ok - choose a mass
raise it onto a platform and leave it there
the energy involveed in that movement can be calculated
the weird thing is, that mass is sustained in that orbit at zero energy.
My conclusion is?

... the weird thing is, that mass is sustained in that orbit at zero energy.
My conclusion is?

Nothing weird there at all. Just ask old Newton!

And your conclusion is?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

My conclusion is, is that you can sustain a mass in a higher orbit without an energy source.

I have to reply to my own comments.
Gravity is said to be a weak force - am in disagreement, quantom mechanics is a struggle.
Please try to explain the forces that you experiance with magnets

It does actually have an energy source... gravity.. it is in constant free fall around the body its orbiting.

Magnetism is just a stronger pull than gravity.
All forces.
Here is a list of the 4 forces from strongest to weakest.

Atomic
??? <- cant remember what force goes here
Magnetic
Gravity

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

It does actually have an energy source... gravity.. it is in constant free fall around the body its orbiting.

Magnetism is just a stronger pull than gravity.
All forces.
Here is a list of the 4 forces from strongest to weakest.

Atomic
??? <- cant remember what force goes here
Magnetic
Gravity

Nuclear strong
Electromagnetic
Nuclear weak
Gravitation

---

Thx for the clarification tullio

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

Nuclear strong
Electromagnetic
Nuclear weak
Gravitation

The strange thing is in how very much weaker gravity is compared to the others...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

As for the orbiting mass. According to Newton the centrifugal force that tends to pull the mass outward is exactly balanced by the gravitational attraction which "pulls" the mass inward. This is the "force" that appears when you whirl a rock tied to a string around your head--you can feel the pull of this force on your arm. There is no energy lost since there is no movement in the direction of the forces. Energy =work=force x distance.

According to Einstein the mass is moving along a geodesic--the minimum energy path (=to zero) and it is the equivalent of a mass moving along a straight line in the absence of any external force.

The pull of a half ounce magnet can easily overcome the pull of gravity of the entire mass of the earth. This always intrigues me, in my pipe dreams, to think that if I could find a way to rectify this force or cross magnetic lines of flux I could design the impossible perpetual motion machine and fly around the planet with a magnet of a few dozen pounds as my engine--if only I could figure out where to steal the energy required.

If there were no losses in the commutator and hysteresis and eddy-current losses in the core, an electric motor would run forever with no energy input once it got going-- as long as you didn't try to extract any work from it. That's why a carefully designed motor can get very high efficiency ra

Some think that the graviton string vibrates primarily in other dimensions and only couples weakly into our three dimensions. I , myself, still can't get my mind around the concept of a graviton as a particle--i suppose it will be like a photon --both a particle and a wave.

DADDIO

ok putting a mass on a platform requires not only the energy to get it up there but also energy to keep it there. Assuming that the mass is at the end of a tall pole. The tall pole is set in cement and the cement is set into the ground. If a measurement is taken you will see the stress/weight that is being put upon this pole. I would even bet a small amount of heat would be created from the pressure on the pole pressing against the ground and the mass against the pole. This is no different than holding a ball over ones own head. It takes energy to resist gravity. you'd notice in a short time that your arms ache and get tired a great deal faster than if you'd just held your hands over your head.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

... This is no different than holding a ball over ones own head. It takes energy to resist gravity. you'd notice in a short time that your arms ache and get tired a great deal faster than if you'd just held your hands over your head.

Do not confuse force and energy.

There is no change in energy for a static pole holding a static weight against gravity. There is only a change in energy if something were to move. The pole and weight can stay there unchanged for an eternity. No change of energy is involved.

For the example of your arm holding a weight against gravity, note that you are making use of elastic biological material that 'twitches' to contract muscle fibres. The equivalent hydrolic ram can stay as static as a pole indefinitely for no energy consumed. Keeping a bunch of muscle fibres twitching against a load takes lots of chemical energy.

Similarly, keeping a helicopter aloft against gravity requires lots of energy (and lots of air movement).

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

and what is holding the ram in place? As I explained before you can eliminate the fact that something is bearing the weight of the object being held up. You can hold it statically with a hydrolic ram but the ram must first exert(energy)force to get and hold the object into position. unless you have a levitation device the ram then transfers the mass to the ground it is standing on.

This comes down to the question if you have 10,000 canaries in a truck and you can only carry 5000 in the truck. Will forcing 5000 of the canaries to fly decrease the weight on the truck. The answer is No. The flying canaries push air down to maintain flight. By doing so they are pressing air down on the truck and thus not eliminating any weight on the truck.

A ram will hold the mass in place yet it still bears the weigh no matter fluid or vapor is holding it up. If the object holding the mass up exerted no energy then it and the mass would fall to the ground.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

... This comes down to the question if you have 10,000 canaries in a truck and you can only carry 5000 in the truck. Will forcing 5000 of the canaries to fly decrease the weight on the truck. The answer is No. The flying canaries push air down to maintain flight. By doing so they are pressing air down on the truck and thus not eliminating any weight on the truck.

Completely true.

The flying canaries are also consuming energy in doing their flapping which in turn warms up the air slightly due to friction and the viscosity of air.

A ram will hold the mass in place yet it still bears the weigh no matter fluid or vapor is holding it up. If the object holding the mass up exerted no energy then it and the mass would fall to the ground.

True for bearing weight (due to static pressure in the ram fluid, and the static forces in the mechanics).

Wrong regarding continuing to "exert energy".

Are you confusing the various forms of energy and force and work done?

Moving the mass (up or down) through a gravity field will transfer work energy to potential energy (and vice versa). If there is no change in the height position of the mass in the gravity field, then there is no change in energy. To 'hold' it at that height, you either need a static force holding its 'weight', or you need enough tangental speed for the mass to be in orbit around an object such as the Earth.

Note that "work done" 'energy' requires a force to act upon an object along some distance moved.

So Watt?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

It seems to me that any mass supporting a mass initially will emit some energy,having been raised there, however small, when it is first placed there.
After which no energy is used.
In theory then, a mass should be able to be suspended with no physical support.

... In theory then, a mass should be able to be suspended with no physical support.

Look up Newton's Laws of motion? There you should find your answer.

If you go further into very fine detail effects for how you can physically do things, energy might be converted for example (usually to heat) due to applied force creating fractures or other distortion energy change when materials are forcibly stretched or squashed. However, even in this case, there will be no further energy 'consumed' (converted) unless there is further movement (for example 'creep' or settling or further fracturing).

Hence, a weight supported up on top of a pole acting against unchanging gravity will stay in place with no energy being converted. Note that in real life on Earth, you have tidal forces each day that disturbs the system slightly...


A very interesting material is piezo crystal...

Also, look up James Watt...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In teaching Physics it is always fun to have someone --say a football player or weightlifter--come up to the front of the class and push down hard on the instructor's desk for a sustained period. You could even have him push on a bathroom scale sitting on the top of the desk. The force is moving only relative to the motion of the Earth around the Sun , the Galaxy etc --but not in his reference plane. It would take energy to sustain this force but would be based on the physiology of muscle contractions which would involve twitching or vibrating muscle fibers as already mentioned.

Though he will become quickly exhausted he is technically doing no work since he is exerting a force but --after an initial squeeze on the scale--is not carrying that force through any distance--this is the definition of work. Back years ago strength training involved Isometrics which forced contractions of muscles through static effort. You had a bar with a chain that attached to a wooden plank that you would stand on and perform curling and pressing motions --straining all the while.

I didn't like isometrics myself; but, I trained my roommate successfully to take a silver medal in the college-wide weightlifting intramurals in his weight class using the isometric apparatus that I bought through Bob Hoffman's Strength and Health magazine.

another interesting thought--as already mentioned--is the piezo-electric effect. I have an expensive cigar lighter that fires through squeezing on a static part of the lighter.

There is a force involved in the static pole arrangement (well, sort of.) The electrons of the platform on the pole ‘repel’ the electrons in the mass sitting on top, thus holding it up. This is also the reason why we can’t walk through walls, even though the wall (and us) are mostly made up of empty space within atoms.

Also, William R, not to be too picky, but in an earlier post you mentioned centrifugal force. No such thing: there is only inertia.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

There is a force involved in the static pole arrangement (well, sort of.) The electrons of the platform on the pole ‘repel’ the electrons in the mass sitting on top, thus holding it up. This is also the reason why we can’t walk through walls, even though the wall (and us) are mostly made up of empty space within atoms.

That is a very good and interesting point. Many of the particles that will be generated by the LHC will whizz through the earth and out the other side without so much as tickling another atom. There's a lot of 'empty space' in atoms.

So, could we neutralise our electric charge to then walk through walls?!

Then again, that would be a bad idea because without charge we'd fall apart!

... centrifugal force. No such thing: there is only inertia.

There's various compound forces that we commonly give names, of which the most commonly must be "weight" (mass * acceleration). Two others that come to mind are centripetal and centrifugal force which in effect are analogous to "weight".

It's all down to how you are affected!

Keep searchin',
Martin


American English note: I'm using the UK English use of effect and affect.

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

There's various compound forces that we commonly give names, of which the most commonly must be "weight" (mass * acceleration). Two others that come to mind are centripetal and centrifugal force which in effect are analogous to "weight".

I was just being a smart-ass when I objected to the centrifugal force comment. Technically, it is all old man Newton's Laws, but it might be hard to convince someone who just took a hard corner in a car that centrifugal force doesn’t really exist. :P

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein