The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Actually it is dead on fact! You still trying to deny the undeniable does not help your credibility to say the least. It's not rocket science to understand the electricity from Niagara Falls has been running pumps in that area for nearly a century and have pumped millions of gallons of water probably more then The Falls have since the water is finite and recycled by nature. But for sake of argument lets say you are right and they don't pump the same amount as the falls? So what it is still free energy for the taking for all practical purposes! Solar panels don't even come close to producing the same energy as the sun WHO CARES? It is still free energy for us without any input from us!

 


The poster was simply stating that the energy from the falls, would not be able to push/pump the water back up the the top of the falls. In other words, it does not generate enough power to do so. That would be over unity. The falls have been generating energy for ages now, because the sun evaporates water and it rains, and the rains go down the river powering it. The falls are indirectly powered by the sun.

The falls are not able to continuously pump the water that powers them, back to the top of the falls. That's it.




Only by your definition and a few other hard heads not by most...



A perpetual motion machine is intended to be a closed system, and that's what the "inventors" always claim. That is why they cause so much controversy.




I have said windmills are free energy machines not perpetual motion machines. Still windmills are in perpetual motion as long as their is wind...


English language fail.

Technically they are in temporary motion. I don't know why you have to argue so much, as this particular argument is usually used to dispel people like you that believe in perpetual motion machines.

I guess you are trying to turn the tables or something by using sound logic on a stupid argument.


Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources—such as ocean currents—are capable of moving "perpetually" (for as long as that energy source itself endures), but they are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems (in reality, no system can ever be a fully isolated system).


en.wikipedia.org...

Perpetual motion machines cannot exist. So there is no reason for you to call something that isn't by that definition.


Wow I didn't know Gasoline was provided by nature for free and all we had to do was tap into its energy. Gee I always thought we had to expend tons of energy to make it. Who knew there were rivers of gasoline free for the taking like the wind or flowing water... Guess you learn something every day...


Oil used to seep from the ground. It is a huge source of potential energy, just as wind, water, and sun is. Yet somehow you are claiming these things are different?

I must have missed the class where wind turbines, water mills/hydroelectric dams, and solar panels built themselves magically just so you could "tap into its energy".




Its nonsensical posts like this with the token insult at the end (and not a very good one at that) that just makes me laugh and say just consider the source. He really is quite proud of himself isn't he and a legend in his own mind...



If you want, just start actually addressing the things that I post and we can have a normal discussion. You are blatantly ignoring, misinterpreting me and many others on the forum and it is either telling of you being in your early teens, or you are purposely trying to irritate others. Or it's possibly a sign you have a single digit IQ.
edit on 26-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


If you are going to argue for perpetual motion machines then you should use the commonly accepted definition(which I quoted. Google it ffs.). So far you are the only one using your definition, and it isn't being "hard headed" it's being definite.

It would be like me deciding a mile is actually defined as the length of my foot because in the scale of the universe, they are pretty much the same, and then going around telling people I can jump 4 miles. It just doesn't make sense. It's not unique, out of the box thinking, it's wrong. Changing the definition to fit your preconceived notions is not valid.

I agree that it's beneficial to harness the energy present in the environment, but I'm not going to call my device a perpetual motion machine. I'm going to call it a heat engine or a clock or a turbine so people know wtf I'm talking about.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



Perpetual motion machines cannot exist. So there is no reason for you to call something that isn't by that definition. 


Show me the electron that has ceased being in motion?


Oil used to seep from the ground. It is a huge source of potential energy, just as wind, water, and sun is. Yet somehow you are claiming these things are different? 

I must have missed the class where wind turbines, water mills/hydroelectric dams, and solar panels built themselves magically just so you could "tap into its energy".
 

The only thing you missed is logic and reason. Where is the river of gasoline I can pull my car up to and fill up? Like the river I can put a turbine in or the wind I can put a windmill in and get electricity? Gasoline is created not provided by nature as wind and sunlight are. We have to put more energy into creating it then we get out of it.

We don't create wind or sunlight your analogies fail as usual.
edit on 26-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


considering that electrons are constantly being affected by forces, it's no surprise that they don't stop moving.
That doesn't make them perpetual motion machines.

You are fighting SO hard to be right in the face of overwhelming evidence against you that you are either a troll or you're so consumed by pride that you can't ever be wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by hawkiye
 


considering that electrons are constantly being affected by forces, it's no surprise that they don't stop moving.
That doesn't make them perpetual motion machines.

You are fighting SO hard to be right in the face of overwhelming evidence against you that you are either a troll or you're so consumed by pride that you can't ever be wrong.


LOL
Overwhelming evidence.... Wow just wow I don't know what is more amazingly laughable you claiming overwhelming evidence in desperation or you admitting electrons are in perpetual motion and trying to say that's not perpetual motion..


considering that electrons are constantly being affected by forces, it's no surprise that they don't stop moving. That doesn't make them perpetual motion machines.


Oh and PS what "forces" would those be?
edit on 27-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





If you want, just start actually addressing the things that I post and we can have a normal discussion.


LOL everything you have brought up has been addressed many times and completely destroyed yet you just continue to regurgitate it over and over and make ridiculous claims that you are not being addressed. The only thing preventing normal discussion is you with your kindergarten trolling...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


quick, flip between free energy, perpetual motion, and perpetual motion machines. Hurry hurry.
I'm done here.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Gasoline is created not provided by nature as wind and sunlight are. We have to put more energy into creating it then we get out of it.

We don't create wind or sunlight your analogies fail as usual.

 


You created crude oil? How did you do that exactly?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Oh and PS what "forces" would those be?


 



Weak interaction (often called the weak force or sometimes the weak nuclear force) is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, alongside the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars. Weak interactions affect all known fermions; that is, particles whose spin (a property of all particles) is a half-integer.


en.wikipedia.org...


In particle physics, the strong interaction (also called the strong force, strong nuclear force, or color force) is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, the others being electromagnetism, the weak interaction and gravitation. At atomic scale, it is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, which in turn is orders of magnitude stronger than the weak force interaction and gravitation.



en.wikipedia.org...

-

Nuclear force

-


When you say that the electron acts as a wave, then the wave is the quantum mechanical wavefunction and it is therefore related to the probability of finding the electron at any point in space. A perfect sinewave for the electron wave spreads that probability throughout all of space, and the "position" of the electron is completely uncertain.


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I already posted a link earlier to show you just exactly how electrons move about with angular momentum, but I'm sure you didn't look at it. You are still under the impression that they "spin"....

edit on 27-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Show me the electron that has ceased being in motion?


 


You are talking about the ground state. Where no energy can be extracted, yes, electrons move about perpetually, but it does not make that system capable of doing anything useful for you.

This is where you are arguing semantics, you are jumping back and forth from different subjects as though they all follow the same parameters...

I'm pretty sure everyone has seen through you by now. Just the fact that you say wind energy is "free" energy but crude oil isn't, when they are both derived from energy potentials, shows how limited your understanding is...



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye


Show me the electron that has ceased being in motion?


 


You are talking about the ground state. Where no energy can be extracted, yes, electrons move about perpetually, but it does not make that system capable of doing anything useful for you.

This is where you are arguing semantics, you are jumping back and forth from different subjects as though they all follow the same parameters...

I'm pretty sure everyone has seen through you by now. Just the fact that you say wind energy is "free" energy but crude oil isn't, when they are both derived from energy potentials, shows how limited your understanding is...


Well i dont see his remarks on "FREE" as you do..
I see "FREE" as you dont have to have a permit to
use the wind, you do however need a permit to drill
for oil...No...

AND please Boncho, dont start the old "WHATS FREE ABOUT IT"



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 


That's because you seem to inhabit a plane of existence that is tangential to most sane, rational people. Not only are you further muddying the waters by redefining a commonly understood term to your own definitions that have nothing to do with perpetual motion but it's also symbolic of the overall tactics utilized by the True Believers™ in this thread who attempt to move the goalposts time and time again by redefining and twisting definitions to suite their argument. Can you possible scrape the barrel even further? OK, I'm going to redefine "free energy" to mean "anything powered by a potato". I'm also going to redefine "perpetual motion" to mean "next Tuesday" so already you and everyone else in this thread is off-topic. Please keep on topic by sticking to my arbitrarily and confusingly defined terms. Thanks.
edit on 27-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





You are talking about the ground state. Where no energy can be extracted, yes, electrons move about perpetually, but it does not make that system capable of doing anything useful for you.


No I am talking about any state. Everything that is useful has perpetually moving electrons!


This is where you are arguing semantics, you are jumping back and forth from different subjects as though they all follow the same parameters...


You cultists keep repeating this nonsense why don't you specifically point out what you think is being argued semantically?


I'm pretty sure everyone has seen through you by now. Just the fact that you say wind energy is "free" energy but crude oil isn't, when they are both derived from energy potentials, shows how limited your understanding is...


Translation: you and few other hard heads disagree with me. Also I never mentioned crude oil period! But everyone can now see how you lie and try and set up a straw man argument... Nice try but no cigar nocho...

edit on 28-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Miccey
 


That's because you seem to inhabit a plane of existence that is tangential to most sane, rational people. Not only are you further muddying the waters by redefining a commonly understood term to your own definitions that have nothing to do with perpetual motion but it's also symbolic of the overall tactics utilized by the True Believers™ in this thread who attempt to move the goalposts time and time again by redefining and twisting definitions to suite their argument. Can you possible scrape the barrel even further? OK, I'm going to redefine "free energy" to mean "anything powered by a potato". I'm also going to redefine "perpetual motion" to mean "next Tuesday" so already you and everyone else in this thread is off-topic. Please keep on topic by sticking to my arbitrarily and confusingly defined terms. Thanks.
edit on 27-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


I always get a kick out of academic cult worshipers calling anyone who disagrees with them "true believers". It is akin to the Catholic Church during the inquisition calling the dissenters they were buning at the stake "true" believers.

Also of course when their arguments get destroyed they resort to ridicule and condemnation because they have nothing else...



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye


Oh and PS what "forces" would those be?


 



Weak interaction (often called the weak force or sometimes the weak nuclear force) is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, alongside the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars. Weak interactions affect all known fermions; that is, particles whose spin (a property of all particles) is a half-integer.


en.wikipedia.org...


In particle physics, the strong interaction (also called the strong force, strong nuclear force, or color force) is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, the others being electromagnetism, the weak interaction and gravitation. At atomic scale, it is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, which in turn is orders of magnitude stronger than the weak force interaction and gravitation.



en.wikipedia.org...

-

Nuclear force

-


When you say that the electron acts as a wave, then the wave is the quantum mechanical wavefunction and it is therefore related to the probability of finding the electron at any point in space. A perfect sinewave for the electron wave spreads that probability throughout all of space, and the "position" of the electron is completely uncertain.


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I already posted a link earlier to show you just exactly how electrons move about with angular momentum, but I'm sure you didn't look at it. You are still under the impression that they "spin"....

edit on 27-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



You conveniently forgot to mention that these are all just theories that may or may not be correct... Funny how you make a big deal out of theory vs law unless of course it is something you are quoting.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


No I am talking about any state. Everything that is useful has perpetually moving electrons!


 


How much energy have you extracted from the ground state?





Translation: you and few other hard heads disagree with me. Also I never mentioned crude oil period! But everyone can now see how you lie and try and set up a straw man argument... Nice try but no cigar nocho...



You said that wind and solar is "free energy", just tell me exactly how oil doesnt fit into the same category?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


You conveniently forgot to mention that these are all just theories that may or may not be correct... Funny how you make a big deal out of theory vs law unless of course it is something you are quoting.


 


Prove them incorrect then. You're good at math right?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye


You conveniently forgot to mention that these are all just theories that may or may not be correct... Funny how you make a big deal out of theory vs law unless of course it is something you are quoting.


 


Prove them incorrect then. You're good at math right?


Typical BS answer asking to prove a negative.... SIgh! Yeah the Joly green giant secretly rules the word prove me incorrect...



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Of course you can prove a negative. Demonstrating something to be incorrect isnt logically impossible, is it now? This won't happen though because of your intellectual dishonesty. You've had the term "scientific theory" explained to you yet you still persist in insinuating they are wild guesses.

Honestly, replace the words "perpeptual motion" with "creationism" and "laws of physics" with "evolution" and the True Believers argue in their ignorant, intellectually dishonest and scientifically illiterate way indistinguishable creationist zealots. They stick their fingers in their ears and ignore any evidence or explanations that refute their arguments only to repeat the same tired, refuted arguments over and over like a broken record. Yet still not a single shred of evidence has been presented for their fantastic claims, instead always trying to pass off their personal faith as scirntific fact. It really is quite laughable.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Miccey
 


That's because you seem to inhabit a plane of existence that is tangential to most sane, rational people. Not only are you further muddying the waters by redefining a commonly understood term to your own definitions that have nothing to do with perpetual motion but it's also symbolic of the overall tactics utilized by the True Believers™ in this thread who attempt to move the goalposts time and time again by redefining and twisting definitions to suite their argument. Can you possible scrape the barrel even further? OK, I'm going to redefine "free energy" to mean "anything powered by a potato". I'm also going to redefine "perpetual motion" to mean "next Tuesday" so already you and everyone else in this thread is off-topic. Please keep on topic by sticking to my arbitrarily and confusingly defined terms. Thanks.
edit on 27-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


And that post tells me squat..
I still can USE the wind as i see fit..
All i have to pay is the setup.
Cant do that with gasoline.
And if i were to live in a REALLY REALLY
windy place that would be FREE ENREGY
to ME...





new topics




 
8
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join