Perpetual motion

[corvus_corax]

He loses any credibility the second he says that gravity is a form of energy

From the book E=MC2 by David Bodanis-
"Chandra*...knew that a dense core of a star is under a lot of pressure**, and now he began to think about the fact that pressure** is a form of energy"
"A compressed star is under a lot of new pressure**, and that pressure** can be considered a form of energy, and wherever there's a concentration of energy, the surrounding space and time will act just as if there's a concentration of mass"

Essentially, the gravity ratchets up due to the mass of the star combined with the pressure of gravity (i.e. the mass of the star increases the energy of gravity, which in turn increases the "mass", which in turn increases the etc etc etc)


Or am I completely misunderstanding the Chandrasekhar limit?


* Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
** i.e. Gravity


Thanks in advance (preferably from those who actually understand the mathematics behind this and can explain it in plain language)

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Isn't there a distinct difference between wishful thinking and ignoring reality?

Sure, Science consists of observation and imagination. You observe (hopefully accurately enough) and then you imagine a model to explain it. Then you test the model for accuracy and generality and so so. You borrow others models that have been tested. You are not always right but your models get better over time. Evidence legitimises theory.

What we are talking about here is people who promote a pet theory and then ignore the evidence against it. This is non-Science. Typical causes are incompetence, denial, delusion and deception.

Creativity is one thing, but creating nonsense is quite another. Anyone can dream up fantastic ideas - dreams are ten a penny. The really hard thing to do is dream up something that works in reality and has practical value.

So shall we laud creativity as a skill but condemn those who ignore realities and act irresponsibly?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Newton's dabbling in alchemy, with hindsight, looks sorta dumb.

From what I have heard, Newton was dabbling in a whole heap of nonsense. I couldn't care less.

In Science, specific theories matter not the individuals who proposed them. Science's strength is in removing human bias from knowledge.

 

[visionary]

Great inventions come out of thinking outside the box... so do scientific laws yet to be fully understood.

 

[sfs]

Newton's dabbling in alchemy, with hindsight, looks sorta dumb.

True enough, although the lack of a sound foundation for chemistry made distinguishing the possible from the impossible much harder then. (On the other hand, neither his dabbling in alchemy nor his intense interest in theology are the reasons why he's considered a great scientist.)

 

[sfs]

You originally used the word "dumb" so I will let you define it.

I don't have a general definition of dumb, but I'd say that any scientific idea that contradicts what's already known, and that can be held only by ignoring that fact probably qualifies. Any idea that weights what you'd like to be true over what's already been observed is dumb.

Do you consider sticking a rod between the corner of your eye (and your eye) to see what would happen to be "dumb" or not?

No, I don't see anything dumb about it. Risky and unpleasant, yes, but not dumb.

Newton's and Einstein's ideas, that they had, were not "sometimes wrong and speculative" they were "almost always wrong and speculative".

How do you know this? What's your evidence? We have a pretty good record of which ideas Einstein actually worked on -- where in there are the dumb ideas? His attempts at a grand unified theory are the most obvious examples of ideas that didn't pan out, but there was nothing dumb about them.

Intelligence like theirs is not a magically thing, such that they receive an almost divine intervention that tells them how the world works. Instead they "peer review" their own thoughts with an ability and manner that we could not understand. We only get their "peer reviewed thoughts" on the matter.

I don't mean to suggest that there was anything magical about their thought. On the contrary, their thought was based on a thorough understanding of what was already known and rigorous analysis applied to things that weren't yet understood.

Of course they must have had lots of random thoughts that they didn't pursue because they were obviously wrong or useless. But they didn't pursue them. The contrast is with the idea in the OP, which obviously contradicts well-established physical principles and which ignores the detailed understanding that we've got about the processes involved, but which is being pursued anyway.

You said millions originally. I thought it was a metaphor.

I didn't introduce "millions".

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Great inventions come out of thinking outside the box... so do scientific laws yet to be fully understood.

Thinking outside the box just means try to be creative now and again. Good inventions come from combining novel ideas with reliable knowledge and then verifying the outcome.
Building your house on solid ground is not a constraint, it is an advantage.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I don't have a general definition of dumb, but I'd say that any scientific idea that contradicts what's already known, and that can be held only by ignoring that fact probably qualifies. Any idea that weights what you'd like to be true over what's already been observed is dumb.

 

[visionary]

What law needs to be understood better in order to walk through walls, or walking on water... as our Creator never broke any of His Laws and yet was able to do these things? Science still has a long way to go in understanding the laws of the universe. They still are working on carbon dating.

 

[jwu]

What law needs to be understood better in order to walk through walls, or walking on water... as our Creator never broke any of His Laws and yet was able to do these things?

Isn't any miracle a violation of natural laws pretty much by definition?

Besides, God's rules and the patterns of behaviour observed in nature that we call laws need not have anything to do with each other.

Science still has a long way to go in understanding the laws of the universe. They still are working on carbon dating.

Science is never finished with something. That doesn't mean that it doesn't already has many things figured out to a very high degree of accuracy.

 

[Nostromo]

What law needs to be understood better in order to walk through walls, or walking on water... as our Creator never broke any of His Laws and yet was able to do these things? Science still has a long way to go in understanding the laws of the universe. They still are working on carbon dating.

Perhaps he didn't really walk on water?

 

[visionary]

I believe He did walk on water... even Peter could do it, for a brief moment.

 

[Nostromo]

Believing it doesn't make it true

 

[visionary]

Believing doesn't make it false.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

For the love of allah dont bring in outerstellar teapots and friends..

 

[peadar1987]

From the book E=MC2 by David Bodanis-
"Chandra*...knew that a dense core of a star is under a lot of pressure**, and now he began to think about the fact that pressure** is a form of energy"
"A compressed star is under a lot of new pressure**, and that pressure** can be considered a form of energy, and wherever there's a concentration of energy, the surrounding space and time will act just as if there's a concentration of mass"

Essentially, the gravity ratchets up due to the mass of the star combined with the pressure of gravity (i.e. the mass of the star increases the energy of gravity, which in turn increases the "mass", which in turn increases the etc etc etc)


Or am I completely misunderstanding the Chandrasekhar limit?


* Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
** i.e. Gravity


Thanks in advance (preferably from those who actually understand the mathematics behind this and can explain it in plain language)

I'm not theoretical physicist, but my understanding of this would be that pressure is a form of energy, caused by a force, which is gravity. By definition a force is something which tends to cause the conversion of energy from one form to another, but a force isn't a form of energy in and of itself.

However, increasing pressure would cause mass effects as the energy increases, which would theoretically increase the gravitational potential energy of any particle in the gravity well of the star. It goes beyond my Netwonian understanding of the subject anyway, and I don't know enough about relativity to make an informed comment.

 

[Freodin]

Great inventions come out of thinking outside the box... so do scientific laws yet to be fully understood.

In order to "think outside the box" you need a good understanding of the box itself. You need to know what is in the box and where the boundaries of the box are.

I have yet to see one of these "great inventors" dabbling in perpetual motion or free energy machines who know the box. In fact, you have not shown that you know the box.

 

[visionary]

The four principles
The zeroth law of thermodynamics, which underlies the definition of temperature.
The first law of thermodynamics, which mandates conservation of energy, and states in particular that the flow of heat is a form of energy transfer.
The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

 

[visionary]

Someone who did things that are outside the box...

Coral Castle - The Secrets of Coral Castle

 

[Wirraway]

Someone who did things that are outside the box...

Coral Castle - The Secrets of Coral Castle

giant sea bats dun it.