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.
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"
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)
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."
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...
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."
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.
Originally posted by XPLodER
how about you answer my questions mr smarty pants,
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.
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.
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.
Actually, all you have to do is to accept that UFOs can cancel mass or eliminate ...
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
www.newscientist.com...
"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."
"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."
Originally posted by hawkiye
www.newscientist.com...
"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."
There's one...
edit on 21-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
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."
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
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?
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?
That, is the right question.
Originally posted by schuyler
Theorize all you want, but all this comes down to one essential point:
Where's the beef?
That website looks like a who's who of known hoaxes.
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?"
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.
Perfect example, that.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Do you really think Tesla was dissuaded by the naysayers?
LOL yeah right well it really doesn't matter since nothing has stopped folks from creating their devices anyway...
Originally posted by XPLodER
what makes you think i dont understand physics?
ie this is the second time you told me to learn physics
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Perfect example, that.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Do you really think Tesla was dissuaded by the naysayers?
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?
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
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.
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
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.