[Kryptid]

Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.

The total amount of energy in the system never changed, therefore none of it became force. You can't turn energy into force. They are two different quantities. Again, if you believe otherwise, then tell me how many newtons are in a joule.

[Origin]

63! pages of Dave steadfastly refusing to learn any physics, strangely humorous.

[Bored chemist]

63! pages of Dave steadfastly refusing to learn any physics, strangely humorous.

Remarkable isn't it?
3 years and no sign of learning anything.


BTW 63! is rather a lot.
It only seems like 1.982E87 pages.
:-)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.

No
If I go from my house to the pub along the road I use the road to get from one to another, but I do not get transformed into a road.

Sorry in the article it is stated very clearly that "the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"
So it is not just a different road it is a very clear message of using the electric energy "to GENERATE force".
Do you know the meaning of "generate"?
By Google:
Generate = Create, reproduce...
If this isn't good enough for you it is also stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
Armature - This is the part through which the electric current flows which develops the force.
Hence, they even offer the exact element where the electrical current develops the force.
It is also stated:
"When electric current passes through the wire the magnetic field from the field magnet exerts a force on it, called the Lorentz force, turning the rotor."
Therefore, the Lorentz force is the force that is turning the rotor.
After so clear explanation on force and Lorentz force how can you twist that clear message of generating/creating/reproducing of force/Lorenz force as just a different road?
Sorry you twist the science in order to disqualify that impact of the "FORCE"
You know, our Moderators Know and all the other 100,000 scientists know that without Lorentz force that motor would never spin.

Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.

The total amount of energy in the system never changed, therefore none of it became force. You can't turn energy into force.

How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?
Lorentz force proves that energy can turn energy into force.

Again, if you believe otherwise, then tell me how many newtons are in a joule.

As you believe that energy can't be transformed to force, then do you reject that force that is called "Lorentz force"?
What do you think Lorentz would reply to your questions about converting newtons to joule?

63! pages of Dave steadfastly refusing to learn any physics, strangely humorous.

After 63 pages its time for all of you to accept real science.
It's time for you to understand that Lorentz force is a force as gravity force is also a force.
It's time for the science community to offer me a rewards for my discovery!

[Bored chemist]

It's time for you to understand that Lorentz force is a force as gravity force is also a force.

I pretty much pointed this out to you.
Do you remember?

In particular, you can turn the potential energy of a magnetic field into kinetic energy.

How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?

Nobody made that claim
If you think they did then please quote the bit where someone said it.
Otherwise, why not just accept that you are still wrong?

Incidentally, if you consider the levitation of superconductors you might realise that an electrical current (and the associated force) does not require the expenditure of energy.

Though this would require you to learn some science, so I guess I'm going to have to plug it a few times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity#Zero_electrical_DC_resistance

[Kryptid]

How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?

I never made such a claim.

Lorentz force proves that energy can turn energy into force.

No it doesn't. The total energy of the system remains constant. If it was turned into force, then the total energy of the system would temporarily decrease because some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy.

As you believe that energy can't be transformed to force, then do you reject that force that is called "Lorentz force"?

No, because the Lorentz force doesn't change energy into force. It uses force to change one form of energy into another. There's an important difference.

What do you think Lorentz would reply to your questions about converting newtons to joule?

I assume he would say that you can't convert newtons into joules because force can't be converted into energy.

It's time for you to understand that Lorentz force is a force as gravity force is also a force.

No one here said otherwise.

It's time for the science community to offer me a rewards for my discovery!

Build a perpetual motion machine using Earth's gravity as an unlimited source of energy and I guarantee you they will.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:52
Lorentz force proves that energy can turn energy into force.

No it doesn't.

In the article it is clearly stated that "the electric current flows which develops the force" and also exerts Lorentz force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
Armature - This is the part through which the electric current flows which develops the force.
"When electric current passes through the wire the magnetic field from the field magnet exerts a force on it, called the Lorentz force, turning the rotor."

Don't you agree that without Lorentz force, the rotor won't spin/turn?
Why do you reject that clear message from our scientists?

The total energy of the system remains constant.

There is no contradiction between the Lorentz force that is created by the electric energy to the total energy in the system.

If it was turned into force, then the total energy of the system would temporarily decrease because some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy.

The Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.
So why do you claim that: "some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy"?
Assuming that we ignore the loss due to the efficiency we could claim that all the electric energy is transformed to Lorentz force.
Why you don't agree that this Lorentz force forces the rotor to spin?
How can you assume that any mechanical activity could be set without force?
Can you even lift a cup without force?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:52
It's time for the science community to offer me a rewards for my discovery!

Build a perpetual motion machine using Earth's gravity as an unlimited source of energy and I guarantee you they will.

I have already offered a simple solution:

F = G m1 m2 / r^2
So, the gravity force is based on mass and distance.
You can't reduce that force by using its force to make works.
As I have already explained, we can generate electricity from orbital system free of charge.
All we need is to connect a wire to the moon and use its rotation to generate electricity free of charge.
Hence, gravity force is a real force that can generate energy and it is free of charge.

[Kryptid]

In the article it is clearly stated that "the electric current flows which develops the force" and also exerts Lorentz force.

Electrical current leading to the development of a force is not energy turning into force.

Why do you reject that clear message from our scientists?

I don't. The scientists never claimed that energy turned into force.

There is no contradiction between the Lorentz force that is created by the electric energy to the total energy in the system.

It is if you claim it is being turned into force. Since force isn't energy, then any energy transformed into force must reduce the total energy of the system.

The Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.

I never said otherwise. What I said is that energy can't become force.

So why do you claim that: "some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy"?

Because that is exactly what you have been saying. You say that energy can become force. Since force isn't energy, then any energy that has become force is no longer energy.

Assuming that we ignore the loss due to the efficiency we could claim that all the electric energy is transformed to Lorentz force.

Except that we can't, because you can't turn energy into force. Energy can give rise to force, but it can't become force.

I have already offered a simple solution:

Then go ahead and build a perpetual motion machine. Not only would that prove Bored Chemist and I wrong, but it would revolutionize physics and the world as a whole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you remember the story "Around the World in Eighty Days"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days
Now I can offer you (and any person in our planet) a free ride in only 24 Hours.
By holding that cable to the moon for 24 Hours you can ride around the planet and get back to your starting point.
You can also get to Europe, China or Japan free of charge.
The cost of flight would be zero.

[Bored chemist]

Do you remember the story "Around the World in Eighty Days"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days
Now I can offer you (and any person in our planet) a free ride in only 24 Hours.
By holding that cable to the moon for 24 Hours you can ride around the planet and get back to your starting point.
You can also get to Europe, China or Japan free of charge.
The cost of flight would be zero.

Offer only valid until you use up all the energy of the Moon/ Earth system.

That's the point we have been making all along.
Why do you think you can tie a rope to the moon, and pull on it without slowing the moon down?
(It doesn't matter if the "rope" you use is gravity.)

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:52
How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?
Nobody made that claim
If you think they did then please quote the bit where someone said it.
Otherwise, why not just accept that you are still wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:34:24
The Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.

I never said otherwise

Thanks Kryptid
You confirm that Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.
You also confirm that Electrical current leading to the development of a force:

Electrical current leading to the development of a force is not energy turning into force.

However, why don't you also agree that electrical current/electric energy means energy?
What is so unique in electrical energy that it can't be considered as energy?
Why do you insist that:

Energy can give rise to force, but it can't become force.

Can you please explain:
1. Why electrical energy isn't energy
2. What is the difference between: "Give rise to force" to "become (or transform) to force"

[africanprintdress]

hi, as a new member of this site I appreciate this discussion I never knew so much about BBT before reading this discussion thanks

[Origin]

hi, as a new member of this site I appreciate this discussion I never knew so much about BBT before reading this discussion thanks

The posts by Dave Lev are almost universally incorrect, so be sure and bypass them if you are interested in the BBT.

Edit:
Oh, I just noticed you are probably a spammer, if so, never mind...

[Kryptid]

However, why don't you also agree that electrical current/electric energy means energy?

I never said that.

What is so unique in electrical energy that it can't be considered as energy?

Nothing, because I never claimed that it wasn't energy.

1. Why electrical energy isn't energy

I have no idea where you got this from.

2. What is the difference between: "Give rise to force" to "become (or transform) to force"

Because in the first case energy doesn't literally become force and in the second case it does.

[Just thinking]

Sorry – If our scientists don't know even the basic understanding about the real size of our Universe, (finite or infinite), then how do they know for sure that the whole BBT is correct?

If I can just through a spanner in the works. The universe is made up of 98% hydrogen and 2% is all the other known elements the strange thing is the hydrogen is responsible along with gravity for the 2% so my point is that when hydrogen is compressed by great force it is transformed into all the solids that make up the core of stars and all the planets moons and life its self. How do we get this hydrogen gas transformation well before during and after a star explodes the solid core of the star is spread all over the universe this material is then sorted by gravity to make up the elements. Now back to the very start how did the big bang create all of this hydrogen gas well the explosion was so powerful that it converted all the material back into hydrogen the gravity of a star can convert hydrogen to solid the big bang can convert solid back into hydrogen. Sorry I have not made any effort to explane how all of this came from nothing as I have no clue to this question.

[Bored chemist]

You confirm that Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.

Me getting a holiday in Barbados would be a direct result of me winning the lottery.
But it is not the same as me winning the lottery.

[Bored chemist]

hi, as a new member of this site I appreciate this discussion I never knew so much about BBT before reading this discussion thanks

The posts by Dave Lev are almost universally incorrect, so be sure and bypass them if you are interested in the BBT.

Edit:
Oh, I just noticed you are probably a spammer, if so, never mind...

Probably a spammer but probably only responsible for one useless post.
As opposed to  Dave who is running dozens of pages of rubbish

Which one should the site ban?

[Origin]

If I can just through a spanner in the works. The universe is made up of 98% hydrogen and 2% is all the other known elements the strange thing is the hydrogen is

Most matter appears to be Dark Matter, so only 20% of the matter in the universe is visible matter.  Of that visible matter 73% is hydrogen.

when hydrogen is compressed by great force it is transformed into all the solids that make up the core of stars

The cores of stars are not solid.  The core of a star is made of plasma.

Now back to the very start how did the big bang create all of this hydrogen gas well the explosion was so powerful that it converted all the material back into hydrogen the gravity of a star can convert hydrogen to solid the big bang can convert solid back into hydrogen. Sorry I have not made any effort to explane how all of this came from nothing as I have no clue to this question.

Yes, I can see that.

[Just thinking]

Most matter appears to be Dark Matter,

I have heard you refer to this as dark energy in other threads have you changed your opinion. And no I can't see that. I like to consider reality not imaginary dark shadows like the boggy man.