Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
that is until you ask them "where did the energy come from in the first instance" ?

at which point they will answer "the big bang"
at which point you say, "but the big bang violates conservation of energy laws"
at which point they say "the big bang created the universe and all the energy in it"
at which point you say "but that violates conservation of energy laws"

at which point they say "during the initial inflation period of the universe, physics worked differently and allowed the violation of the rules"

at which point i point out,
"you believe in free energy"


At which point I say, "why don't you actually read a real explanation of this instead of just making thins up and assuming you are correct."

Conservation of energy is not and has never been a problem for the big bang, it is covariantly conserved at all times and for all observers. Try learning some physics and reading an actual textbook on it.
edit on 21-10-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by XPLodER
that is until you ask them "where did the energy come from in the first instance" ?

at which point they will answer "the big bang"
at which point you say, "but the big bang violates conservation of energy laws"
at which point they say "the big bang created the universe and all the energy in it"
at which point you say "but that violates conservation of energy laws"

at which point they say "during the initial inflation period of the universe, physics worked differently and allowed the violation of the rules"

at which point i point out,
"you believe in free energy"


At which point I say, "why don't you actually read a real explanation of this instead of just making thins up and assuming you are correct."

Conservation of energy is not and has never been a problem for the big bang, it is covariantly conserved at all times and for all observers. Try learning some physics and reading an actual textbook on it.
edit on 21-10-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)


ok here we go,

and the alpha and the omega said let there be light, and there was, (religious)
and nothing exploded because of uncertainty into everything (science)

you accuse me of making things up?
you ask me to go study?

then you say,


At which point I say, "why don't you actually read a real explanation of this instead of just making thins up and assuming you are correct."


WITHOUT ADDRESSING what i had said,

if nothing is conserved into every point of energy and mass in the entire universe,
what is conservation again?

the transition of nothing to energy?

you ask me to accept that the conditions during the "bang" allowed this energy to spring forth,
but after time those conditions changed to now make it imposable?

there is no such thing as perpetual motion,
there is no such thing as free energy,

EXCEPT for "the expansion of the universe"
EXCEPT for "the energy created at the big bang"

how about you answer my questions mr smarty pants,

which is it,
1/energy cannot be created or destroyed,
2/everything was created in the big bang

feel free to avoid these two options if you dont understand my premise,
because we are asked to hold both these contradicting opinions at the same time

xploder





edit on 21-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The possibility of perpetual motion is exactly similar to the thinking about the "possibiility" of powered flight for mankind. You can recite all sorts of laws of physics to established both are impossible to achieve. Well, technology won the day for powered flight. And it wasn't that complicated. It just took two people, the Wright brothers, with the teniacity to prove the concept.

Whether perpetual motion is actually possible or not, I can envision something as simple as a super, super magnetic material being developed that will allow be activated by a small electrical charge for it to do an increddible amount of more work than required to produce the small electrical charge.

Actually, all you have to do is to accept that UFOs can cancel mass or eliminate gravity to understand that there is a whole about physics we are not allowed to contemplate--strike those last two words change that sentence ending to "...we are not allowed to allow."



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


So you assert the word perpetual means something different in relation to contracts then it does in science how convenient Says the guy who insists it only has one meaning...

 


Well, you actually quoted the Webster's 1828 dictionary. Something still used by christian fundies, and ironically something that was created pretty much before the Laws of Thermodynamics were.

www.rfcafe.com...


By 1873, for example, thermodynamicist Willard Gibbs, in his “Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids”, clearly stated that there were two absolute laws of thermodynamics, a first law and a second law."


www.rfcafe.com...

The point you were trying to make is wholly lost on me. As far as bringing up legal contracts as an example, I clearly stated earlier you must have a problem with English comprehension, not Legalese. Legalese is another language onto itself (being a different dialect of commonly spoken and written English) that has different meanings.


Quotidian words having different meanings in law, e.g., action (lawsuit), consideration (support for a promise), execute (to sign to effect), and party (a principal in a lawsuit).



An informal term for the specialized language (or social dialect) of lawyers and of legal documents.


grammar.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
how about you answer my questions mr smarty pants,


I did. I stated it explicitly. A whole half of the words in my post were about it.

Conservation of energy is not and has never been a problem for the big bang, it is covariantly conserved at all times and for all observers.

How could I possibly be more explicit? There are no examples anywhere in physics in which energy is not covariantly conserved.

And you should bother to actually learn some physics before making ridiculous accusations about what physics says, because the rest of your posts don't make any more sense.


Originally posted by Aliensun
The possibility of perpetual motion is exactly similar to the thinking about the "possibiility" of powered flight for mankind. You can recite all sorts of laws of physics to established both are impossible to achieve.


No scientist ever claimed powered flight was impossible. This is a stupid and ridiculous claim that is parroted by people who don't bother to do any thinking for themselves; for god's sake, we have thousands of species of animals on this planet that fly with no trouble, some of which are quite large. The basic physics and engineering of flight have been understood for more than century. No scientist ever claimed it was impossible.

Any guesses as to the people who claimed it was impossible? People like you. People who want to sit back and not bother to actually learn any science (or history, evidently) whatsoever, and instead would rather accuse actual hard-working scientists of not knowing what they're doing.


Well, technology won the day for powered flight. And it wasn't that complicated. It just took two people, the Wright brothers, with the teniacity to prove the concept.


Yes, if you don't count the thousand other people working on it, and the community of people exchanging ideas about how to do it for decades, and the academic papers and research done on it. If you ignore all of that, yes, it was only two people. Two people who had an understanding of physics and engineering and more than a decade of experience using it in practice.


Actually, all you have to do is to accept that UFOs can cancel mass or eliminate ...

Oh, is that all?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by XPLodER
that is until you ask them "where did the energy come from in the first instance" ?

at which point they will answer "the big bang"
at which point you say, "but the big bang violates conservation of energy laws"
at which point they say "the big bang created the universe and all the energy in it"
at which point you say "but that violates conservation of energy laws"

at which point they say "during the initial inflation period of the universe, physics worked differently and allowed the violation of the rules"

at which point i point out,
"you believe in free energy"


At which point I say, "why don't you actually read a real explanation of this instead of just making thins up and assuming you are correct."

Conservation of energy is not and has never been a problem for the big bang, it is covariantly conserved at all times and for all observers. Try learning some physics and reading an actual textbook on it.
edit on 21-10-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)


ok here we go,

and the alpha and the omega said let there be light, and there was, (religious)
and nothing exploded because of uncertainty into everything (science)

you accuse me of making things up?
you ask me to go study?

then you say,


At which point I say, "why don't you actually read a real explanation of this instead of just making thins up and assuming you are correct."


WITHOUT ADDRESSING what i had said,

if nothing is conserved into every point of energy and mass in the entire universe,
what is conservation again?

the transition of nothing to energy?

you ask me to accept that the conditions during the "bang" allowed this energy to spring forth,
but after time those conditions changed to now make it imposable?

there is no such thing as perpetual motion,
there is no such thing as free energy,

EXCEPT for "the expansion of the universe"
EXCEPT for "the energy created at the big bang"

how about you answer my questions mr smarty pants,

which is it,
1/energy cannot be created or destroyed,
2/everything was created in the big bang

feel free to avoid these two options if you dont understand my premise,
because we are asked to hold both these contradicting opinions at the same time

xploder


Nice! That was an incredible smack down and of course his attempted response was laughable...



"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later."
www.newscientist.com...

There's one...

A few more:


"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later. Newcomb was not impressed.
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.
It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895.
There will never be a bigger plane built.
A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people."

en.wikiquote.org...

edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later."
www.newscientist.com...

There's one...
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Good job leaving the sentence right after it out:


Several designs, such as Félix du Temple's Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight?

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: "It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body."


So no one critisized airplanes, what people said was impossible were heavier than air machines that flew by flapping wings powered by humans. So, I ask you, where are all the human-powered huge airplanes that fly by wing-flapping? Exactly.

So would you like to take more quotes out of context to refute this? Or just pretend this didn't happen like usual?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
We've been talking zero point energy devices deriving unlimited energy from nothing for 100 years. From Tesla to Greer, and never has one come to fruition


And that's the real problem. Time. We are still in our infancy of understanding, give it another 100 and let's see where we are..

Our current understanding seems to be that's impossible, but so was flying at one point?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by schuyler
We've been talking zero point energy devices deriving unlimited energy from nothing for 100 years. From Tesla to Greer, and never has one come to fruition


And that's the real problem. Time. We are still in our infancy of understanding, give it another 100 and let's see where we are..

Our current understanding seems to be that's impossible, but so was flying at one point?


Go read the website I linked to in the OP and see our future it's here now no BS! I posted earlier in this thread in response to schuyler already about this...



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 





So no one critisized airplanes, what people said was impossible were heavier than air machines that flew by flapping wings powered by humans. So, I ask you, where are all the human-powered huge airplanes that fly by wing-flapping? Exactly.

So would you like to take more quotes out of context to refute this? Or just pretend this didn't happen like usual?


Ah no, they were not referring specifically to wing flapping planes they were refering to flying machines period... Geeze the lengths people will go to ttry justify their emotional bias. You made the claim no one was criticizing the possibility of fight and you have been wrong every time... for god sake even Wilbur Wright said to his brother a few years before they actually flew...

Oh and by the way the Wright brothers did not even finish high school so you were wrong there too...
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Theorize all you want, but all this comes down to one essential point:

Where's the beef?
That, is the right question.


Originally posted by hawkiye
Go read the website I linked to in the OP and see our future it's here now no BS! I posted earlier in this thread in response to schuyler already about this...
That website looks like a who's who of known hoaxes.

I'm not part of any conspiracy to stop anything, in fact I encourage experimenters to try things...they might learn something in the process.

But, can you let me know when someone has something that works? From the list of devices in that article you linked to, nobody has anything that works.

So, schuyler's question still stands, and that link didn't answer it. "Where's the beef?"
edit on 21-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



That website looks like a who's who of known hoaxes
.

Says the guy who only gave it a cursory look if even that. Perhaps you couid point out specifically which devices you think are hoaxes and give reasons and evidence as to why?


I'm not part of any conspiracy to stop anything, in fact I encourage experimenters to try things...they might learn something in the process.
.

LOL yeah right well it really doesn't matter since nothing has stopped folks from creating their devices anyway...


But, can you let me know when someone has something that works? From the list of devices in that article you linked to, nobody has anything that works.


In other words of I can't buy it at walmart i am to lazy to do any more then that and am not interested,. Never mind i already informed you of several things that work...


So, schuyler's question still stands, and that link didn't answer it. "Where's the beef?"


Of course the link did not answer your bias you'd actually have to do some reading and work for that to happen... Sigh!


I really don't care if the naysayers/flat earthers chose not to look further that's their problem what's funny is they try way to hard to justify their ignorant bias. Do you really think Tesla was dissuaded by the naysayers?
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



How could I possibly be more explicit? There are no examples anywhere in physics in which energy is not covariantly conserved.

And you should bother to actually learn some physics before making ridiculous accusations about what physics says, because the rest of your posts don't make any more sense.


what makes you think i dont understand physics? ie this is the second time you told me to learn physics

is dark energy an example of energy that we cant calculate? ie have no idea of its source

did everything in the universe come from nothing? ie we dont know its source or first instance

so taking into account, the big bang ie everything from nothing
and the expansion of the universe is SPEEDING UP ie the perceived expansion is accelerating

can you please explain why these are NOT examples ?





and if you can tell me one more time about my lack of understanding of physics,
that would be really cool of you



xploder



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Haha, here we go again.

Soooo, The Moon rotates around the Earth, The Earth rotates around the Sun, The Sun is constantly moving within its solar system, The Solar system is moving around within its Galaxy, All the Galaxies are moving around the universe, AND the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate.......With no evidence of entropy or boundaries !!!.

BUT.......In a universe where NOTHING is stationary, Perpetual motion is impossible.....Riiiiiight.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Do you really think Tesla was dissuaded by the naysayers?
Perfect example, that.

He had some brilliant ideas which worked and some wrong ideas which didn't.

And yes I can tell which is which largely by which ones amounted to something (the beef) and which ones didn't.

Same for the list at that link.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


LOL yeah right well it really doesn't matter since nothing has stopped folks from creating their devices anyway...


 


Devices that do what exactly?

These threads get entirely repetitive.

"There's a perpetual motion machine that works!"

Where is it?

"Under development."

How do you know it works.

"Cause I believe it does!"

Where is it though if it exists?

"In the inventor's basement!"

Can we see it?

"Nope, someone stole it!"



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
what makes you think i dont understand physics?


The part where you don't know answers to questions answered in undergraduate physics textbooks. Also the part where you say things that don't make any sense.



ie this is the second time you told me to learn physics


You should also learn Latin, evidently.

Here are your answers, completely and unambiguously resolved:
Wald
MTW
and Weinberg

Read, learn, understand. Also note that these books are from the '70s-'80s, and discuss stuff that was pretty well established by then, so these things have been understood at this point for a good half-century or so.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by hawkiye
Do you really think Tesla was dissuaded by the naysayers?
Perfect example, that.

He had some brilliant ideas which worked and some wrong ideas which didn't.

And yes I can tell which is which largely by which ones amounted to something (the beef) and which ones didn't.

Same for the list at that link.


Really now do tell us what was Tesla wrong about? Yeah Tesla was just another guy even though he is the father of modern electricity as we know it with over 1200 patents many still in use today...Sigh

And you think his wireless free electricity that he demonstrated numerous times and was building at Wardenclyffe for all the world to have free electricity and his Pierce Arrow Radiant Energy powered car with no ICE is a hoax since he was prevented from implementing them and giving free energy to humanity... Bigger Sigh!

It is no wonder humanity is still stuck with the ICE and oil for energy... Sigh!
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Really now do tell us what was Tesla wrong about?

 


The aether model for one. Plenty of other stuff too, but it's besides the point, many great minds have been right about one thing and wrong about something else, which is why science is a collective based on repeatability and falsifiable/empirical evidence.




And you think his wireless free electricity that he demonstrated numerous times and was building at Wardenclyffe for all the world to have free electricity


In Tesla's own words, nothing was "free" about it.


That is to say, a Zeppelin vessel would receive the same power whether it was 12,000 miles away or immediately above the power plant.

....

....as any number of power plants can be operated together, supplying energy to airships just as trains running on tracks are now supplied with electrical energy through rails or wires.


Actually no, it's a common hoax on the internet by people trying to make money off purveying a myth about Tesla. One that you have fallen right into believing. You're a mark, for a con, in other words.


and his Pierce Arrow Radiant Energy powered car with no ICE is a hoax since he was prevented from implementing them and giving free energy to humanity


Link
edit on 21-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by XPLodER
what makes you think i dont understand physics?


The part where you don't know answers to questions answered in undergraduate physics textbooks. Also the part where you say things that don't make any sense.



ie this is the second time you told me to learn physics


You should also learn Latin, evidently.

Here are your answers, completely and unambiguously resolved:
Wald
MTW
and Weinberg

Read, learn, understand. Also note that these books are from the '70s-'80s, and discuss stuff that was pretty well established by then, so these things have been understood at this point for a good half-century or so.




what do you keep insinuating i don't read?
why would you think i haven't studied Einstein?

i haver tried to be as simple as i can be,
but so far you sound like you think i am stupid,

i made it simple for you,

how can you hold two conflicting ideas about energy in your head, and reconcile them.

dont give me einstiens answer, or hysonberg or newton.

i want YOUR answer

how can the universe come from nothing if energy cant be created or distroyed?

xploder
edit on 21-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution