Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:13 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:1qyLf.90$8d1.37(a)read1.cgocable.net... > >> > "Kore" wrote >> >> How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when >> >> dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going >> >> towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works >> >> pretty well. > > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote >> > But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that > .99999999 >> > = >> > 1 is incorrect. > > "Tom" wrote: >> Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of >> Wrong"? > > Ya, when I was 12. Funny that, you read it at a mental age of 12. Tom read it last week... > "Tom" wrote: >> Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be > considered >> wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate >> approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment. >> The >> Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions. > > Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the > reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven. > > You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now wasn't > it? No it wasnt. A
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:17 "Martin Swain" <martin_swain(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bgnLf.1095$dg.650(a)clgrps13... > Scott Nudds wrote: >> "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote >> >>>Most physicists are pretty sure a "free energy" machine can't work >>>because >>>it violates the first law of thermodynamics. >> >> >> There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that >> Newtonian mechanics was correct as well. >> >> It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of >> statistical >> mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply. >> >> Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. >> >> I await your response with baited breah. >> >> > > You haven't explained your problem with that statement well enough > to respond to. If you could answer a couple questions it might serve > to shed some light. > > 1. How do you think relativity effects the first law of thermodynamics > in such a way as to render it possible to build a free energy > machine? Ah. Schopenhauer, you have been getting tutorials from Tom Martin? > > 2. Assuming the previous statement to be true, why hasn't anyone built > one yet? Building on a false premise is good for you. > Also, here is the first law of thermodynamics, just to save you the > trouble of looking it up. > > " > The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount > of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the > form of work done by the system on its surroundings. Google finger working well Martin? You are a physicist arent you (or just pretend to be one?). > It's pretty obvious, at least to me, why this indicates that a free > energy machine can't be created. I fail to see however how it is > supposed to be broken by relativity, but then I am no expert. Indeed not but it seems you are willing to learn. More lessons from Tom needed - you need to get rid of learning potential quick smart. A
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:20 "Martin Swain" <martin_swain(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8WoLf.4342$vC4.3381(a)clgrps12... > Scott Nudds wrote: > >> "Martin Swain" wrote: >> >>>1. How do you think relativity effects the first law of thermodynamics >>> in such a way as to render it possible to build a free energy >>> machine? >> >> >> Do we assume the existance of negative mass? Snicker. >> >> Relativity requires that gravity waves propagate in space as quadrapole >> distortions in space and time. It is theoretically possible to use a >> large >> mass and it's associated inertial momentum to extract energy from these >> distortions as they pass through the mass, stretching and compacting it >> as >> it passes. >> >> Energy is thereby extracted from the vacuum of space. >> >> Other arguments based on relativity and quantum mechanics require that >> forces of action/reaction become uncoupled. Pushes can for example be >> devoid of pulls. A particle A for example can be pulled toward particle >> B >> without particle B feeling any force from particle A. This is a direct >> result of the finite speed of propagation of force fields. This also >> implies immediately that the vacuum of space holds a sea of energy and >> that >> this energy from time to time is used to accelerate objects and hence is >> extracted from this underlying free energy sea. >> >> >> >>>Also, here is the first law of thermodynamics, just to save you the >>>trouble of looking it up. >>> >>>" >>>The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount >>>of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the >>>form of work done by the system on its surroundings. >>>" >>> >>>It's pretty obvious, at least to me, why this indicates that a free >>>energy machine can't be created. I fail to see however how it is >>>supposed to be broken by relativity, but then I am no expert. >> >> >> That's nice. And as such is wrong, and has been proven so >> experimentally. >> In fact if it were not the case the PC you are using now would not be >> capable of functioning since the transistors it uses to compute would not >> work. >> >> Vacuum energy my boy is very real, and most probably the reason for all >> quantum mechanical wierdness, with the exception of quantization. >> >> I would add, that it is also the origin of momentum, and most probably >> the >> cosmological constant and the origin of the universe as you probably >> misunderstand it. >> >> > > Snickering and bullshitting about transistors pulling energy from the > eather aside, you didn't answer my questions. How does relativity enable > the building of a free energy machine and why hasn't anyone built one yet? erm, I think you will find the Aether was abandoned some time ago Martin. About the time of the Michelson-Morley experiments I think... Still, you are a traditional sort of a lad I suppose... A
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:23 "Martin Swain" <martin_swain(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:IOrLf.3735$Cp4.536(a)edtnps90... > Scott Nudds wrote: >> "Martin Swain" wrote > ... but I simply > haven't time to waste playing childish games... bloody hell Martin, when did all *that* happen? > Bye now. Bye... A
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:25
"Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:88oLf.15$8d1.8(a)read1.cgocable.net... > > >> > It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of >> > statistical >> > mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply. >> > >> > Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. >> > >> > I await your response with baited breah. > > "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote >> I thought it was a good post until you invoked the stupidity demon. > > You were and still are free to clarify the issue of the applicability > macroscopic statistical mechanics to non-mechanical quantum-mechanical > systems Archangel. > > Perhaps you can provide a proof that doesn't require a redefinition of > entropy. > > I note that you have elected not to do so. neither am I in a position to, nor would I wish to. I merely noted that you mentioned Tom's name and ruined a good argument for me. Tom is the stupidity demon, to call him is to invite chaos. A |