The oil companies!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
PMB: If you look up the definition for Mechanical Work (here is one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) ) you will see that a force that produces a change in the kinetic energy of a rigid body has done (mechanical) work.Well put, thanks Geezer I'll work on something to put in new theories
When you drop an object, gravity accelerates the object, therefore gravity has changed the kinetic energy of the object, therefore gravity has done work.
Geezer : I think Gravity does it's work at the atomic level inside the atom. Is there any research in this area.Does gravity do any work?
The energy that gravity uses appears to be inside every atom. Think of the energy in an atom as something like a spinning flywheel rotating at close to the speed of light with an insulating layer that stops it from reacting with other atoms around it.
Gravity could be a form of radiation (as yet undetected) that can penetrate all matter and upset this energy's equilibrium creating the action we know as the force of gravity.
This upsetting action is the actual work that gravity does. A weak force!
Questioner: That does not seem to address the question about work. Perhaps you should start a new topic in "New Theories". Thanks!
If you want to start at the bottom forget about gravity forming around mass and consider the existence of star dust. A material that planets and stars form around.Yep LeeE. It's very frustrating
Or if you accept the Higgs field then gravity 'accumulates' around mass. But where would that field come from, and why would it work at all. What's guaranteeing mass to exist even if that field existed? When we see two phenomena directly related to each other it is easy to wonder what came 'first', or did they came 'together'?
That's one of the reasons why I like 'emergences', as it allows them to come 'together' begetting new 'property's' (water to ice)
But if we look at it as having a 'beginning' involving 'forces' then we treat it as a chain of occurrences from a beginning to an end, and then that first 'force' must contain it all, in some manner of speaking, as from it all other will come.
Maybe there are other ways to look at it too?
One of the main things I've been playing with is a bottom-up synthetic approach as an alternative to the top-down analytic approach: instead of analysing downwards through the hierarchy structure from the top, towards the bottom-level fundamental abstract, you start with the bottom-level fundamental abstract and try to synthesise the hierarchy structure upwards. It's an interesting exercise.
Perhaps, how else would you explain it's reaction at varying distances to the earth. Maybe the gravity signal is undetectable by us at this stage.If gravity is a weak force and does not change the energy within the atom but affects the equilibrium of the atom.
Think of an atom moving into space away from the earth, as the gravity signal weakens the atom regains equilibrium.
That's an interesting idea. Would I be correct in saying that you are proposing that atoms are subject to "stress" in a gravitational field?
If gravity is a weak force and does not change the energy within the atom but affects the equilibrium of the atom.Is gravity doing work if the energy that creates the action is within the atom to start with.
Gravity can do work on the mass of an atom, but I don't believe there has been any change in the energy within the atom.