Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 16:30 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:CTJLf.124$8d1.55(a)read1.cgocable.net... >> > "Tom" wrote: >> >> Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of >> >> Wrong"? > > Scott Nudds wrote: >> > Ya, when I was 12. > > "Tom" wrote in message >> Then even so simple and clear an explanation is lost on you. Ah, well. > > That would be a pretty good response if it actually made sense. But > since > it doesn't, it isn't. Yes, I know. It just doesn't make sense to you. > "Tom" wrote: >> Nothing at all is "scientifically proven". That was the point of the > Asimov >> essay that you failed to comprehend. > > An odd statement given that I have corrected you on your demand that > scientific proof be provided on a variety of issues. Please cite any example of my writing in which I "demand proof". I bet you can't find even one. > You do like contradicting yourself now don't you Tom. Conundrums amuse me. However, since I don't ever demand proof from anyone, there is no conundrum here. > "Tom" wrote: >> Let's see... Your point was that the first law of thermodynamics is >> wrong >> and therefore perpetual motion machines are not only possible but are up > and >> running now, wasn't it? > > Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws of > thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to > violation, > and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum > world. All quantification is statistical in nature. The suspected rules of the quantum world are statistical in nature, too. > You see your problem is Tom... That you just aren't very smart. Some people think "smart" means "agrees with me". > You are however, a perfectly good source of nutrients for flowering > plants... As are we all, brother.
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 16:31 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:FWJLf.125$8d1.34(a)read1.cgocable.net... > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote >> You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the >> contrary, that you never wrote that? >> >> Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just >> appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling? > > You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom. Hey, it's another Archie sock-puppet!
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 16:35 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:LZJLf.126$8d1.100(a)read1.cgocable.net... > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote >> Ah, and you, in your vast wisdom, know the complete truth about how the >> universe was created. I see. > > One need not know the complete truth in order to know that the origin of > the universe is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Indeed any > basic > text on the subject worth it's salt, will comment on this fact. Ah ha! So you don't know the complete truth! That means in some respect at least, you must be wrong. If you weren't, then you would acknowledge knowing the complete truth. That's it, then. You're wrong. You've admitted it. Why bother to argue any further with someone who has admitted he's wrong?
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 17:09 "Martin Swain" wrote > Yes I know that's true, I understand something about the statistical > nature of thermodynamics, for instance what makes a glass of water > evaporate, however that isn't what he's driving at. It is highly doubtful if you know anything about science at all given the nature of your posts. Certainly you are operating at a grade 8 or lower level of comprehension. "Martin Swain" wrote > He is trying to assert that my gas tank *should* fill up by itself, > and expecting a bunch of other people to buy it because he's using > a lot of big words. Trolling, IOW. I wasn't aware that using big words was "trolling". You are equally unaware I'm sure. But I will repeat for your small little mind. I shall repeat... It's quite simple. Statistical mechanics is based on the idea of counting the definitive states of aggregates of real world objects, assuming things like the equality of any two energy states, and then drawing infrences and conclusions from the statistical nature of these systems. In quantum mechanics, a system can be in a multitude of states - perhaps an infinite number at any given instant, and individual objects may or may not exist at any particular time. Further there are confounding relationships like the existance of vaccum energy, that can perterb the system, as well as exclusionary rules like Pauli that in no way make it clear that the concepts of thermodynamics apply to these systems. In particular the orgin of the universe is a spectacular violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You are asked to provide a thermodynamic explanation for the origin of the universe, and to provide a reason based on thermodynamics that energy can not be extracted from the vacuum. Now given that the universe exists, and that energy has already been extracted from the vacuum, I suspect you are going to have a hard time of it. I await your response with laughter. 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. 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. The laws of thermodynamics are just generalizations of course that apply to macroscopic objects. They are not as you think them, immutable laws that apply to the quantum world. In fact they are not "laws" in the real sense of the term at all. They are just reasonable approximations with expected violations. A real "law" is immutable. I will repost my previous reply in the hope that you might have grown smart enough to actually begin to understand it. So sad. Pearls... Swine... There is nothing controversial about zero point energy at all. It's an integral part of quantum physics and is becoming more and more obvious that it is the reason for everything from the expansion of the universe to the property of momentum.
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 17:20
> Scott Nudds wrote: > > Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws of > > thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to violation, > > and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum world. "QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice(a)gmail.com> wrote > Well, since you're arguing in a physics newsgroup, I'll > bite: how is statistical mechanics and thermodynamics > violated by qauntum mechanics? There is a distinction to be made between the subject of Thermodynamics which deals with the statistical ensemble average character of large groups of objects, and Statistical mechanics which includes Thermodynamics but also is applicable to individual particles. Quantum events do not deal with aggregates of particles and hence the so called "laws" do not apply, although the concepts of temperature and entropy are sometimes redefined in a manner that allows some application. The only aggrigate quantum mechanical system that I know of are spin sheets, superfluids, and Bose Einstein condensates. And in these systems the wave function is a single function rather than an aggragate, and therfore remain uncharacterized by Thermodynamic principles. |