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.
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
and over 100 years ago almost any scientist would have said flight was also impossible, like i keep on telling you stop limiting your thoughts to the walls others have built for you,
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
and over 100 years ago almost any scientist would have said flight was also impossible, like i keep on telling you stop limiting your thoughts to the walls others have built for you,
You mean scientists that have never heard of birds or insects? Flight is NOTHING like this, flight does not break the LAWS of physics. Stick to the subject. Notice how I've been explaining why it's impossible, but you havn't even tried to explain why it
look at the op, theres the vid, you can see the fountain at 1:30 imagine a water wheel in it, there, explained, done,
the word practicaly is now in the thread title, so dont argue about how it isnt 100% perfect and may experience energy loss,
instead try and explain how it couldnt be better then our current options for energy production, you've not done that yetedit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OrphenFire
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
and over 100 years ago almost any scientist would have said flight was also impossible, like i keep on telling you stop limiting your thoughts to the walls others have built for you,
Enabling humans to fly was a matter of understanding and utilizing AEROdynamics (all within the laws of physics). Science has come a long way since "human flight" was developed, but one thing it hasn't done is overturn or alter our understanding of THERMOdynamics (which is fully understood and in the laws of physics). If you completely understand the laws of physics and realize that perpetual motion does not comply with those laws, then you have to move on and dismiss the notion that it is possible. Flight revolves around an entirely different set of laws and math than the hypothetical scenario of perpetual motion.
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
can i ask you, where is the energy loss in a magnet? one fixed in position moves objectes away or toward it, where is it losing its energy? where is it gaining its energy?edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
can i ask you, where is the energy loss in a magnet? one fixed in position moves objectes away or toward it, where is it losing its energy? where is it gaining its energy?edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
so is this admission by omission that you agree the device is potentialy better for energy production then our current options
that was the only purpose of the thread, thought it was pretty obvious this whole thing is about alternative energy production, i thought anyone could see that as the main point,
not an arguement over terminology or laws of physics, just what is potentialy possible with the idea of this possible device, that is the intended discussion,
if you refuse that discussion then i see no arguement from you on the point ive intended to make,
NEW ENERGY DEVICE!!!
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
read it, already knew it,
still doesnt answer the question,
Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
I wasn't rude.
The magnetic force works by way of the interaction between electrical fields. If you actually DID read the link posted by SpearMint, you would know that electrons will orbit an atom forever, and by nature a magnet has those electrons orbit in such a way that a polar opposite will be attracted to it. It doesn't require any energy because all of the energy required was used when the piece of metal was "magnetized".
Originally posted by OrphenFire
. Your complete lack of understanding the Forces of Nature is disheartening. ):[