2 Balls on slope, one is faster...

[kenbo0422]

Paul said:  I already addressed this.  Classical physics has never stated it takes more energy to get to a destination in a shorter amount of time.  The ball falls downward and converts PE, from height, to KE, in the form of velocity.  This makes the ball travel at a higher speed for a longer period of time.  Then the ball moves upward and converts KE, from velocity, back into PE, in the form of height.

There is NO OU or FE!


Then again Paul, classic physics sees it, but seems to ignore the time difference.  I think its because they don't know what to do with it.  Isn't that why we're trying to be a little bit more unconventional?      I read an interesting article, the results of a survey inside a large corporation.  They categorized the number of inventions and patents they claimed and used by the education of the people involved (this was one aspect). By far, the less education they person had, the more inventions and patentable ideas were brought out.  My point being, conventional physics and especially the PhD's who teach it and maintain it, are less the thinkers than the average person.  They have been taught how to think by the institutions of higher education, and in many cases they won't stray from that way of thinking because they have to keep a job.

The point of this is I really believe this and many other ideas presented on these pages are things that were passed over with quick explanations of logical physics and not pondered long enough.   The difference in time with the two balls may present a really big problem in trying to utilize it, but maybe a year or two down the road someone will have a bright light go one inside their head and something will come of it.  I think that your pointing out the physics aspect of this simple experiment is vital, but using that as a base, lets delve into the things that aren't being thought of.

This was pretty much my point, not intending to put you or anyone else down.  I just think that there is more to the simple things than what is first apparent.

[PaulLowrance]

Dear kenbo0422,

And how do you propose to get energy from time?  If you know for certain then you should get Nobel prize.

Let's analyze this and ignore friction losses for sake of simplicity. As you know, the two balls have the same velocity while at the same height.  Both balls always have the same energy though.  The ball that falls has more KE but less PE.  So the end results in two balls with same velocity but one ball is farther ahead.  So then I ask you at what difference does it make if the ball is in a different locaiton?  So what if one ball is in New York and one ball is in Los Angeles.  So what?  Are you suggesting that one point in space at the same height from Earth has more energy than another point in space?

I hope people see this before it turns into another intentional distraction such as the SMOT or RV.

Sincerely,
Paul

Paul said:  I already addressed this.  Classical physics has never stated it takes more energy to get to a destination in a shorter amount of time.  The ball falls downward and converts PE, from height, to KE, in the form of velocity.  This makes the ball travel at a higher speed for a longer period of time.  Then the ball moves upward and converts KE, from velocity, back into PE, in the form of height.

There is NO OU or FE!


Then again Paul, classic physics sees it, but seems to ignore the time difference.  I think its because they don't know what to do with it.  Isn't that why we're trying to be a little bit more unconventional?      I read an interesting article, the results of a survey inside a large corporation.  They categorized the number of inventions and patents they claimed and used by the education of the people involved (this was one aspect). By far, the less education they person had, the more inventions and patentable ideas were brought out.  My point being, conventional physics and especially the PhD's who teach it and maintain it, are less the thinkers than the average person.  They have been taught how to think by the institutions of higher education, and in many cases they won't stray from that way of thinking because they have to keep a job.

The point of this is I really believe this and many other ideas presented on these pages are things that were passed over with quick explanations of logical physics and not pondered long enough.   The difference in time with the two balls may present a really big problem in trying to utilize it, but maybe a year or two down the road someone will have a bright light go one inside their head and something will come of it.  I think that your pointing out the physics aspect of this simple experiment is vital, but using that as a base, lets delve into the things that aren't being thought of.

This was pretty much my point, not intending to put you or anyone else down.  I just think that there is more to the simple things than what is first apparent.

[terry5732]

Dear kenbo0422,

And how do you propose to get energy from time?? If you know for certain then you should get Nobel prize.


A river originates in the mountains.
You put a dam on the river.
You generate electricity from the held water.
The water continues to the sea.
You have created power from time!

[PaulLowrance]

A river originates in the mountains.
You put a dam on the river.
You generate electricity from the held water.
The water continues to the sea.
You have created power from time!

LOL, no you didn't.  The energy came from the PE in the water.

[terry5732]

Where did the PE go if no dam?

Did it light Las Vegas?


By your reasoning Paul:

Say a 5 HP gasoline engine turning a generator.
Drawing a larger current off the generator cools the motor?
After all , the PE must come from somewhere.


Time IS energy!