The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

reply to post by hawkiye


No need to call people names, you call people who aren't completely convinced by perpetual motion devices a cult, yet a broad definition of "cult" is a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.

Perpetual motion, whilst not bizarre is as of today abnormal.

You are part of the cult my friend, not them.

But I digress, you need to bring the beef, as it were.

All someone needs to do is bring forward a device that can run an alternator or similar, it truly is that simple.

Torque is the key here, it's the beef your cult needs.

Originally posted by XPLodER
what do you keep insinuating i don't read?

I am not insinuating I am stating: you have not read these things.

why would you think i haven't studied Einstein?

Because you are asking questions he has answered, yet you seem to think they are not answered. Questions that are well-known and well-understood and unambiguously resolved to physicists.

But please, if you do know general relativity, perhaps you'd like to run through the definition of covariantly conserved functions in differential geometry, and then how this applies to energy in general relativity? Perhaps you could start with reviewing some simplified notions of energy in asymptotically flat spaces to help bring everyone else up to speed since you're such an expert.

Then, you, having studied Einstein, can certainly state exactly what these conditions would mean in the context of a simplified inflationary model, and you can calculate for us exactly what, say, energy densities and covariant conservation means in this model, and demonstrate to us exactly where you think the calculation goes wrong.

Or, you know, you could not do that, because you can't because you don't actually know anything about the subject.

reply to post by Moduli

Or, you know, you could not do that, because you can't because you don't actually know anything about the subject.

it would be nice of me to answer your questions,

but i dont think you should be so smug in demanding answers,

so in account of your rudeness,
i ask you to read the following thread authored by me


www.abovetopsecret.com...

then please tell me i know nothing

while i dont doubt your ability to follow energy gradients,
i wonder how you fear with optical physics using relativity.

please tell me if you know how a single galaxy can be a gravitational lense?
and what the signature of gravitational lensing would be?

if you can answer my question
i will be happy to answer yours

xploder

reply to post by Moduli


quoting myself incase you missed it

i want YOUR answer

how does energy come from nothing (big bang)
and how does conservation of energy laws comply with this bang (your answer)

in your head

xploder

reply to post by hawkiye


The nature of energy not being created nor destroyed...yet always existing is in itself perpetual motion...since that's really all energy is, is...motion.

Saying perpetual energy doesn't exist is denying the very laws of thermodynamics they use to try and prove that it perpetual motion cannot exist...

Energy can only transfer states of how it exists...or in other words ripple across the universe like waves from droplet in water...even if the spin of an electron does eventually decay to "zero" the energy that was spinning that electron just propagated to something else...again...movement and in the overall picture of that machine..it will never stop...

perpetual motion does indeed exist...where the issues arise is when someone claims they have made a machine that is perpetual motion that they can then harvest energy from to use for whatever...that is a destruction of energy device that cannot exist...

reply to post by Sly1one


The laws of thermodynamics in regards to perpetual motion machines (or the idea thereof) are clearly referencing usable energy. I had a good article earlier I wish I bookmarked it. Showing how some are negative, positive energies, in relation to the energy we use or how we use it.

It's like how you can create electricity by pouring water down hill with resistance.

the hill would be +1 the water being -1.

At the end you have 0.

If the water could get back to the top of the hill without using a -1 to get there, you would have perpetual motion.

But the only way you are getting it back there is by doing -1 of work. Whether that is you carrying a bucket back to the top of the hill, or the sun's heat evaporating the water to get it there. No matter what, -1 is needed to get usable energy out of the system.

If we had a cheap and convenient method to capture and use solar energy, that's as close to perpetual as we'll probably ever know. We have plenty examples of expensive and inconvenient methods. I remember overhearing a 1930's movie with one of the big name actors back then saying something like "The carbon industry owns everything. We've been fighting them since the beginning. Oneday we will capture the energy of the sun and usurp them and it'll be a freer world."

It might have been the actor that was in It's a Wonderful Life, not sure.

The beauty of solar right now is you can do it in your backyard. This is not the case with other more centralized forms of energy production that demand more care and expert knowledge.

In fact, I can enjoy the heat of the sun during the day for free. As free as free will ever be. Ever left a hose out during the day and turned it on early evening to feel the warm water come out?

The sun is AMAZING. 3% (i've heard) of the energy striking the earth from the sun could fuel the whole electrical grid across the world. To visualize how miniscule this is just imagine that the sun is a soccer ball 60 feet from something the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Picture the radiant energy beaming out from the sun in all direction and just a small sliver of it striking the period on this page from 60 feet away... And a fraction of it that strikes the period powers the world

The universe is drowning in energy. The space around us is an ocean of this stuff. We're still figuring out how to effectively tap into it. And there's some greed in the way too. There always is. Generation after generation has warned those that came after what greed can do.

More than anything, we're consuming a fossil fuel that's not infinite. Technically, it's renewable, but it requires so much time to renew that we're well past the point of sustainability. This is according to current theory. And the consequences of burning it are obvious - AGW.

We WILL figure things out. And the amount of energy we will be tapping into someday will be so unthinkable and so large by todays standards that we'd gape in awe at it. In fact, we'd wonder how anybody that has access to it could ever have a want again. But you know what? Somebody 200 years ago, if they saw our world today, would probably think the same thing. Our technology, by yesterdays standards, is incredible and pure magic. Imagine what somebody a couple thousand years in the past would think if we told them we can capture sounds of every kind and replay them later many years in the future. They'd probably think we were magicians working with the devil. It's these simple kinds of technologies that we take for granted and don't really appreciate like we should.

I mean REALLY listen to what I'm saying. I've heard that the biggest bombs during world war II were about 20 tons, or about 20 tons of HE TNT. The atomic bombs dropped in nagasaki and hiroshima were on the order of 20,000 tons. Later thermonuclear bombs developed in the 1950's yielded some 15+ million tons explosive power. So in about 10 years the explosive power of bombs went up some ONE MILLION times, if I understand it right. That's breath taking and ominous. And according to google, the biggest thermonuclear bombs are still outdone by super volcanos - they're GIGAtons. Asteroids would be on the order of TERAtons. Humanity COULD wipe out life on earht mostly. A dozen of the largest bombs would be GIGA. And 10,000 would yield TERAtons. INCLUDING fallout.

So...let's see where this conversation has led so far.....

Those saying it is impossible, still say things using symantics, "perpetual means absolutely forever and nothing else" sigh and the ever impressive "you don't know every single intimate detail about physics so you don't know what yur talking about" sigh!

Those for, still saying " there have been countless times in history that all those "brilliant" scientists said it was impossible, and they were wrong, flight, telephone, radio, moon landing, orbit, celphone, home computer, internal combustion, electricity, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, television,organ transplants,remote control,electric motors,satellite communications,etc.....all the way back to fire, the wheel etc..." and also "perpetual means more than just "forever" as it is known to science that "forever" doesn't even exist, as it would require "infinity" which is proven through math to not exist" sigh, sigh, double sigh!

So it is the same coversation we always have and get nowhere on, both sides utterly entrenched, and only one open to the infinite possibilities of this totally unknown universe.

I would just like to add for the naysayers. You guys do understand right, that it is now and has been known for over 20 years, that our current "standard model" is wrong in several major ways? They had hoped that string or super string or even "M" theory was the answer but it isn't and they know it, as they have run it ragged and it is also wrong.

We only know, we don't know, and are hopeless to find out even why or how at present. We just don't know, honestly.

The LHC was made to help solve this, it was made for a much more fundamental reason than the finding the Higgs boson, its true reason is discovering what we are doing wrong, and why we can't figure it out. We may even need a bigger one to solve the riddle.

Our current model seemed so perfect and sublime in the early 50s, but now, after 60 years we have leveled out, we have questions without answers, we don't even know where to look for them, we are for all intents and purposes lost in the woods.

This has happened may times over the ages though, science has had many platos, we have run out of ideas many times in the past. Then out of nowhere, another"Einstein" shows up, and opens doors we didn't even know existed, and changes everything overnight.

We simply wait for his or her arrival. We will make another leap, maybe not in this lifetime, maybe not in the next, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Saying "X" is impossible, is an impossible position. It is doomed to fail. As you can't know everything, as those who figured everything we know out, don't even know. Thinking we or you do is ignorance, and leads nowhere. If anyone would have listened to those that said "X" is impossible, we wouldn't have harnassed the wheel, or electricity, or flight, or the atom.

In short, by trying to discourage anyone from trying somthing new, your doing the greatest discervice there is in science, you are trying to stop someone from learning new truths about the universe, and that is not science, that is ignorance incarnate.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Sly1one

 

The laws of thermodynamics in regards to perpetual motion machines (or the idea thereof) are clearly referencing usable energy. I had a good article earlier I wish I bookmarked it. Showing how some are negative, positive energies, in relation to the energy we use or how we use it.

It's like how you can create electricity by pouring water down hill with resistance.

the hill would be +1 the water being -1.

At the end you have 0.

If the water could get back to the top of the hill without using a -1 to get there, you would have perpetual motion.

But the only way you are getting it back there is by doing -1 of work. Whether that is you carrying a bucket back to the top of the hill, or the sun's heat evaporating the water to get it there. No matter what, -1 is needed to get usable energy out of the system.

If you can find that article can you U2U it to me? I would like to read it sounds like a great way to explain the zero sum energy game.

I personally believe that the key to super efficient energy usage is in engineering...an engineer will solve the energy crisis and you can mark my words on that.

Of course it would involve replicating how the universe and nature make use of energy...and that would require a drastic overhaul of our civilized infrastructure and how we understand energy to "work" for us...getting their will first require an overhaul of the humans lust for PERCEIVED limitless power...

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
If something lasts 20 years on its own power I'd call it perpetual.

Why is the point of complaining that something wont be perpetual forever? If it works for us during our lifetimes, that is perpetual! When you really think about, if you really want to get technical, then nothing at all is perpetual. The sun will eventually die, anything and everything has an expiry date.

The new definition of perpetual should be something that produces energy perpetually for as long as you need it.

Even if you could get something to work for 6 months on it's own power before you'd have to spin it again or restart it, it would be a huge break through. Maybe that's been done but I have no clue.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


I think personally the debate is a misunderstanding and a misuse of terms...

"Perpetual" is really being tossed around too lightly...ultimately what is being searched for is an extremely efficient method of utilizing energy...but instead of saying that, some say "perpetual" at which point...you have made a very bold and very contentious claim...and so the debate begins.

I want people to research and look for new alternative energy sources...I wan't them to explore and experiment and imagine...but to do that in vain...is a horrible waste and I think that is what many are trying to keep hopefuls from doing...expelling their life's work in vain where their efforts could better be used in areas that are more researched and...repeatable. Or at least that's how I personally feel about it...I shouldn't really speak for others.

What I find interesting is everyone is exploring new methods of acquiring energy...new energy sources...instead of possibly looking at new ways to use energy...

I think the way we currently "use" energy is so perverse and out of balance that any new energy source that is found short of creating a sun will still not be enough...and even then...sun's aren't perpetual...they die...the universe creates suns all over...but they die. The universe is the only example of perpetual energy I can see but think of everything you would have to account for and include to make a machine like that

reducing our use of energy is in itself a way of creating more energy...

edit to add:
per·pet·u·al/pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/
Adjective:
Never ending or changing.

THIS is what you are claiming when you use this word...people are throwing it around lightly and for some that's where the issue is...

reply to post by boncho


I starred you, as you brought up one of the truest things said in this thread thus far. To get +1 one must use -1 energy.

This answers the above arguement about the bigbang, in its simplistic reason, some are just not seeing the answer as it is so obvious.

The bigbang coming from nothing, isn't proof of free energy, as the equation just has to be balanced in the end, to mean that there wasn't a free lunch. Who knows when the end of the universe is so we can measure wether or not it cancels out the +1? As long as at the end of time the +1 gets a -1 there is not limit to the achieveable in between.

Free energy isn't impossible, as we measure our life in very small, meaningless to the universe measurements.

I can for exapmle take 800 billion billion billion callories of energy out of the universe and use it all I want, for as long as I want, as long as by the end of time, I give it back.

The real arguement going on here is that someone can't get +1 because they only have -.05 the try to take it with. I am saying I CAN take +5000000000000 by only adding -.05 as long as by the end of this universe I give the remainder back. There is no law of thermodyanmics that says I can't, as there is no system totally isolated from the universe, as every system is always contained in this universe, and also contains the space/time that it is made of, and every single square inch is full of near infinite possiblitly/probablility.

Zero point energy is real, we just can't harness it yet, it is in effect a rubber band, we simply pull the energy out of space/time, do work with it, then give it and the work done with it back.

Just because I have to give it and the work back, doesn't mean it isn't polssible, as many millions of years of work could have been used and accomplished in between the 2, at which point we wouldn't need it anymore, and so it would be given back, "letting go of the rubber band" and the equation is satisfied, as it is 0 in the end.

This is proven when measuring a vacuum, as particles randomly pop in and out of existance, they always even out in the end. All the energy that went into making the particle "pop" into existance" is given back when it "pops" bacm out, and equation of 0.

The concept is so simple, it is even taught in grade school in America, it is used in simple math, itsnt rocket science.

The energy doesn't have to be given back immediately just because you want it to, the universe doesn't care how long or how big the loan is, it doesn't even charge interest, it just wants it returned in the end.

reply to post by Sly1one


Simply brilliant! Starred.

We try to "enslave" energy like we do everything else, instead of working with it. It is energy, its vvery nature is "work" as that is what energy does, this is it purpose, it must accomplish.

We very much need abetter understanding of the nature of energy, and to develope a way of allowing it to work for us, instead of forcing it to.

You are on the right track, I would like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

reply to post by Sly1one


I believe this was the article (Found here.):

The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy), the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (called potential energy), and the energy associated with the mass of all the particles (usually referred to as rest energy).

The key feature to bear in mind is that the gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. You can see this by realizing that in order to separate two objects, one has to overcome the attractive gravitational force and this requires one to supply positive energy from outside

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Sly1one

 

I believe this was the article (Found here.):

The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy), the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (called potential energy), and the energy associated with the mass of all the particles (usually referred to as rest energy).

The key feature to bear in mind is that the gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. You can see this by realizing that in order to separate two objects, one has to overcome the attractive gravitational force and this requires one to supply positive energy from outside

Thank you!!!...

and I find this pretty funny because in my post that you initially replied to I was going to add something about how the big-bang implies a big-crunch in order to not violate the laws of therm...

anyway thanks for the link!

Edit to add:

I suggest people familiarize themselves with:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

NOT to be confused with the observer effect...

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Those for, still saying " there have been countless times in history that all those "brilliant" scientists said it was impossible, and they were wrong, flight, telephone, radio, moon landing, orbit, celphone, home computer, internal combustion, electricity, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, television,organ transplants,remote control,electric motors,satellite communications,etc...

Actually, you are entirely wrong here. (As another poster mentioned in this thread) The whole "heavier than air flight wont work" argument was based on the idea of a flapping wing system for flight. People were already flying via hot air balloons at the time. Flapping bird wing aircrafts still don't exist, and sure as hell would never under human power. It wasn't until ICE engines were developed (Otto patented his very close to when flight was developed) that it (airplane) even became feasible.

Also, one of the famous quotes about a scientist shooting down the idea, was from Lord Kelvin, who was considered unorthodox and a "maverick" in the science community. Someone who in his time, sort of went against the grain.

I think people fail to grasp that many scientific theories, and scientific laws that have been developed over the last hundred years were from people who thought way outside the box. And this theme that keeps popping up in free energy threads, that science and everything learned insofar is useless, is doing a great disservice to the memory of the people that advanced it.

Science and engineering is cumulative, and without the knowledge of the past, we would be restarting every generation just trying to figure out how to light a bloody fire. Pay a little respect to your forefathers would you...

Saying "X" is impossible, is an impossible position.

Perpetual motion machines are impossible because of conservation of energy. Can you find some way to produce unlimited amounts of usable energy? possible, but it wouldn't be perpetual motion and it wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Will some new theory spring up to explain how you did it, or spring up in advance to make it a reality? Yes.

Therefore, it would still not be perpetual motion, free energy, or any other quack speak.

People just regurgitate nonsense from con artists and scammers who speak in gobbledygook, then when others question them on it, we get labelled "close minded" and negative nellys. But hey, some people are just realistic.

Very few scientific laws have been broken, and the closest thing you can hope for is for them to be improved upon as there is too much empirical evidence now for most of them for any to be disproved entirely.

Musing for a second here, I can build a "Sub-space plasma wave energy harvester" that can power the Earth 100 times over sucking energy from dimension X, but it still wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine, nor would it break the current laws of physics. What it would do, is open up a new area of physics. That's it.

IMHO, unlimited energy is an absolute possibilty, we just lack the understanding of how to grab the univeres "rubber band" to pull it in the first place.

Once we figure that out, we will be masters of the universe.

I even wander at times, when I sit and watch through the wormhole, or Hawkings show on science late at night, if would be possible to travel the stars for "free".

For instance, if we had a way of grabbing and stretching space time to say Andromeda, would we then be able to release our hold and have it snap us back to our original position? Requiring "energy" only for the trip out, and then getting a free ride back?

Or say, pulling it back to earth from Alpha Centari, and placing a ship in the "rubber bands" hold let go, and send a ship there?

These are the kinds of things that I spend countless hours pondering late at night, while I surf the web.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by hawkiye

 

No need to call people names, you call people who aren't completely convinced by perpetual motion devices a cult, yet a broad definition of "cult" is a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.

Perpetual motion, whilst not bizarre is as of today abnormal.

You are part of the cult my friend, not them.

But I digress, you need to bring the beef, as it were.

All someone needs to do is bring forward a device that can run an alternator or similar, it truly is that simple.

Torque is the key here, it's the beef your cult needs.

Those who claim it is impossible deny that electrons of rock formations that have been spinning in motion for millions of years are perpetual motion, refuse all reason and logic and stick to a narrow definition are closed minded etc. are a cult they are religious fanatics.

the academia cultist have opposed just about every major leap forward science has made. It has always been the outcast ridiculed and persecuted who refuse to bow to orthodoxy of the cultists that has moved us forward through the sands of time... Thank god for the rebels!

i have brought the beef and set the table just because you refuse to come to the table and partake does not mean I haven't!

reply to post by hawkiye

Those who claim it is impossible deny that electrons of rock formations that have been spinning in motion for millions of years are perpetual motion, refuse all reason and logic and stick to a narrow definition are closed minded etc. are a cult they are religious fanatics.

In the vacuum of space, inertia can send something on a perpetual journey, but try and get work out of it, and then you got zip.

Your argument keeps straying through so many different subjects while trying to justify a single one (perpetual motion machines).

Go back to this post.

And to clarify, since you are confused yourself and confusing me when you are speaking in circles:

The impossible kinds of perpetual motion machines are those from which you can extract usable energy and the system continues exactly the same way as it did before the energy was extracted, providing an infinite supply of energy. These certainly don't exist. But systems in which the components are constantly in motion and never slow down do in fact exist. The electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms are in effect little perpetual motion machines, at least in one construe of what those words mean, because they are perpetually in motion. But energy cannot be extracted from motion of such electrons if they are in the "ground state" (and most atoms are) because there are no lower-lying energy states allowed by quantum mechanics. If the electrons are not in the ground state, you can extract useful energy, but then the atoms go into lower energy states until they reach their ground state, from which no further energy can be extracted.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

reply to post by boncho


Your definition of perpetual motion relies on a premise science does not acknowledge i.e "forever" there for your whole argument is fallacious and not even based on science since it relies on an unscientific term.