49 of 50
49
Perpetual motion is finally here!
Posted: 01 July 2009 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 529 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

The point I am trying to make is that we dont know shit,

Of course we do.  One sign of that is how we’re able to make practical use of what we know.  Another is how we’re able to take what we know, put it together, find out something else that we didn’t know, and then go out and find out that that new something really does exist.  That’s the whole point of the scientific method, among other things.

especially when it comes to the behavior of electromagnetic fields.

So. . .all those situations where we know what electromagnetic fields are, how they work, why they work, what they do, and how to make them do what we want them to do somehow don’t count?

We know that strong EM fields can reduce the mass of objects to induce levitation.

And where do you get that from?

Is it possible that a rotating self-propelling magnetic wheel can create an electromagnetic field with which we can produce electricity, of course, they are called generators. But simply stating that because an engine uses x amt of energy and produces x + n amount of energy that it must break the laws of conservation is short sighted.

No, it’s not.  Because it’s not just somebody deciding on their own arbitrary whim that it doesn’t work.  It’s every single bit of observational data counting against it, every single bit of theoretical data going against it, common sense going against it, and a total inability of anybody to ever show how it could be so going against it.  In this particular case, it’s several years’ of direct study of the device by a number of people also going against it.

If you have an object that does not look like any dog ever has been known to look, and that does not behave as any dog has ever been known to behave, and that has been carefully examined in great detail by battery of scientific tests and been found to have no similarities to a dog, and for which nobody has ever been able to provide an evidence of dog-ness, would it be short-sighted to declare that it shows no evidence of being a dog?

Overunity is possible because our laws of conservation are incomplete because we dont understand how or what all the forces of the universe really are.

Incomplete knowledge does not mean that what knowledge we do have is flawed.  Do you know where I live?  I doubt it.  I also doubt that you know where most other people on this Forum live.  And yet I suspect that you are still able to find your own home easily enough.

If overunity is possible, then why don’t you show it to us?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 530 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6932
Joined  2005-10-21

I love the classic ‘Because it’s not fully understood/explained by science’ defense, along with the ‘persecuted by the close-minded’ claim. I see Creationists using the same tactics.

I’ll point out that the forces concerning perpetual motion have been pretty much nailed down for a long time. Physics just doesn’t work that way. As for wierd free energy concepts, exploiting some perceived ‘flaw’ in the more esoteric branches of physics, they’ve invariably been found to be based on a flawed understanding, a deliberate hoax in hopes of research money, or outright insane concepts.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 06:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 531 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Accipiter - 01 July 2009 05:41 AM

except of course in the case of the big bang, which is how all energy and matter was created…..from nothing.

Who ever gave you that idea?  I don’t know of any physical cosmologist who claims such a thing.  Rather than “starting from nothing”, the Big Bang started from everything.  But it was everything really really really really small.

Perhaps he is thinking of Stephen Hawking’s argument that the positive energy of the universe is equal to the negative energy of the gravitational potential, hence the total energy of the universe is, and always was, zero.

A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 532 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2899
Joined  2005-06-15

For arguments sake, could it be said The Earth is a perpetual motion machine? It continuously spins on it’s axis and orbits The Sun. Could the fact that even it’s finite existence could be allowed for in terms of that very existence being so much longer than the expected existence of the Human Race?

So just as a falling tree may or may not make a sound in a forest if no one is listening could we not extrapolate some definition of perpetual motion in the event of said motion being of such length as to go beyond one’s experience of snuffing it? Nay, even in the event of said motion lasting longer than an entire race of sentient beings coming to their use by date? Or must we use some abstract notion of infinity to define what, in the end, we will not be able to measure in terms of the Human Race with our own collective eyes?

Or do people think I should just have some chocolate and forget about it?

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 533 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

Also the “Starobinsky-Zeldovich” model allows for a universe to begin from nothing, as Yakov Zeldovich put it, “the creation of the universe from nothing is not prohibited by any basic physical law.”

Other cosmologists like Turok, Hawking and Vilenkin have expanded on Zeldovich’s ideas, in each case proposing the universe could, in fact, have arisen from nothing.

“Quantum Creation of an Open Inflationary Universe”
- Andrei Linde, Department of Physics, Stanford University.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 534 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  2008-09-08
Peter - 01 July 2009 11:02 AM

For arguments sake, could it be said The Earth is a perpetual motion machine? It continuously spins on it’s axis and orbits The Sun. Could the fact that even it’s finite existence could be allowed for in terms of that very existence being so much longer than the expected existence of the Human Race?

But the Earth isn’t a perpetual motion machine.  Whatever energy the Earth produces, it’s less than the energy we gain by being powered by that star we’re orbiting.  When the star runs out of power, so does the Earth.  (In our case, however, it’s more likely we’ll get swallowed by that star as it expands while dying.)

Or do people think I should just have some chocolate and forget about it?

Maybe a bit of a lie down.  And chocolate never hurts. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 535 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-01-17

Overunity is possible because our laws of conservation are incomplete because we dont understand how or what all the forces of the universe really are.

Incomplete knowledge does not mean that what knowledge we do have is flawed. Do you know where I live? I doubt it. I also doubt that you know where most other people on this Forum live. And yet I suspect that you are still able to find your own home easily enough.

If overunity is possible, then why don’t you show it to us?

Ours views, laws, and understanding change with time, based on our ability to develop new detection devices that change our view of the universe. In some cases incomplete knowledge does mean that our understandings are flawed. It was a scientific fact that biological life could not exist outside of a thin window of constraints, such as temperature, pressure, and environment. It was based on evidence that wholly supported this fact and was accepted as truth, that is until we were able to venture to the very deep ocean and observe biological life near thermal vents that shattered our definition of how life exists. Our original view was flawed because it was based on incomplete data even though at the time we believed otherwise.

Our cosmological theories are based on observations, which change so guess what happens, our theories change. Just because all the evidence supports something to be fact does not mean that what we know is actually fact because future observations can shed light on something unobserved and change our view of reality. If I said 100 years ago that the matter of stars, planets etc. make up less than half of 1% of the universe I would have been laughed at and people would say “prove it.” Move on to discoveries of dark matter, dark energy and such and we have a more complete view even though at this time it is incomplete, which is why we create new technologies to test our current theories, and for the most part we find observances that are unpredicted that must be taken into account to alter our theories.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 04:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 536 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
BlogBuster - 01 July 2009 06:06 PM

Overunity is possible because our laws of conservation are incomplete because we dont understand how or what all the forces of the universe really are.

Over-unity is impossible if Noether’s theorem is correct. Noether’s theorem has several billions of years of observational data to support it.

Ours views, laws, and understanding change with time, based on our ability to develop new detection devices that change our view of the universe.

Any new explanation must also account for the old observations. A new theory of gravity that predicts the wrong size of force at the Earth’s surface isn’t going to get very far.

In some cases incomplete knowledge does mean that our understandings are flawed. It was a scientific fact that biological life could not exist outside of a thin window of constraints, such as temperature, pressure, and environment.

No it wasn’t. It might have been a scientific fact that life hadn’t been observed outside of a narrow envelope, but any idea that life was not possible outside of it would have been an hypothesis, not a fact.

Our cosmological theories are based on observations, which change so guess what happens, our theories change.

How do observations change? Does something come by in the night and magically alter all those “Astronomy Pictures of the Day” we’ve got from Hubble? Or do “black-ops” cosmologists break into the homes of amateur astronomers and secretly doctor any photos they might have lying around to match the updated observation?

Observations do not change, interpretations do.

Just because all the evidence supports something to be fact does not mean that what we know is actually fact because future observations can shed light on something unobserved and change our view of reality.

Facts are evidence, are observations, are data. In science, a fact is a controlled, repeatable or verifiable observation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 537 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Peter - 01 July 2009 11:02 AM

For arguments sake, could it be said The Earth is a perpetual motion machine? It continuously spins on it’s axis and orbits The Sun. Could the fact that even it’s finite existence could be allowed for in terms of that very existence being so much longer than the expected existence of the Human Race?

Not really.  Even in our own lifetimes, we’ve been able to measure the Earth gradually winding down, both in its revolution and its rotation.  Completely leaving out the fact that the sun will eventually do all sorts of strange transformations and probably wreck the whole solar system in the process, we can see that the Earth will eventually spiral down into the sun, and that the Earth would eventually stop spinning on its axis.

Of course, from the perspective of the average person these changes are totally unnoticeable, and no person’s lifespan is long enough to see the effects of the slowing down made apparent.  So the Earth gives an illusion of perpetual motion when viewed over a very short time and without serious scrutiny.

So just as a falling tree may or may not make a sound in a forest if no one is listening could we not extrapolate some definition of perpetual motion in the event of said motion being of such length as to go beyond one’s experience of snuffing it? Nay, even in the event of said motion lasting longer than an entire race of sentient beings coming to their use by date? Or must we use some abstract notion of infinity to define what, in the end, we will not be able to measure in terms of the Human Race with our own collective eyes?

Even theoretical perpetual motion machines couldn’t last forever.  Eventually the Universe would end, or the atoms would decay, or something would happen.  So even if people were able to create some device that totally defied the laws of thermodynamics and everything, it would eventually have to stop.  “Perpetual motion” doesn’t actually mean it will literally run forever.  It just means that if you leave it alone and nothing were to interfere with it then it could theoretically run forever; or, in more technical terms, that it runs at a minimum of 100% efficiency while producing at least enough energy to power itself. 

We could just call any machine that runs a long, long, long time a “perpetual motion machine”, even if it isn’t one of those machines that could theoretically run forever.  But then we’d just need to come up with a new name for the ones that run forever, so all you’d be doing is changing the labels.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 538 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6932
Joined  2005-10-21

What he said.

Any physically-created perpetual motion machine would have a finite lifespan, simply based upon the wear and tear of parts. Even magnets - a staple of PM advocates - eventually lose power, and do so even faster under ‘load’. In order to be wholly ‘perpetual’, a system would have to be providing its own energy for motion. The Earth does not do that. Old terra firma simply has a LOT of momentum, based on the fact that it’s BIG and moving FAST. There’s also not a whole heck of a lot to slow it down in space, though slowing down it is. It would be like saying “I have spun this bike wheel, and it is not slowing down for the next second or so, so it’s perpetual, right?”. Clearly it’s not, and just because it happens outside of a conveniently human frame of reference doesn’t make it Perpetual.

It should be noted that there’s a difference between Perpetual Motion and Free Energy, though they both are trying to acheive the same goal. PM is concerned with making something that physically moves indefinately (and hopefully provides enough force to provide Free mechanical Energy), while Free Energy is the attempt to get energy - usually electricity - without providing fuel sources.

A subset of Free Energy is the Apples and Oranges concept: Trading something that isn’t normally useful but abunant into power. The difference being that there are already examples of this - Solar panels. Of course, this is still burning fuel in some fashion. Solar power relies on the sun. Tapping the earth’s magnetic field would slowly drain the magnetism of the earth. Of course, if you’re working on some totally moonbat concept like tapping telepathic mu rays from the planet Fronobulax, then good luck.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 539 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-01-17

How do observations change? Does something come by in the night and magically alter all those “Astronomy Pictures of the Day” we’ve got from Hubble? Or do “black-ops” cosmologists break into the homes of amateur astronomers and secretly doctor any photos they might have lying around to match the updated observation?
.

Hubble literally changed the observable universe, and in turn established new facts for which our theories evolve. The red shift is a direct example, Einstein had to abandon his theory of the cosmic constant based on hubble observations. Before hubble observed this phenomena the cosmic constant was a sound theory based in fact. Subsequently the theory of a cosmic constant went from live to dead to live again with the observations that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Just because all the evidence supports something to be fact does not mean that what we know is actually fact because future observations can shed light on something unobserved and change our view of reality.

Facts are evidence, are observations, are data. In science, a fact is a controlled, repeatable or verifiable observation.

As observations change and evolve, so do facts. I think we are arguing the same point, just based on different observations.

Profile
 
 
   
49 of 50
49