It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
See the grid in this video at 1 minute:
If it's not moving through space, what is it moving through?
As Bedlam said, fusion and fission, but these two hypothetical forms of expansion energy might also qualify (though they aren't useful to us):
Off the top of your head, could you please list the other sources of energy besides fusion.
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.
You can store energy in kinetic energy or gravitational potential.
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.
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?
The reason it's not productive, is because there's no scientific debate about fusion being the energy source for the sun's power.
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.)
No, the vacuum energy is making space bigger at an accelerating pace. So they aren't moving though the vacuum energy either.
Space is getting bigger on cosmic scales, which creates apparent motion.
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.
And space is getting bigger because of vacuum energy? (Which is probably all dark energy is.)
Other than that, the distant galaxy redshifts are not really evidence of the galaxies moving through anything, which was my point.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Atmospheric conditions have an energy source, fusion.
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.
One violates the laws of physics as we know them, the other does not. I think that's the difference.
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?