Perpetual motion

[visionary]

I quoted a post by visionary, where she posted that pic of the perpetually moving spring-coil.

The pic came somewhere from this site The Museum of Unworkable Devices Physics Gallery... and this article does indeed give a very good explanation of the principle/s of PMMs... and why they don´t work, and why their "inventors" still try to make them work.

So I wondered... if she, who seems to support the idea of "tinkering to find some loopholes in the accpeted laws of physics" did get a pic from that site... did she read the article? And if she did, and understood it... is she pulling our legs by posting this "mysterious" junk?

Yea I understand.. yea I read the article...

I am more in support of freedom to explore.. than the current position.. the current understanding of the law of physics is now in concrete, all encompassing, and there is no more to it..

 

[visionary]

Does gravity have a membrane?
Is that membrane sticky or slippery?

 

[corvus_corax]

sure you're not. you're just debating an issue that's been dead for a couple of hundred years.

No
No I'm not.
Obviously you didn't read my posts.

My posts (since you did not read them) have to do with the question of gravity and pressure as energy (as they pertain to the C limit), as brought up much earlier in this thread.*

That's all.

You might want to go back and actually read what I posted instead of making assumptions about my posts.
Have fun with that

*For the sake of simplicity, no I am not arguing or debating about perpetual motion machines.

 

[peadar1987]

This sort of thing is the reason that physicists don't let engineers date their daughters. (Mathematicians have similar feelings about physicists.)

Haha, it's well known we'd call a horse a sphere if it'd make it easier to analyse!

Does gravity have a membrane?
Is that membrane sticky or slippery?

Could you build something that would exploit the yet-to be-widely-accepted theory of multiple membranes, depite huge amounts of testing being done in some of the world's most advanced laboratories, in your garden shed?

 

[Tenka]

Yea I understand.. yea I read the article...

Then you're just lying to yourself.

I am more in support of freedom to explore.. than the current position.. the current understanding of the law of physics is now in concrete, all encompassing, and there is no more to it..

LHC, what do you think it's for?

Apart from serving as a 17 mile round example of why your posts are thoughtless nonsense.

 

[corvus_corax]

I quoted a post by visionary, where she posted that pic of the perpetually moving spring-coil.

Thanks
Apparently I missed the quote function when you posted visionary's pic.
My bad

 

[corvus_corax]

Haha, it's well known we'd call a horse a sphere if it'd make it easier to analyse!

And, IIRC, a human as a conglomeration of cylinders with one sphere on top

 

[corvus_corax]

...the current understanding of the law of physics is now in concrete, all encompassing, and there is no more to it..

Well then, you have absolutely no understanding of physics.
I would ask you for a citation of your claims, or a retraction of your claim.


Either way, up to you.

Put up your claims with actual citation (from a scientific POV, not just cited opinions) or tell us you are incorrect...i.e. wrong

Up to you visionary.

I await scientific citations that you are correct.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

This sort of thing is the reason that physicists don't let engineers date their daughters. (Mathematicians have similar feelings about physicists.)

Engineering is a superset of physics and mathematics. Engineers have to be experts in both but they have the added constraint of only being rewarded if they produce something tangible and useful!

 

[Freodin]

Yea I understand.. yea I read the article...

I am more in support of freedom to explore.. than the current position.. the current understanding of the law of physics is now in concrete, all encompassing, and there is no more to it..

I have to agree with corvus_corax and Tenka... based on what you just wrote it is clear that you did NOT understand.

At the most, you know what the "laws of physics" say... but you don´t understand what they say.

See, 2+2=4... and no matter how much you support the freedom to explore, the result won´t change if you use a red crayon to write it down or a green.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

A serious testimony to the fact that science and its laws are not all discovered yet...

I am not sure what you are getting at. I think you are expressing that people should be open-minded. Ok.

I feel I want to point something out. Nature is the thing whose laws are being discovered. It isn't science that has laws. Science is just the methodology for modelling nature's behaviours and scientific knowledge is the collection of those models. For example, although we sometimes refer to "Newton's Laws of Motion" these laws are not about Newton, they are Nature's Laws of Motion as identified by Newton. Obviously.

Those who have a fatalistic, extreme view that scientific knowledge is unreliable or prone to complete revision at the drop of a hat or whatever are necessarily saying the same about nature itself. For instance, the laws of motion could only be found to be false if nature itself were to change. To hold the notion in ones head that nature is undependable in this sense must be quite disconcerting.

Perpetual motion/energy from nothing is untrue because nature says so. It is not untrue because humans have a lack of imagination. Humans have a massive incentive to make this happen and buckets of imagination as we can see; often more than is good for us! But nature is what it is and not always what we would like it to be. The door is always open if nature changes its mind.

 

[visionary]

Can someone walk on water? Does water have a 'membrane' surface that is strong enough to carry weight, and if so how much? IF they do walk on water, did they deny the law of gravity to do it? Is gravity the weakest of all forces? Is the electromagnetic field stronger?

Any study and research into the questions means you are pushing the envelop on the laws themselves to get to know them better. So it is with the law of thermodynamics. ... aka perpetual motion... Now while there is a stretch between the law itself and perpetual motion... anything discovered inbetween is scientific progress.

 

[LightHorseman]

Can someone walk on water? Does water have a 'membrane' surface that is strong enough to carry weight, and if so how much? IF they do walk on water, did they deny the law of gravity to do it? Is gravity the weakest of all forces? Is the electromagnetic field stronger?

Any study and research into the questions means you are pushing the envelop on the laws themselves to get to know them better. So it is with the law of thermodynamics. ... aka perpetual motion... Now while there is a stretch between the law itself and perpetual motion... anything discovered inbetween is scientific progress.

All fair enough... however, until someone actually, you know, produces a perpetual motion engine, its not really reasonable to just assume it is possible and that the laws of physics as we know them are so wildly inaccurate as to allow one to exist.

By all means, push the envelope, just don't get narcy when people don't doubt commonly accepted scientific facts without evidence suggesting they should

 

[Freodin]

Can someone walk on water? Does water have a 'membrane' surface that is strong enough to carry weight, and if so how much? IF they do walk on water, did they deny the law of gravity to do it? Is gravity the weakest of all forces? Is the electromagnetic field stronger?

Any study and research into the questions means you are pushing the envelop on the laws themselves to get to know them better. So it is with the law of thermodynamics. ... aka perpetual motion... Now while there is a stretch between the law itself and perpetual motion... anything discovered inbetween is scientific progress.

There is no study and research to "push the envelop". All that is done is repeating again and again the same old ways that have already been shown not to work.

There is just one single answer to be gotten from such an endeavour: that some people simply do not understand what they are doing. And it seems you are one of them.

The real difficulty is to get people to understand that they don´t understand.

Can someone walk on water, you ask. Well, the answer is: yes, they can. It is not very difficult in theory, if you know and understand the natural laws governing this process!
But this is not the intent of your question, is it? You are aiming at something deeper, more mysterious, unknown: can someone walk on water without applying our knowledge and understanding of the natural laws. The way Jesus did.

But how did Jesus do it? (Provided he did, of course.) Do you really think that, if we "push the envelop" enough in our knowledge, we could duplicate this feat? The disciples didn´t think so. They had their explanation: "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." (Matt.14,33)

Did Jesus do it with his superiour knowledge of electromagnetism, gravity and surface tension? How did he transfer this knowlegdge to Peter, enabling him to do the same? Why did he chastize Peter for his "lack of faith" when Peter failed... and not for his misapplication of his knowledge of physics?

Or could it be that this story - the only existing reason to even attempt to research "unknown ways of walking on water" - has a completely different background? A background that would even be valid if it didn´t factually happen?

But this is something that those people who don´t understand cannot accept: it is simply impossible that they might be wrong in their approach... it must be the others, the sceptics, the mockers, who are simply to close-minded or a conspiracy to hide the truth or, or, or...

I wonder how you apply such a worldview to your everyday life.

 

[pgp_protector]

Can someone walk on water? Does water have a 'membrane' surface that is strong enough to carry weight, and if so how much? IF they do walk on water, did they deny the law of gravity to do it? Is gravity the weakest of all forces? Is the electromagnetic field stronger?
...snip...

Depending on the condition of the water, it can be quite easy to walk on it.

 

[Tenka]

Has this thread made anyone else excited about seeing The men who stare at goats?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can someone walk on water?

Yes.

Does water have a 'membrane' surface that is strong enough to carry weight, and if so how much?

Yes, and it depends on how the weight is distributed. The membrane can withstand a certain amount of pressure, or, to put it another way, a certain amount of weight per unit area. Things can still float on water even though they break the membrane: boats, though extremely heavy, still float.

IF they do walk on water, did they deny the law of gravity to do it?

They don't deny the law of gravity any more than planes deny it by flying. It's simply forces: the water molecules repel the object, so it floats on top. Gravity is still operating as normal.

Is gravity the weakest of all forces? Is the electromagnetic field stronger?

Yes.

Any study and research into the questions means you are pushing the envelop on the laws themselves to get to know them better. So it is with the law of thermodynamics. ... aka perpetual motion... Now while there is a stretch between the law itself and perpetual motion... anything discovered inbetween is scientific progress.

The difference between the laws of thermodynamics and the laws governing the various physical forces, is the word 'law'. The 'laws' of gravity, etc, are what we expect to happen if our model of gravity (or electromagnetism, or whatever) is true. It depends on the model.
On the other hand, the laws of thermodynamics are based on a model which is incredibly general: it applies to every system in the universe. The reason we know that thermodynamic results are true is because the premises upon which they are based are so very general ("A system is made up of stuff", "Stuff has energy", etc).

The reason we know perpetual motion cannot possibly exist is because any possible system we could ever construct is in agreement with the foundations of the laws of thermodynamic, and those laws state that perpetual motion cannot exist.

I don't know how else to explain it. There's nothing to stretch, there's no leeway, no assumptions that might be wrong, no possibility we might not have considered. The proofs are derived from very general premises, and these premises are either true by definition (e.g., the definition of 'temperature', 'system'), or are so general that they can't not be true ("Systems exist", "Systems undergo processes", etc).

 

[Belk]

That's why boats don't float: though they're so heavy, their weight is spread over a large area.

I think you will find that boats do in fact float.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think you will find that boats do in fact float.

Shhhhhh...

 

[Jazer]

Perpetual motion/energy from nothing is untrue because nature says so.

Perpetual motion is based on a closed system. You can use waves or wind to generate power to run scientific instruments and transmiters. But that is not perpetual because your system depends on something external to keep it going. Like the old self winding watches could go on forever but it takes motion to keep them ticking.