It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 347
80
<< 344  345  346    348  349  350 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
The root of the question: Is it hypothetically possible for the system as described to be an infinite perpetual motion machine. It's simply photon in/photon out - electron in ground state/electron in higher orbital. Would the system continually produce light?
As joel pointed out, your thought experiment has some issues, so you'd need a more realistic thought experiment in order to evaluate it, but in general I'd say there's no such thing as an isolated system so anytime you try to mix that concept with perpetual it will never be perpetual.

Maybe if you could make an isolated system you could keep the energy inside it bouncing back and forth forever, but you can't make an isolated system, in perpetual motion terms. You might be able to make a pretty good approximation of one, and we might be able to consider the losses between the closed system and the outside world negligible compared to some processes going on inside the system, but once you start talking about "perpetual" what may have been negligible otherwise, is no longer negligible.

A more realistic similar idea is actually used in the LIGO systems smokybarnable mentioned. Light is bounced back and forth between two mirrors in a semi-perpetual fashion, so this is a real-world example where we try to capture as much of the energy as we can between the mirrors so it can keep bouncing back and forth for as long as possible, but despite our best efforts there are small losses so the light only bounces between the mirrors many times, but not forever. It's fairly impressive though how much of the light bounces back and forth.

The only potentially "perpetual" "motion" which may exist involves superconductivity. It is the only process in the universe that I know of where so far our experiments seem to suggest that even the small or "negligible" losses such as those we get with the LIGO mirrors don't exist, and the losses may actually be zero though it's difficult to prove they are exactly zero. You can really only prove the losses are smaller than the threshold of your measurement system. As far as I know we haven't found a measurement system sensitive enough yet to measure the losses, so if you're after some kind of perpetual motion I think superconductivity may be the only option where we haven't found even small losses, yet.

There's another issue with semantics. With superconductivity and its potential for perpetual motion, I'm using the words "perpetual" and "motion" separately, with their separate definitions.

If however you use "perpetual motion" as an expression it can take on a different context than just something which can move perpetually, as this Wikipedia definition suggests:

Perpetual motion

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source.


Using that definition, even a superconductor can't be considered "perpetual motion" because as soon as it tries to do any work, it's not perpetual anymore. It may only allow hypothetically perpetual motion if no work is done, so it's not perpetual motion in any context of doing work.

So far the superconductor idea has been tested for years:

Superconductivity

Rings of superconducting material have been experimentally proven to sustain continuous current for years with no applied voltage. So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you’re thinking this appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you’re correct! Contrary to popular belief, there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion; rather, the prohibition stands against any machine or system generating more energy than it consumes (what would be referred to as an over-unity device). At best, all a perpetual motion machine (like the superconducting ring) would be good for is to store energy, not generate it freely!

Again note the clarification between the two contexts of perpetual motion, with and without doing work.

edit on 20171019 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Thanks for the reply. You're right. Puts my thought experiment in the trash bin of history - I should have remembered that myself. Thanks again.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply. I used the closed system setup with the thought that like the laws of thermodynamics, it's easier to calculate the system variables. As Joelr pointed out, I didn't take into account the momentum of the photon when absorbed by the electron. I still have an idea about this - want to read up on the LIGO mirrors this weekend. It's really fantastic that they publish detailed information at the LIGO website.

My thought on perpetual motion was more an idea of reusing, or capturing, the photon's energy - almost like recycling.
edit on 20-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply. I used the closed system setup with the thought that like the laws of thermodynamics, it's easier to calculate the system variables. As Joelr pointed out, I didn't take into account the momentum of the photon when absorbed by the electron. I still have an idea about this - want to read up on the LIGO mirrors this weekend. It's really fantastic that they publish detailed information at the LIGO website.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did, it's quite interesting.


My thought on perpetual motion was more an idea of reusing, or capturing, the photon's energy - almost like recycling.
You might want to research the radiative zone of the sun because there the photons' energy goes from atom to atom and is thus recycled over and over an incredible number of times. This source calls it the radiation zone but other sources call it the radiative zone:

A Slow Means of Energy Transport

Once energy is produced in the core of the Sun, it needs a way to travel from the solar center to the outer regions. The physical transport of energy from its production site to the surrounding regions can be done in a number of ways. However, for a star like the Sun, the most efficient means of transferring energy near the core is by radiation. Consequently, the region surrounding the core of the Sun is known as the radiation zone. Throughout this region of the solar interior, energy, in the form of radiation, is transferred by its interaction with the surrounding atoms. In the radiation zone of the Sun the temperature is a little cooler than the core and as a result some atoms are able to remain intact. These intact atoms are able to absorb energy, store it for awhile, and then later emit that energy as new radiation. In this manner the energy that is generated in the core is passed from atom to atom through the radiation zone.


As an illustration, imagine standing in a crowded gymnasium with each person holding an empty glass. There is a sink on one end of the gym and someone at the opposite end wants a drink, but because the gym is so crowded no one can move. The person nearest the sink can fill their glass with water and pour it into the glass next to them. This process could continue until the water is passed across the gym. This is similar to the Sun's energy being passed from atom to atom until it reaches the end of the radiation zone.

One important difference between our analogy and what takes place in the Sun is that in the gym we would pass the water in such a way that it always moves towards the other side. The atoms in the Sun do not do this. In fact, there is no direct communication between one end of the radiation zone and the other. Instead, the Sun's energy is passed randomly from atom to atom. Sometimes it moves outward, sometimes inward and just a often it moves side to side. It takes over 170 thousand years for the energy released in the core of the Sun to get out of the radiation zone!


Once you admit there's no such thing as a closed system, I don't think this is that far from what you're talking about with photon energy being recycled.



edit on 20171020 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
So what do you think of the fairly recent news about the neutron stars merger and some LIGO kooks receiving the nobel prize? If the two neutron stars were on a spiraling orbit about one another, it would have been more like a head on collision forming a resulting black hole and emission of gamma ray bursts and other optical phenomena, wouldn't it?



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
There was a thread about this on ATS and I posted a good video describing the event in that thread, but I don't mind re-posting it here. There was a gravity wave chirp followed by gamma rays followed by other EM radiation including visible light confirmed by multiple observatories, which they believe are all related.

Ripples of Gravity, Flashes of Light


On Aug. 17, 2017, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) and Virgo detected, for the first time, gravitational waves from the collision of two neutron stars. The event was not only “heard” in gravitational waves but also seen in light by dozens of telescopes on the ground and in space. Learn more about what this rare astronomy event taught us in a new video from LIGO and Virgo.


I have to make another thread about the conspiracy theory surrounding the first gravity wave detection, especially since this is a conspiracy site. It did seem slightly kooky, but at the same time it speaks to the thoroughness of the scientists to investigate the conspiracy theory so their investigation would be as thorough as possible.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

whether they detected ripples of gravity waves, or it was just a lie to continue to receive state funding seems to be a conspiracy all right. ripples of gravity waves cannot be possible without aether, since space time is not bent, so both scenarios dont exist imo.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
The first conclusion of Dr Adkihari was that the signal was too good to be true, happened too soon after turning on the machine and might have been a fake by someone who had been working on the idea too long and wanted a career boost. I made a separate thread about those conspiracy theories which he explains:

Conspiracy theories scientists investigated to try to explain gravitational wave detection

Scientists have been trying to detect gravitational waves since the 1960s so you'd think when they finally detect a signal they'd pop the champagne bottle open and celebrate, but that's now what Dr Adkihari described at all, he didn't believe it at first. It's a very interesting story which gives some insight into the skepticism of scientists and why they not only doubt that comparing the pH of two tomatoes provides convincing evidence of your time machine, but they even doubted their own data collected by their own machines, until it was vetted quite rigorously.



posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey which time machine are you on about?
imo that signal was a lie just so that they coincided it with the observed optical phenomena. so the vetting was a sham just so that they could show the world they are doing it the right way to secure more state funding.



posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



If you know what's in the box like Delbert Larson does, then you can speculate here and he's done so quite a bit and I've never discouraged him and on the contrary welcomed his posts.


Thanks for that. I meant to thank you earlier, but I've been struggling the past several weeks with a derivation of the Lorentz Force equation from my aetherial postulates. I have followed this thread during that time, but have been tardy in responding to the quote above. Thanks again.

I believe I have the basics of the Lorentz Force derivation now. The first critical observation was that my earlier derivation of Maxwell's equations was not the only way to do it. In the earlier derivation (available here) the vector potential is identified as the transverse component of the aether's displacement, and both the negative and positive aether have the same transverse displacement equations. Hence, for the case of a solenoidal field, we can just think of the whole aether as a rotated, solid, cylindrical block. (You can envision a cylinder of aether and just rotate it - that's what a magnetic solenoidal field would be.) So the question, in that physical model, was why would that then affect the motion of charged particles within it? If all we did was rotate a cylinder of stuff, it would seem that there would be no effect inside of the cylinder. There might be an effect at the edges of the cylinder (where the physical difference manifests), but that's not what we see experimentally.

Now what if instead of both components having equal transverse displacements, instead they are equal and opposite? That is - a solenoidal field rotates the positive aether one way and the negative aether the other. This would be a physical difference, and such a physical difference could indeed result in an effect on moving charged particles. So that made much more sense physically.

But there was a problem. There is a term in the derivation of Maxwell's Equations that goes as the partial of (N_T - P_T) with respect to time. (N_T is the negative aether transverse displacement, P_T the positive transverse displacement.) If N_T = P_T, as in the original derivation, then this term vanishes and we get to Maxwell. But if N_T = -P_T, the original derivation does not work. However, I realized that the term can still be discarded if there is no flow force when one type of attached aether flows with respect to the other type of attached aether. So I raised this to a new starting postulate and then Maxwell can be derived (if I haven't made an error) in a slightly different way.

In the new postulates, we still have flow forces resulting from detached aether flow, but not from attached aether flowing against its counterpart attached aether. Such a model is analogous to superconductivity, where no resistance occurs once the superconducting material is in a certain state. This happens even as there is resistance when the material is in a different (hotter) state.

A result of the new approach is that both components of the aether have positive mass now. I realize this puts limits on how dense the aether can be, since if it is too dense it would show up gravitationally. I also realize this could be the "missing mass" although that is not my present aim, as my present aim is to understand the Lorentz force (and then I hope to get to gravity) from aetherial postulates.

Due to my present busy schedule making a living, I have no idea how long it will take to get this all written up and carefully checked and then sent in for review. And often during the process of writing and checking I find errors. On rare occasions reviewers find an error too. So it is a bit premature to do any celebrating, but I did want to check in here and let y'all know about my progress. A good start on the new version of the derivation of Maxwell can be found at my user page on InfoGalactic. Since I haven't had time to carefully check it, there may be typos or other errors, and if you find any please let me know! Also note that I haven't updated portions following the derivation part yet, so just treat this as a work-in-progress. As I work on the write-up of the Lorentz Force equation I'll add to that user page write-up, and I plan to check in here whenever I make sufficient progress there.


edit on 4-11-2017 by delbertlarson because: added "reply to" line



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Hi.

I play this online, multiplayer word game, and at the end, the person who scores the most points wins.

It's the one and only game where I'm actually good at something.

I tend to always try and overkill the one who came in second by 50% or more, at least in the stupid way I somehow do math.

So for example:

Second place finisher scored 5,000.

Half of that score (50%) would be an additional 2,500.

When added together, that means I should have at least 7,500 points or more to be 50% better than this person.

If I double a person's score, I think of myself as beating them by 100%.

In this example, if the second place finisher scored 5,000, I would then need 10,000 or more to be 100% better.

Can someone help me to math this out better?

I feel like I'm not properly quantifying the numbers when comparing myself to other players.

I hope this makes a little sense.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey which time machine are you on about?
As if you didn't know, the one in this thread in the HOAX! forum which is called an anti-gravity machine which also has time machine properties:

Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed

Hi Folks.

This is to share only the results of my R & D on my patent pending invention.
The results I'd like to share are on the link in my signature.
Subsequent to posting the link some analysis were carried out in scientific labs as under.

1. Sample Mercury showed, on testing in an Elemental lab,
Mass %s Mercury Hg(80) 99.77 % and Strontium Sr(38) 0.23%

2. Sample Tomato as compared to a Normal Tomato showed, on testing in an Microbiolab,
Ph 4.0 and Total Microbial count of 74 CFU/ML While a Normal Tomato was PH 4.6
and a Total Microbial count of 8 CFU/ML.
Both Sample and Normal Tomato were Negative in E.Coli and S. Aureus pathogens
Sample tomato was always in ambient conditions for 25 days and an avg temp of 27 deg C
prior to testing in the lab


The hoaxer was banned from ATS so we can't see his signature anymore but one of the posters on page 2 of that thread provided the link in the signature that people were missing, in his post so we can still see it there:

www.scribd.com...

Anti Gravity From Vrillectric

The well known mass/energy equivalence equation, E = mc^2, when simplified into its Time(t) component yields, sq.rt m is directly proportional to t. Therefore if we negate time t, we negate mass m, which is measured in Kg. In other words gravity is being negated. The prototype of my patent pending invention does just that. The weight reductions noted during trials March 2010, were as follows After 60 mins of running Weight decrease = 140 Grams 90 mins Weight Decrease = 300 Grams 120 mins Weight Decrease = 500 Grams. These results were replicated 3 times.
Further on the time properties are discussed:


NORMAL STEEL ABOVE VS TIME DILATED STEEL BELOW SHOWING VISUAL SIGNATURE OF EXTRA SPATIAL DIMENSIONS


Nobody in the thread seemed to figure out why Savvy was talking about the pH of one control tomato versus one sample tomato, and I wasn't sure either but the only guess I could come up with was that it was maybe supposed to be another example like the steel being purported evidence of time dilation but the presentation is so incoherent it's nearly impossible to be sure what is really meant so I admit my guess could be completely wrong.

As best I can tell, you are most likely Savvy because you are making the same type of unusual claims he did under a string of previous ATS screen names, including these:

savvys84
Angelic Resurrection
Nochzwei
and of course you, Hyperboles, and maybe some other screen names I don't know about.

If you're not all the same man then you should get together and see who stole who's idea from who because you're all talking about the same anti-gravity/time machine in the same very unusual and not entirely coherent language about time doing the opposite of what NIST experimenters have found in a gravitational field. Their experiments are consistent with Einstein's theory since they showed that time speeds up at higher elevations, but you and these doppelgangers have claimed that time slows down at higher elevations, though I think you're the only one who tried to cite a pendulum as evidence of this and you never did rationalize how a pendulum could be a good time-keeping device in variable gravity if it stopped working in microgravity.


imo that signal was a lie just so that they coincided it with the observed optical phenomena. so the vetting was a sham just so that they could show the world they are doing it the right way to secure more state funding.
This makes it sound like an optical phenomenon was observed and you believe some gravitational wave signal was faked to coincide with it. The problem is this is not what happened. The gravitational wave signals were followed by gamma rays and only then did the optical telescopes know which part of the sky to observe, and observed the optical feature. So you had people telling the astronomers with optical telescopes which part of the sky to look at, based on signals they had well before the optical event occurred.

According to your idea there would be no way they could tell astronomers what part of the sky to observe in advance, but they did just that, as explained in the video on the 6th post on this page (347).


originally posted by: Steffer
Second place finisher scored 5,000.

Half of that score (50%) would be an additional 2,500.

When added together, that means I should have at least 7,500 points or more to be 50% better than this person.


That's more of a math question than a physics question but your math is fine from your perspective looking at the second place finisher as the reference. Saying 7500 is 50% higher than 5000 is the same as saying 7500 is 150% of 5000 (where 5000 is 100%).

For an outside observer like me however, I might be more inclined to use the first place finisher as the reference, and note how other players ranked with respect to the first place finisher, so in your example of first place 7500, second place 5000, I'd say 5000/7500 = 66.7% so I'd say the second place finisher had 66.7% of the score relative to first place (which is not 50%).

So when you compare scores on a percentage basis, it's important to state the basis for comparison which in your example was the second place finisher, and as you correctly said first place had 50% higher score than second place which can also be stated as 7500 is 150% as large as 5000. In my example second place had 66.7% as high a score as first place, using first place as the basis for comparison. So the 150% and 66.7% are both correct interpretations of the same 7500/5000 scores, they just use different references.

edit on 2017115 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

wow those dude/s you are talking about seem to be onto something sensational. maybe they should be awarded the nobel prize.
on your other thread about the gravitational waves, i think chronaut has made some very valid points about fraud being the most likely candidate in this recent discovery of gravitational waves.
And if you believe the official version of the news, then you will believe anything and be ranked among the gullibles. gud luk on that



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
And if you believe the official version of the news, then you will believe anything and be ranked among the gullibles. gud luk on that
I don't believe everything in the news, especially some of the science articles written by journalists who are not scientists and sometimes what they write is flat out wrong, and you have to read the paper by the scientists to see what they really said, instead of some journalist's interpretation.

As for conspiracy theories, the scientists investigated theirs for how the signal could have been faked, but you obviously haven't lifted a finger to investigate your conspiracy theories. For example Dr. Berger received phone calls, e-mails, and the official LIGO alert about the gravitational wave detection so he knew he needed to start observing ASAP after receiving those. Is it your theory that all those were faked and the ISP and phone companies are also in on it and have faked their records of telephone and internet for thousands of astronomers and astrophysicists? All those thousands of e-mails and text messages are time-stamped, did they change the time stamps on text messages, e-mails and LIGO alerts that were sent to all these people and all these people are in on it and lying about the timing? Or they contacted twice this many but half refused to cooperate in the conspiracy so they killed the half that refused to cooperate?

iopscience.iop.org...


This is even more absurd than your pendulum clock keeping time in outer space idea.

Neutron-Star Collision Shakes Space-Time and Lights Up the Sky

When Berger got the calls, emails, and the automated official LIGO alert with the probable coordinates of what appeared to be a neutron-star merger, he knew that he and his team had to act quickly to see its aftermath using optical telescopes.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
As i said on the other posts, it is quite interesting how those who are of counter opinion to that of mainstream science simply disregard the evidence as though it is so blatantly a lie it might as well have come from fox news.

Even with a source as bad as Fox, or say the Sun or Daily Mail, you can sometimes find a thread of truth...even if it has been exaggerated to the point of non-recognition, or presented as 100% the opposite to reality.

The way you, Hyperboles and others simply state that what the experiment saw is all a lie based upon one or two forum threads is quite staggeringly impressive in its ignorance. It is quite amazing really.

I am not in the LIGO collaboration, but Iv been to 6-7 conferences over the last 8 years in which different people talked about their detector, the changes in sensitivity, and the exclusion limits. I also was privy to a bit of information back when they had the detection during commissioning, via a colleague that LIGO was investigating a possible detection. As i said, im not in LIGO, though do have a bit of inside experience in the field of experimental physics, and the experiments iv worked on thus far go from neutrino physics to Astro-Particle physics. Iv been involved in grant proposals and witnessed how the process works.

I thus again repeat that I find it amazing when I read comment from people who clearly have no idea how actual science works and simply shout fraud, and citing a quite factually incorrect 'Motivation'
The LIGO collaboration where in no risk of getting money cut... like... zero risk. They had just completed their latest and greatest detector system, the funding proposals that gathered the money to do that, would most certainly have stipulated a running cost, and a desired running program to complete the physics goals.
Its the way every single collaboration has its funding done, oh yes and i should point out that my exposure to funding systems goes from UK, Canada and US... they are all roughly the same.

So if someone said "Oh they faked it so they could get funding" if their detection was like right at the end of one of the last run and they had not already secured funding. Its just, it makes little to no sense in that context as they don't have the motivation to do such a thing.

Conversely, the new detector system would represent a direct step in sensitivity and so would open up the experiment to a new search zone... a detection coming so soon, yeah is not expected... but then a rate of detections with different parameters have come steadily since. I personally think the account posted by Arbitrageur is a very very good one. The fact they wanted to be careful and not release the information or make an announcement IS due to diligence, someone like you Hyperboles would damn them if they did and if they didn't so what difference does your opinion make on it? Zero.

Again as someone in the field, I can tell you what happens to peoples funding and reputation if they do rush something out that is wrong... they suffer, they are quite often made to look like idiots and they will struggle to get further funding. I can think of a few examples of this in Dark Matter in which whole collaborations split in half over interpretation of results, same for neutrinoless double beta decay... one part of a collaboration is convinced, the other half is like... no way. Guess what happened to those collaborations? They basically folded.

So in order to propose some grand conspiracy Hyperboles and for it to have any kind of credibility... just making an argument which summaries as

No.... because.

is simply not enough. Sometimes you lot sound like Jerry from Rick and Morty going on about Pluto.
edit on 6-11-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey which time machine are you on about?
imo that signal was a lie just so that they coincided it with the observed optical phenomena. so the vetting was a sham just so that they could show the world they are doing it the right way to secure more state funding.


The EM telescopes (optical, radio, X-ray, gamma-ray, infrared, and ultraviolet telescopes) did not detect the light from the August 2017 event until after LIGO told them where to look -- and "where to look" was not only based on LIGO's gravitational wave detection, but also a similar detection of the same event by the new Virgo gravitational wave detector in Europe..

So the gravitational waves were detected before any EM observatory announced the detection of light (in any wavelength) from the neutron star merger detected on August 17t. And not only that, but another independent gravitational wave interferometer detected the same event.


edit on 6/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey chronaut is himself a sceintist



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

wow the graviational waves travelled faster than light, eh



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Know ye not, what is too good to be true, is probably is



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
too good to be true.... like a pendulum proving GR wrong?

Also interesting that you come to the defense of someone as "Hey he is a scientist"

Aaaand yep, so am I... Doctorate and all... along with probably most of the games on that paper above... (will be a mix of Profs, RAs, Post-doctorates and students) but still scientists none the less.

So yeah... wanna be scientific about this? oooor just pick and choose?
edit on 8-11-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
80
<< 344  345  346    348  349  350 >>

log in

join