on: December 05, 2019, 10:53:24 AM »
If the universe , meaning everything there is , is an isolated system then from what is it isolated ? An isolated system by definition must have boundaries . Oxymoronic argument from quora there.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2019, 01:02:19 PM »
Pete, let me apologize.
You do not need to apologise - merely contribute (if you're posting in the upper).

The reason I'm not declaring whether or not the FE universe is isolated is because it is not fully pertinent top the question.
I already explained to you why it is. I guess I'll have to do so again.

However, I did not invent the FE UA system.  I assume you guy's did, so the definitions are up to you.
The Universe is fairly well-defined, independently of FE vs RE.

You can approach the problem either way.  If the description of FE UA in the wiki does encompass an isolated system, then you just show how energy is conserved within that system.  If it does not encompass an isolated system, then just show where the energy is coming from so that an isolated system can be defined (the FE UA system + the Energy system) wherein the energy is conserved.
I don't need to do either of these things, for a plethora of reasons. The fact that calling the Universe an isolated system is meaningless is crucial here. Your objection has no defined meaning, and cannot be answered until you've fixed it. If you truly believe that meaningless statements require answers, or are in any way significant, then let me ask you this: If the Earth is round, then why zibbidy snorty floorp, de rooba shnort?

As to whether or not the universe most RE folk adhere to is and isolated system,  in thermodynamics and isolated system is a system which does not or can not exchange either energy or matter with its surroundings.   By definition, the universe is self contained and therefore cannot exchange energy or matter.
I'm afraid you restating your position doesn't make it any more mainstream or correct. This is why I asked you for a source.

Or you can read this excerpt from Quora:
If Quora, of all places, is good enough for you, then hopefully you'll be generous enough to accept Wikipedia as a counter-example:

Sometimes people speculate about "isolation" for the universe as a whole, but the meaning of such speculation is doubtful.

See, the issue here is that you propose something that makes no sense (the Universe is isolated? From what?), assert that it is the case "by definition", and demand that we address your mess. It's not gonna happen, you're going to have to fix your claims. I'm not even asking that you make sure you're correct, merely that you make sure your statements have a discernible meaning.

Pete, if you don't understand thermodynamics, then why did you involve yourself in this?
This is your final friendly reminder that you are currently not in AR/CN. You can discuss just how stupid, uneducated, and smelly I am in the appropriate boards.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 01:05:49 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### pricelesspearl

• 184
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #83 on: December 05, 2019, 04:25:39 PM »
Quote
from what?

Net external forces. “Isolated” in the definition isn’t a relative.  It means the system is not affected by net external force.  Why it isn't effected doesn't matter.  The fact that there are no external forces that could affect the system is irrelevant.  The existence of system y isn’t necessary to determine if system x is effected by net external forces. Either it is or it is not.

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #84 on: December 05, 2019, 06:11:46 PM »

As to whether or not the universe most RE folk adhere to is and isolated system,  in thermodynamics and isolated system is a system which does not or can not exchange either energy or matter with its surroundings.   By definition, the universe is self contained and therefore cannot exchange energy or matter.
I'm afraid you restating your position doesn't make it any more mainstream or correct. This is why I asked you for a source.

My source is thermodynamics.  It's not my position, other than I am in agreement with thermodynamics.  It is not something I made up.

Thermodynamics deals with the transfer of energy and matter between systems.  It deals with and recognizes 3 different types of systems.  Open systems, closed systems and isolated systems.  As with many branches of science thermodynamics has specific definitions for the therms used which may or may not align the the common usage for those terms.  In thermodynamics the terms Open system, closed system and isolated system have the following definitions:

Open system - A physical system which can exchange both energy and matter with it's surroundings or other systems.
Closed system - A physical system which can exchange energy but not matter with it's surroundings or other systems.
Isolated system - A physical system which cannot exchange either energy or matter with it's surroundings or other systems.

a) So, in thermodynamics terminology an isolated system is by definition a system that cannot receive energy or matter from outside it, and cannot send energy or matter outside it.

b) The universe, by definition is that which contains everything.  The universe cannot receive energy or matter from outside it, and cannot send energy or matter outside it.

From a) and b), for the purposes of thermodynamics, the universe meets the requirements of being an isolated physical system.

And, yeas, in science definitions are critically important.

The on-line text on thermodynamics here: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/  States:

"More simply put: the entropy of the universe (the ultimate isolated system) only increases and never decreases."

The RationalWiki here :https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics  States:

"The Universe is an isolated system since it is a term to describe the entire spacetime continuum, including all of the energy stored in it. In reality, the Universe is regarded as the only true isolated system, as perfect isolation on a smaller scale is impossible."

The on-line text on thermodynamics here:https://www.learnthermo.com/T1-tutorial/ch07/lesson-C/pg06.php States:

"The universe is an isolated system."

But, like I said, it does not matter whether or not the universe is an isolated system.  To show if FE UA is in agreement with conservation of energy, all you need to do is define an isolated system as defined in thermodynamics within the FE universe and show how energy is conserved, or failing to find an such a system, show the source and or sink for the energy transfer required.  So, I'm at a loss as to why we are stuck at whether or not the universe is an isolated system or not as it is not a requirement to tackle the question at hand.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned we are done here.  My challenge was for someone to demonstrate that FE UA was consistent with conservation of energy and this has not been done despite pages of conversation.  I really don't care if anyone believes the universe is an isolated system or not.  By the pertinent definitions it is, but that is not and never was a requirement to meet the challenge.

Score: FE - fail.

The last word to you Pete.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 06:48:17 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #85 on: December 05, 2019, 11:20:25 PM »
My source is thermodynamics.
I'm afraid that's not how citations work.

It is not something I made up.
Unfortunately, I already demonstrated that you're in disagreement with the mainstream on that one. An explanation was given to you. If you have an objection, you need to articulate an argument. If you cannot put together a rebuttal, that's fine, it happens a lot around here. But you won't be allowed to continuously waste people's time by just declaring yourself the victor while contributing nothing of value.

b) The universe, by definition is that which contains everything.  The universe cannot receive energy or matter from outside it, and cannot send energy or matter outside it.
b) is not a logical conclusion, since the "outside of the Universe", something external to the set of everything, is undefined and therefore meaningless. The problem, as always, is that you assert yourself to be correct, and when asked to provide citations, you just assert yourself to be correct some more.

This is not a good look.

And, yeas, in science definitions are critically important.
Indeed. You'd do well to stop botching them. Again, the question here isn't even whether you're right or wrong. It's whether you will eventually put together a coherent sentence.

Score: FE - fail.
It is in particularly poor form to make declarations like these. Trust me, it won't convince the unconvinced, and those who already agree with you will just think you're weakening your argument by acting like a child. I appreciate your effort to join the upper fora, and I'm happy to help you ease into posting here, but you can do so much better than that.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 11:26:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Rama Set

• 6678
• Round and round...
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #86 on: December 13, 2019, 03:38:57 PM »
It’s not even clear that “outside the universe” is a meaningful statement. How anyone could try and surmise what that is without assumptions is beyond me.

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #87 on: December 13, 2019, 04:34:29 PM »
It’s not even clear that “outside the universe” is a meaningful statement. How anyone could try and surmise what that is without assumptions is beyond me.
Who is talking about outside the universe?  It seems to me  many of the people on this site can't assimilate simple discourse and how they can stick their noses into a conversation they demonstrate blatantly they don't understand is beyond me.  If you have an issue with the I way express something, discuss it with me in a civilized manner rather than making uninformed assumptions.  If you can't be civil, we can take this to AR.

Same goes for Pete on this one.  You both know exactly what I mean and my use of "outside the universe" is perfectly correct.  The assumption you both seem to have missed (well Pete quoted it FFS) is: The universe contains everything.  This implies there is nothing "outside the universe" and is the only reason the expression was used.  The pertinence to all this to answer the question "Is the universe an isolated system WRT to thermodynamics."  And it is generally accepted that it is.  In fact it is generally accepted that it is the only true isolated system.  Barring, of course, Pete's wonderful citation (not mainstream BTW), which wafflingly stated it might not be an isolated system.  I think the term used was doubtful.  However,  reading the context of that statement they need to change the definition of the universe from the one in play in this discussion.

Let's make no mistake.  If youwant to say the universe is not an isolated system, and stand by that rather than just cast doubt, you better be prepared to start actually talking about what is "outside the universe".
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 02:35:51 AM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #88 on: December 14, 2019, 02:02:34 AM »
The problem, as always, is that you assert yourself to be correct, and when asked to provide citations, you just assert yourself to be correct some more.
I provided 5 citations during this thread, BTW.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2019, 01:15:43 PM »
Let's make no mistake.  If youwant to say the universe is not an isolated system, and stand by that rather than just cast doubt, you better be prepared to start actually talking about what is "outside the universe".
No, sorry. You're the one who proposed the concept, and you're the one who's going to have to justify it (again, for now we're not looking for you being correct, we're looking for you saying things that have a discernible meaning). Until then, you keep staying something that's undefined and demanding that we assign a truth value to it. Not gonna happen.

I provided 5 citations during this thread, BTW.
None to this specific effect. Lying makes you look less credible, not more.

Barring, of course, Pete's wonderful citation (not mainstream BTW), which wafflingly stated it might not be an isolated system.
That's not what it says. I quoted it for you, remember? It states that your assertion, and the discussion around it, is dubiously meaningful. To say that something has no meaning is different from saying that it's incorrect - it's a far worse state of affairs.

And, again, "nuh uh I am very right and mainstream literature is not mainstream" is not the sort of rebuttal we're looking for in the upper fora. I appreciate you're making an effort in trying to adjust, I really do, but you need to do away with these lazy responses. Either back your claim up or choose not to make it. Don't just go "(not mainstream btw)" on us.

Once again, if you enjoy discussing the undefined and the meaningless, I encourage you to answer my question. If the Earth is round, then why zibbidy snorty floorp, de rooba shnort?

My last post here was a sincere offer of helping you figure out how to be successful in these discussions. I encourage you to take it and good faith and at least think about my suggestions. You won't agree with all of them, of course, but they could help you in the long run.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 01:31:37 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2019, 06:19:31 PM »
I provided 5 citations during this thread, BTW.
None to this specific effect. Lying makes you look less credible, not more.

I said the universe was an isolated system, you asked me for a citation.  Remember this?
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.
I cannot find a source that agrees with you. Perhaps you'd like to provide one instead of just saying you're right repeatedly?

I provided links to several sources that stated the universe is an isolated system.  Two were thermodynamics text books.  How am I lying and how more specific can they get?

Your citation from Wikipedia could have been written by anyone, including myself, and merely claims the meaning of the universe as an isolated system is doubtful.  It did not say the concept was completely wrong, nor did it provide any justification.  Just a single statement making a claim.  That is your definition of mainstream consensus?

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Groit

##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #91 on: January 13, 2020, 10:02:54 PM »

If one body is experiencing a more forceful pull from the earth, as to cause it to weigh more, it does not make sense that all bodies would fall at the same rate.

An answer of "Just because they do" is not a very satisfying mechanism, IMO.

Acceleration due to gravity is very much different than say acceleration in a car. If you accelerate in a car at 9.81 ms^-2 then you will feel the car seat pushing on your back and shoulders, however, if you jumped of a high rise building, you will also accelerate at 9.81 ms^-2 but you wouldn't feel any force on your shoulders and if there were no air resistance then you wouldn't feel any forces until you reached the ground.

Gravity is a consequence of curved spacetime. Large masses like the Earth curve the geodesics of spacetime and  all falling objects follow the geodesics which point directly towards the centre of the Earth, and that's why all objects fall at the same rate.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 04:25:54 PM by Groit »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #92 on: January 21, 2020, 06:27:03 AM »
if you jumped of a high rise building, you will also accelerate at 9.81 ms^-2 but you wouldn't feel any force on your shoulders and if there were no air resistance then you wouldn't feel any forces until you reached the ground.
This is absolute nonsense. You feel your weight at all times. The reason you don't take much note of it is that it's all you've ever known. It's weightlessness that would be remarkable and thus notable, not weight.

And the reason an accelerating car "feels" different is also obvious. You feel something pushing you, because something literally is pushing you - the car seat.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 06:30:19 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### pricelesspearl

• 184
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #93 on: January 21, 2020, 02:11:29 PM »
Quote
This is absolute nonsense. You feel your weight at all times. The reason you don't take much note of it is that it's all you've ever known. It's weightlessness that would be remarkable and thus notable, not weight.

It's odd that you would say that is nonsense, since the observation that in free fall one would not feel their weight is what led Einstein to the Equivalence Principle.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the EP is nonsense.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 02:14:51 PM by pricelesspearl »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #94 on: January 21, 2020, 10:12:12 PM »
It's odd that you would say that is nonsense, since the observation that in free fall one would not feel their weight is what led Einstein to the Equivalence Principle.
Conveniently, what I said has nothing to do with this. If you didn't understand me, please consider asking for clarification instead of just guessing.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### pricelesspearl

• 184
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #95 on: January 21, 2020, 11:27:57 PM »

Quote
if you jumped of a high rise building, you will also accelerate at 9.81 ms^-2 but you wouldn't feel any force on your shoulders and if there were no air resistance then you wouldn't feel any forces until you reached the ground.

You responded

Quote
This is absolute nonsense. You feel your weight at all times. The reason you don't take much note of it is that it's all you've ever known. It's weightlessness that would be remarkable and thus notable, not weight.

I interpreted you to mean that you believed Groit's comment (referred by you as "this") that if you jumped off a building you wouldn't feel any forces (assuming no air resistance) until you hit the ground to be "absolute nonsense"

And I also interpreted your statement that you feel your weight "at all times"...to the mean just that..."all times", including free fall.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2020, 09:41:04 AM »
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You do not feel anything pushing you when you're in freefall, because nothing is pushing you. Our sense of acceleration relies on the acceleration being uneven. A RE gravity would apply the force evenly to all of your body, including all of your inner ear, at the same time. An accelerating car would not.

This is also why Groit's comment on not feeling anything pushing your shoulders was particularly silly - our perception of this would be relative to the rest of our body. But the difference here is purely perceptual, and largely based on what you intuitively consider "feeling" a force.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the EP is nonsense.
Luckily, EP doesn't state what you think it states, Mr Spirit Level.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### pricelesspearl

• 184
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2020, 01:45:18 PM »
Quote
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You do not feel anything pushing you when you're in freefall, because nothing is pushing you. Our sense of acceleration relies on the acceleration being uneven. A RE gravity would apply the force evenly to all of your body, including all of your inner ear, at the same time. An accelerating car would not.

This is also why Groit's comment on not feeling anything pushing your shoulders was particularly silly - our perception of this would be relative to the rest of our body. But the difference here is purely perceptual, and largely based on what you intuitively consider "feeling" a force.

Except you said… You feel your weight at all times, so make up your mind.  Does one feel their own weight in free fall or not?  Or is free fall not included as part of “all” times?

Quote
Luckily, EP doesn't state what you think it states

Does is it explicitly state that you wouldn’t feel your weight in free fall? No.  Does the EP logically follow from the concept?
Einstein thought so.

Quote
Einstein has been quoted as saying that the happiest thought of his life was the realization that someone in free fall from a height would not feel his own weight.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity/Equivalence_principle

Quote
Mr. Spirit Level

I am more than happy to go there again.

EDIT:

Quote
A RE gravity would apply the force evenly to all of your body, including all of your inner ear, at the same time.

What we perceive as weight is not gravity, it is the normal force. It is the force that a surface exerts on an object that prevents gravity from pulling it down.  When a book is sitting on a table, the table exerts normal force on the book and prevents it from being pulled through the table to the floor.
It is a contact force, so if someone is freely falling and has no contact with a surface, no weight is perceived.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 02:23:35 PM by pricelesspearl »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11962
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2020, 02:35:39 PM »
What we perceive as weight is not gravity, it is the normal force.
You are correct. I should have said "weight". It changes nothing about your failure here, and your obvious attempt at distracting from the subject does not make you look better - it makes you look worse.

This is also why Groit's comment on not feeling anything pushing your shoulders was particularly silly - our perception of this would be relative to the rest of our body. But the difference here is purely perceptual, and largely based on what you intuitively consider "feeling" a force.
Of course, you can perceive weight at all times. However, it will not be the same sensation as feeling something pushing you. The reasons for this are also explained in my post. Try reading it.

Einstein thought so.
You are abusing ambiguous wording moments after I explained the ambiguity. If you want to waste my time clumsy wordplay, you'll have to find someone else to bother.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 02:38:02 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### pricelesspearl

• 184
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2020, 03:30:19 PM »
Quote
You are correct. I should have said "weight".

You did say weight. And you said again.

Quote
Of course, you can perceive weight at all times.

If you understand that our perception of weight is the result of the normal force, then you should be able to understand that if there is no normal force, there is no perception of weight.

Normal force is a contact force.  When you are in freefall, you aren’t in contact with anything, therefore there is no normal force and no perception of weight.

Quote
You are abusing ambiguous wording
Quote
The breakthrough came suddenly one day.  I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern.  Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight
That quote from Einstein is not ambiguous at all.