I am amazed by one only thing, why noone ever spoke about
electron rotation ? the electron rotates around the nucles in a never-ending fashion, Columbus electric repulsive force balance
inertia angular force, but what is the force that keeps rotating
the electron so fast that it creates an electron shell ?
Even if this statment may sound easy to answer, keep in mind that in Quantum Physics , that anyone mentioned here, 'perpetuum mobile' is considered a fact !.
If you don't beleieve me or you are just starting to think to flame me , do a trip at your local library and buy 'Quantum Physics " volume 1 and 2 Smith-Raphson 2nd edition.
Perpetuum mobile , is silently accepted , and even vaccum fluctuation ( zero point energy ) is a form of energy that is starting to be accepted by the most of the hortodox scientist
I believe that in the very NEAR future someone will pop up
with an energy transducer with nearly OverUnity output
Still Sceptic ?
Goggle for
Dr. Ning Li
Dr. Podlektnov
Dr. G.Modanese ( i personally know this clever scientist )
Let's the flame begins
Power from Gravity
Quote:
Original post by MasterWorks
When you even suggest making a perpetual-motion type device you're pulling a block from the foundation of our understanding of the physical universe, and in a way disrespecting everyone with a more complete understanding of physics.....
This would be an amusing quote, if it weren't so alarming....
It almost reads like the kind of thing the scientific community would have said to galileo or socrates, right before one of them is executed.
Disrespecting the foundation of our understanding?? How DARE he, huh? :) I didn't know better I'd say "disrespecting foundations of science" is how we've gone about revolutionizing our physical model of the universe, time and time again.
What I find most interesting about Masterworks stance on the issue is this:
The catholic church dealt with the concept of earth as not being the center of the universe (or even the solar system for that matter) with brutal resistance, going so far as to kill/torture anyone whos idea didnt fit into their narrow scheme of how the universe was to be represented. The justification being that ideas were "disrespectable to the standards and practices"..you look at this method of dealing with dissent, and I'm sure almost everyone reading this is thinking "damn, that's barbaric to say the least"..and you might chalk it up to simpler times, but then you read a post like the one submitted by Masterworks and....well....what does his post sound like to YOU folks?
curious....
-Neko
"This would be an amusing quote, if it weren't so alarming....
It almost reads like the kind of thing the scientific community would have said to galileo or socrates, right before one of them is executed."
You make my point without even knowing it, and that point is the danger of believing things without some form of evidence.
It is absolutely ridiculous for you to suggest that the 'scientific community' had any relation to the people that executed Galileo. These great people were executed because the SCIENCE they were doing was contrary to the FAITH of the masses. Quality scientists in Galileo's time were rare, but they did exist and probably examined his evidence and kept their mouths shut out of fear. To compare contemporary pseudoscience to the works of great scientific pioneers is a total distortion.
"I think early would-be-scientists criticized the hell out of the guys that thought the earth was round. I'm sure they considered it impossible. I'm also sure they would have never imagined how dumb they would look today."
You are confusing early theologians with early scientists. The scientific method is not new. I think any good scientist from hundreds of years ago recognized the tremendous gaps in our knowledge. Today those gaps have been narrowed CONSIDERABLY. Ignore this fact at your own peril. Progress HAS been made. For instance, we have now seen the Earth from outer space, made precise measurements, etc. I don't think arguing against the Earth being round is rational. At some point we have to recognize certain things as being 'true'. The basic laws governing potential energy (and hence the usefulness of gravity in a mechanical context) are in this same category to persons with a physics education, but not as clear to the general public.
I am not arguing for people to be close minded. But on the other hand, if you want to tell me that there is no gravity or that the earth is flat or that you can build a perpetual motion machine, I will ignore you because of the overwhelming wealth of evidence that you are wrong, conducted by so many millions of people every day, and the total lack of credible evidence on the other side. The ability to critically weigh evidence in an appropriate manner, is IMO, perhaps the most important skill a human can possess.
This has NOTHING to do with classic science vs. church issues where knowledge has been surpressed becaused it threatened the worldview of so many. I am not "scared" of somebody being right when it comes to perpetual motion; it is merely the overwhelming evidence against it that convinces me. That is how science works, by a careful analysis of the available evidence. Galileo and Socrates will tell you the exact same thing, and thankfully our modern societies are more tolerant of that process (although still resistant in a LOT of ways; politics is not driven by science anywhere near as much as it should be.)
An unfortunate consequence of our tolerance to ideas is a susceptibility to crackpot ideas (like free energy) and a whole slew of other ideas that prey (whether intentionally or not) on a public that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand why these things are, quite simply, wrong.
Scientists are not threatened by other ideas. Scientists encourage disagreement, as long as supporting evidence is given. Did you even read what I said about the scientific method? It is the most important concept at play here and it is being ignored gleefully for a romantic vision of how we learn about the universe. Even theoretical physics, which is way over my head, is well grounded in scientific laws, and I don't have to understand the specifics to understand the process.
"I've repeated several times: 'I am not a scientist' and 'This stuff is over my head'."
This is the very reason why your conjecture is met with hostility. It's like me, a Win32 programmer, going into the Unix forum and saying "this is all a bunch of crap, but I program Windows so leave me alone. And also back off because I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers!"
I also disagree with the notion that "within the game world, there are no limits" although obviously the realm of possibilities is extremely large. Still, there ARE rules to play by (hence this phenomenal web site!) much like in the physical world. The theoretical limits of computation (even assuming 'super-quantum-computers' with gigantic memories) can make for an interesting discussion because the amount of information that physical atoms (and their subparticles) can store (in a useful way) is not by any means infinite.
It almost reads like the kind of thing the scientific community would have said to galileo or socrates, right before one of them is executed."
You make my point without even knowing it, and that point is the danger of believing things without some form of evidence.
It is absolutely ridiculous for you to suggest that the 'scientific community' had any relation to the people that executed Galileo. These great people were executed because the SCIENCE they were doing was contrary to the FAITH of the masses. Quality scientists in Galileo's time were rare, but they did exist and probably examined his evidence and kept their mouths shut out of fear. To compare contemporary pseudoscience to the works of great scientific pioneers is a total distortion.
"I think early would-be-scientists criticized the hell out of the guys that thought the earth was round. I'm sure they considered it impossible. I'm also sure they would have never imagined how dumb they would look today."
You are confusing early theologians with early scientists. The scientific method is not new. I think any good scientist from hundreds of years ago recognized the tremendous gaps in our knowledge. Today those gaps have been narrowed CONSIDERABLY. Ignore this fact at your own peril. Progress HAS been made. For instance, we have now seen the Earth from outer space, made precise measurements, etc. I don't think arguing against the Earth being round is rational. At some point we have to recognize certain things as being 'true'. The basic laws governing potential energy (and hence the usefulness of gravity in a mechanical context) are in this same category to persons with a physics education, but not as clear to the general public.
I am not arguing for people to be close minded. But on the other hand, if you want to tell me that there is no gravity or that the earth is flat or that you can build a perpetual motion machine, I will ignore you because of the overwhelming wealth of evidence that you are wrong, conducted by so many millions of people every day, and the total lack of credible evidence on the other side. The ability to critically weigh evidence in an appropriate manner, is IMO, perhaps the most important skill a human can possess.
This has NOTHING to do with classic science vs. church issues where knowledge has been surpressed becaused it threatened the worldview of so many. I am not "scared" of somebody being right when it comes to perpetual motion; it is merely the overwhelming evidence against it that convinces me. That is how science works, by a careful analysis of the available evidence. Galileo and Socrates will tell you the exact same thing, and thankfully our modern societies are more tolerant of that process (although still resistant in a LOT of ways; politics is not driven by science anywhere near as much as it should be.)
An unfortunate consequence of our tolerance to ideas is a susceptibility to crackpot ideas (like free energy) and a whole slew of other ideas that prey (whether intentionally or not) on a public that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand why these things are, quite simply, wrong.
Scientists are not threatened by other ideas. Scientists encourage disagreement, as long as supporting evidence is given. Did you even read what I said about the scientific method? It is the most important concept at play here and it is being ignored gleefully for a romantic vision of how we learn about the universe. Even theoretical physics, which is way over my head, is well grounded in scientific laws, and I don't have to understand the specifics to understand the process.
"I've repeated several times: 'I am not a scientist' and 'This stuff is over my head'."
This is the very reason why your conjecture is met with hostility. It's like me, a Win32 programmer, going into the Unix forum and saying "this is all a bunch of crap, but I program Windows so leave me alone. And also back off because I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers!"
I also disagree with the notion that "within the game world, there are no limits" although obviously the realm of possibilities is extremely large. Still, there ARE rules to play by (hence this phenomenal web site!) much like in the physical world. The theoretical limits of computation (even assuming 'super-quantum-computers' with gigantic memories) can make for an interesting discussion because the amount of information that physical atoms (and their subparticles) can store (in a useful way) is not by any means infinite.
Masterworks:
You miss the point entirely...it has nothing to do with the scientific method, and everything to do with attitude. Science is supposed to be all about discovery and breaking the prtceived barriers; By claiming that Jiia's notions threaten "the established institution", you are in effect creating barriers that oppose science. Arrogant Scientists, politicians, philosophers, etc have been doing since the dawn of time, but that doesnt make it right. My statements in my previous post had nothing to do with how correct anyones ideas are on the physics of perpetual motion, its simply an observation as to how similar your argument is to the ideas I just outlined. Jiia, if you are reading this, along with any other bright young minds; I implore you to never fold to pressure! Science isnt a social club; challenge the hell out of it if you think its wrong! Don't fall into the herd following mentality; if Einstein or any other ground breaking scientists never challenged the system, where would we be today?
oh and btw Masterworks, Galileo wasn't executed. He was only threatened with it. He died of old age. He decided not to go against the so-called wisdom of the church & state, kept his mouth shut, and worked on proving his theories for over 15 years...Imagine how much quicker he could have gotten his work done had he not been required to carry out on in secrecy to avoid persecution. Try attaining some subject matter before spouting your mouth off...
-Neko
You miss the point entirely...it has nothing to do with the scientific method, and everything to do with attitude. Science is supposed to be all about discovery and breaking the prtceived barriers; By claiming that Jiia's notions threaten "the established institution", you are in effect creating barriers that oppose science. Arrogant Scientists, politicians, philosophers, etc have been doing since the dawn of time, but that doesnt make it right. My statements in my previous post had nothing to do with how correct anyones ideas are on the physics of perpetual motion, its simply an observation as to how similar your argument is to the ideas I just outlined. Jiia, if you are reading this, along with any other bright young minds; I implore you to never fold to pressure! Science isnt a social club; challenge the hell out of it if you think its wrong! Don't fall into the herd following mentality; if Einstein or any other ground breaking scientists never challenged the system, where would we be today?
oh and btw Masterworks, Galileo wasn't executed. He was only threatened with it. He died of old age. He decided not to go against the so-called wisdom of the church & state, kept his mouth shut, and worked on proving his theories for over 15 years...Imagine how much quicker he could have gotten his work done had he not been required to carry out on in secrecy to avoid persecution. Try attaining some subject matter before spouting your mouth off...
-Neko
Quote:Original post by nekoflux
Try attaining some subject matter before spouting your mouth off...
An interesting remark by someone who has just spoken so eloquently on the dangers of having an arrogant attitude towards people who contradict established knowledge. It looks like you have taken on the part of the inquisition this time, nekoflux!
Neko, my mistake for saying executed when I meant persecuted. The point is the same and your response confirms that you don't even read posts before replying to them. Suffice it to say, you know nothing about science, nor are you capable of distinguishing between scientific rigor and religious persecution.
The funny thing I find about the whole "perpetual motion machine" concept is that one that worked would be pointless. You couldn't actually power anything with it! Even if you could get something to stay in motion forever, as soon as you hooked up any sort of motor/etc to it, it would stop.
Reminds me of a funny idea I had as a little kid. I thought, what if you had a hollow sphere that was perfectly mirrored on the inside, and managed to shoot a beam of light into the ball without letting it escape.
Being naive, as I was, I then thought you would have an endless light source - something that glowed forever. I neglected the fact that all the light you had stored would have to stay in the sphere and not actually do anything. What would happen is the ball would be a completely normal object, which when broken, would emit a flash of light.
Basically, it applies to a PMM in that you'd apply a small force to get it moving, and that is all the force you would ever be able to get back out of it.
Reminds me of a funny idea I had as a little kid. I thought, what if you had a hollow sphere that was perfectly mirrored on the inside, and managed to shoot a beam of light into the ball without letting it escape.
Being naive, as I was, I then thought you would have an endless light source - something that glowed forever. I neglected the fact that all the light you had stored would have to stay in the sphere and not actually do anything. What would happen is the ball would be a completely normal object, which when broken, would emit a flash of light.
Basically, it applies to a PMM in that you'd apply a small force to get it moving, and that is all the force you would ever be able to get back out of it.
Quote:Original post by Neosmyle
The funny thing I find about the whole "perpetual motion machine" concept is that one that worked would be pointless. You couldn't actually power anything with it! Even if you could get something to stay in motion forever, as soon as you hooked up any sort of motor/etc to it, it would stop.
The term "perpetual motion machine" is somewhat of a misnomer. What is usually meant is in fact a device that would do useful work, not only keep moving forever. Perpetual motion machines are categorized by whether they violate the first or the second law of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion in the literal sense does not contradict any laws of thermodynamics, and is actually all around us, on a microscopic scale.
Author
Quote:Original post by MasterWorks
I think any good scientist from hundreds of years ago recognized the tremendous gaps in our knowledge. Today those gaps have been narrowed CONSIDERABLY. Ignore this fact at your own peril. Progress HAS been made. For instance, we have now seen the Earth from outer space, made precise measurements, etc.
I think you missed my point entirely. How would early scientists have had any idea that we could go into space and look back at the earth? For all they knew, the earth was like a playground for life, and space it's walls of isolation. As an example, they would have never imagined being able to send a signal from one side of the planet to the opposite side, as the building blocks of that discovery are stacked pretty high. So who is to say there are not other forces or discoveries waiting to be made that will some day change our perspective on the laws of physics, or allow us to work around them? I'm dreaming of course, but hopefully you understand my point.
Quote:Original post by MasterWorks
I am not arguing for people to be close minded. But on the other hand, if you want to tell me that there is no gravity or that the earth is flat or that you can build a perpetual motion machine, I will ignore you because of the overwhelming wealth of evidence that you are wrong, conducted by so many millions of people every day, and the total lack of credible evidence on the other side. The ability to critically weigh evidence in an appropriate manner, is IMO, perhaps the most important skill a human can possess.
Scientists encourage disagreement, as long as supporting evidence is given.
Yet, I'm not being ignored, am I? :) This is not about having evidence. You can't have evidence without first proving the fact. It's about critizing those who keep trying to find the evidence, contrast to 98% of the planet telling them they are crackpots. Perhaps some are a bit whacked, but it takes some insanity to think far enough outside of the box.
Quote:Original post by MasterWorks
An unfortunate consequence of our tolerance to ideas is a susceptibility to crackpot ideas (like free energy) and a whole slew of other ideas that prey (whether intentionally or not) on a public that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand why these things are, quite simply, wrong.
I know I mentioned "free" several times, but what I was suggesting would not be free. The force would be drained from something. No different than a windmill, except constant. That loss of wind force hurts nothing, much less than the clouds of smog created by other devices for power.
Quote:Original post by MasterWorks
"I've repeated several times: 'I am not a scientist' and 'This stuff is over my head'."
This is the very reason why your conjecture is met with hostility. It's like me, a Win32 programmer, going into the Unix forum and saying "this is all a bunch of crap, but I program Windows so leave me alone. And also back off because I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers!"
I'm sorry, but you're stretching pretty far to grab onto something here. I didn't say any of the laws of physics were crap. I'm just saying we shouldn't put a lock on them. New insights can be made, and new possibilites can open. Things we cannot imagine, therefore cannot dismiss as impossible.
Quote:Original post by MasterWorks
I also disagree with the notion that "within the game world, there are no limits" although obviously the realm of possibilities is extremely large. Still, there ARE rules to play by (hence this phenomenal web site!) much like in the physical world.
Damn, I thought you would at least give me that one. You're just simply wrong here. I said interaction with the hardware is limited - that's it. You're limited by how many of anything, yes. But what is the limit on the anything? A designer can put absolutely anything he can imagine into his game. Limited by only that - his/her imagination. It's like you're saying a pencil artist is limited by what he or she can draw on paper. This is a really silly argument, though, so I'll leave it at that.
I really would have thought the mods would have stepped in and whacked us by now, for freelancing this thread all to pieces. :)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
