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.

 

The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Mary Rose
If it's not moving through space, what is it moving through?
See the grid in this video at 1 minute:



If they were moving through space, you would see their position on the grid change, but it stays the same, while the grid itself gets bigger.

Here's another attempt to explain it using two separate grids, though it's a little complicated as she says (you can skip the first two minutes to get to the more relevant part):

Our Expanding Universe, Explained - Bethany Cobb



Mary Rose
Off the top of your head, could you please list the other sources of energy besides fusion.
As Bedlam said, fusion and fission, but these two hypothetical forms of expansion energy might also qualify (though they aren't useful to us):
-Inflation (related to the big bang)
-Dark energy (mentioned in the first video above)

I don't think gravity qualifies as a "source" though it's useful in converting energy from one form to another, for example, gravity is what allows the conversion of kinetic energy from the moon's orbit versus the Earth's rotation into tidal power, which we can extract energy from.
edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Bedlam
A lot of what's on the planet comes down to it, though. Any wind, water, hydro, coal, alcohol, gasoline sort of thing is stored fusion energy from sunlight.


Just for the record, I would like to note that proponents of the electric sun/electric universe theory disagree with that. Not to open a can of worms. (I hope. Unless the discussion can be civil and productive.)


Bedlam
You can store energy in kinetic energy or gravitational potential.


Before you said gravity is not energy, so are you making a distinction between gravity and gravitational potential, or are you saying that stored energy is not the same as an energy source?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So, in essence, what you're saying is that they're not moving through space, they're moving through vacuum energy?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So, in essence, what you're saying is that they're not moving through space, they're moving through vacuum energy?
No, the vacuum energy is making space bigger at an accelerating pace. So they aren't moving though the vacuum energy either. Don't feel bad if you don't get it. It's an esoteric concept and there are not really any great analogies. I saw a better analogy on youtube using a conveyor before and looked for it, but couldn't find it.


Mary Rose
Just for the record, I would like to note that proponents of the electric sun/electric universe theory disagree with that. Not to open a can of worms. (I hope. Unless the discussion can be civil and productive.)
The reason it's not productive, is because there's no scientific debate about fusion being the energy source for the sun's power.

People also try to portray some kind of debate between evolution and creationism, but again there's no debate there either, within the scientific community.

It really doesn't matter if non-scientists debate about things they really don't understand, as far as advancing knowledge goes, though it's a sad commentary on the state of ignorance that one person in five thinks the sun orbits the Earth, which again there's no real debate about this in the science community. The fact that 20% of the population has a false belief is kind of irrelevant to the advancement of science, except for issues like funding etc.
edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
No, the vacuum energy is making space bigger at an accelerating pace. So they aren't moving though the vacuum energy either.


Let's start all over again.

You made the statement that a receding galaxy is not moving through space.

What, then, is it moving through?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Space is getting bigger on cosmic scales, which creates apparent motion. Other than that, the distant galaxy redshifts are not really evidence of the galaxies moving through anything, which was my point.

I found the moving sidewalk analogy I was looking for Earlier:

The Center Of The Universe


That analogy says it's not like people walking away on the sidewalk (analogous to moving through space), but it's like the people are NOT moving (standing still) and the sidewalk is getting bigger. Like any analogy, it fails to represent reality to some extent, so even though it's one of the better analogies I've seen, it's still not 100% accurate and no analogy can be, just as no analogy with the balloon with a 2D surface can accurately illustrate what really happens in 3D, but he tries to use that analogy too.

edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
Space is getting bigger on cosmic scales, which creates apparent motion.


And space is getting bigger because of vacuum energy? (Which is probably all dark energy is.)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Mary Rose
And space is getting bigger because of vacuum energy? (Which is probably all dark energy is.)
We knew space was getting bigger before we knew about dark energy, so I don't think that's accurate, though guessing that dark energy and vacuum energy might be the same thing is a pretty good guess.

It would be more accurate to say the rate at which space is expanding is accelerating because of dark energy.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
Other than that, the distant galaxy redshifts are not really evidence of the galaxies moving through anything, which was my point.


What is your opinion of the cause of distant galaxy redshifts?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

This paper discusses that topic, and evidence presented in it and papers like it form the basis for my opinion.:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe


We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
So another way of interpreting that is the evidence shows a confidence level of 23 sigma the galaxies are not moving through space away from us, where anything over 5 sigma is usually considered a pretty conclusive result statistically.

The initial, naive interpretation of cosmological red shift nearly a century ago was that the galaxies were moving through space, but analyses like these have since shown otherwise, to a high confidence level, that the cause of the redshifts is what's called the "metric expansion of space". Moreover, that paper explains how this subject can be so confusing that even textbook authors have made either false or easily misinterpreted statements, so if even the textbooks are confusing, it's no wonder that not everyone is clear on this topic, though a lot of texts they refer to are older ones.

As much as you like to say the textbooks are wrong, I thought you might appreciate a scientific paper saying that too.

edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Bedlam


No, I'm saying some things are obviously a source of energy (fusion->weather->clock), others MAY be but I doubt it (ZPE) and others are never a source or don't exist. (magnets, springs, electric fields, gravity, orgone)


How are magnets not a source of energy? Imagine you had a strong magnet the size of a big truck tire, and another one almost equally strong but a little smaller in size, and they were at a distance away from each other such that if the smaller magnet was 1 inch closer it would be attracted to the larger one. You are saying that I would not create more energy after the magnet is pushed 1 inch then energy it would take for me to push it? Also if it makes you happy these magnets can be on frictionless floors, and could the wind caused from the passing magnet be collected and called work? Or perhaps copper wires above the magnet? Those are just crappy thoughts of examples to maybe say that there is work being done, or harness-able work energy.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


A magnet is like a spring, or like a rock on a cliff. What you've got is a way to store potential energy of position. But it's not a source of energy.

Consider. Once the small magnet reaches the larger one, that's it. Now, you've got to separate them back to your starting point. And when you do that, it'll take exactly as much energy as you just got. No net.

Same with rolling a rock down a cliff. Whee! You got energy! But that's it. What you had was potential energy of the initial system state. To get that rock back to the top of the cliff to do it again, you're going to have to roll it back up there, and that'll take exactly as much as you got.

Same with springs.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Something like every time they begin to be attracted, the original stationary one is moved an equal amount away, by the treadmill ground or something, and could the initially moved magnet be the mover of the treadmill or nothing like that would ever work? Like the momentum of the objects, maybe lets say they are given a head start boost on this moving ground, and then the momentum of the magnet pushed 1 inch, would that trigger the attraction, but it would never be able to get to the other magnet, every time it got closer would that cause the treadmill to move? Or no nothing like that would work hm? And would there be any more hope if there were magnets above and/or to the sides of something like this? There is no perceivable establishments of magnets even using magnets of varying intensity, say 1000 magnets of incrementally varying intensity, to cause a perpetual motion like domino affect? One potentially related question, what is the theory as to how the universe can expand increasingly at an accelerated rate, is this seemingly giving out more energy then was put in, or required for the initial move?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The energy needed to move the magnet away will always equal what you get when they move back.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Bedlam
If you COULD extract ZPE, which is probably not going to happen . . . It still wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine . . .

If you were running the thing from magnets, springs, or orgone, then it's a perpetual motion machine.


Why would the latter fulfill the "forever" requirement, but not ZPE or atmospheric conditions?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Atmospheric conditions have an energy source, fusion. Thus they're not producing work with no energy input. zpe is one of those things I can't really comment on the 'where is that originating from' but I am still suspicious it's going to fall to Feynman's Ratchet as a source of extractable power.

Perpetual motion as a term is more about not having an energy source than forever.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Bedlam
Atmospheric conditions have an energy source, fusion.


I know that. The point I was making is that the atmosphere is outside of the clock.


Bedlam
Perpetual motion as a term is more about not having an energy source than forever.


But the clock does have an energy source outside of itself.

So, what's your stance on the clock?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Mary Rose
But the clock does have an energy source outside of itself.


Or, is the problem that the source is outside instead of inside?

If so, what difference does it make, as long as the outside source is ever-present?
edit on 11/18/13 by Mary Rose because: Typo and clarify



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Or, is the problem that the source is outside instead of inside?

If so, what difference does it make, as long as the outside source is ever-present?
One violates the laws of physics as we know them, the other does not. I think that's the difference.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Are you saying that the Atmos clock violates the laws of physics?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join