User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:39:18 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So much derp.  A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. And yes "physisists" (you me physicists?) predicted black holes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't go against our laws of physics....which they do. Literally, the laws of physics as we know them break down at the event horizon. Every physicist will say this, because it is accepted as fact. Does that mean black holes do not exist? Nope. We are all but certain that they do exist now, because we can observe the energy they emit and the gravitational lensing they cause. My point again is that the "laws of physics" as we know them are subject to change, as evident by black holes. They break our laws of physics, yet they exist. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So much derp. A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. And yes "physisists" (you me physicists?) predicted black holes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't go against our laws of physics....which they do. Literally, the laws of physics as we know them break down at the event horizon. Every physicist will say this, because it is accepted as fact. Does that mean black holes do not exist? Nope. We are all but certain that they do exist now, because we can observe the energy they emit and the gravitational lensing they cause. My point again is that the "laws of physics" as we know them are subject to change, as evident by black holes. They break our laws of physics, yet they exist. All the examples you provide are examples of finding out that previous theories are actually special cases of larger theories. Nothing has even even given the slightest hint that thermodynamics is not correct. Except of course the Earth is flat BS, because its radius was measured in antiquity, before the scientific method was even hammered out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:41:15 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We've actually got a pretty good handle on physics. Enough to know that some moron isn't going to invent a perpetual motion machine in his kitchen or LHC sized lab. Chemistry we have less of a handle on, but appreciable enough to be dangerous. Biology is really the last frontier. We understand quite a bit, but the sheer scale of the moving parts involved in even the simplest creatures is astronomical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:41:44 PM EST
[#3]
I love perpetual motion threads in GD
Let's me know who the rubes are (those that think it might be possible) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:43:05 PM EST
[#4]
I invented a perpetual motion machine a while back...about 1975...
Concept...buttered toast always falls on the buttered side... Hold a cat upside down and drop him he always lands feet first... Put a piece of toast on a cats back...butter it...drop him and he'll turn forever...hook his tail up to a generator...stop every now and then to feed cat, butter toast... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:44:04 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The event horizon can vary in size, yes. The singularity can't be observed. I'm generalizing the term to mean the singularity which is muddying what I'm trying to say, which is that black holes can't be observed. They trap light and the actual singularity is an infinitely small point. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. I'm willing to learn something entirely new today. Give me some links because from what I have studied, black holes have widely variable sizes. The event horizon can vary in size, yes. The singularity can't be observed. I'm generalizing the term to mean the singularity which is muddying what I'm trying to say, which is that black holes can't be observed. They trap light and the actual singularity is an infinitely small point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:46:24 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heard if you try to patent that device, THEY KILL YOU. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Power out = (power in - losses)... There are two kinds of people: those who understand the first law of thermodynamics, and hippies.  I heard if you try to patent that device, THEY KILL YOU. The patent office will not accept 'perpetual motion machines.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:49:50 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The patent office will not accept 'perpetual motion machines.' Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Power out = (power in - losses)... There are two kinds of people: those who understand the first law of thermodynamics, and hippies. I heard if you try to patent that device, THEY KILL YOU. The patent office will not accept 'perpetual motion machines.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:00:17 PM EST
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:04:44 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: don't presume to know that such a device is impossible, but since it is not yet realized we can only go off of scientific principles that are to judge the feasibility of this theoretical device. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ok, the folks harping on the supremacy of various laws of physics are making a very great fundamental error, one that assumes we operate from a position of complete knowledge. We do not. The Laws of Newtonian mechanics are a systemized picture of our understanding of the physical world at a given time. Certain parts of Newtonian Mechanics were later superceded by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics introduced even more "laws" But we have a number of clearly evident facts that point out our understanding is STILL very incomplete, and it is even quite possible certain laws we assume are always true are only true in certain cases. For example, why is it that the amount of matter FAR exceeds the amount of antimatter? That seems to violate at least two absolute laws physicists assert to be absolutely true at all times. Regarding perpetual motion, energy from nothing or free energy, why do people ALWAYS fall back to Newton's laws, which have no mechanism to address the constant creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles at the quantum level? Free energy could indeed be drawn from the quantum vacuum, there are laws of attraction which people can measure in a laboratory setting caused by this particle interaction at the quantum level, which could power a device. How many of our brightest minds, Einstein and others, had to fight through the entrenched institutionalized arrogance in our scientific community before they were taken seriously? Perhaps a little humility would cause us to discover many new technologies. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who said around 1900, that science had discovered everything there was to discover. There were no new things to be invented. Had he shut his arrogant mouth, he would have seen Einstein and Planck sitting in the waiting room, waiting for their appointment to change the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:14:57 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryHis art is cool. 
I hate "inventors" that want to try to patent "free energy" machines. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:29:05 PM EST
[#11]
There is energy all around us, now if we only figure out how to gather it in to a usable form.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:36:13 PM EST
[#12]
Neat.
Also, gravity still works! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:43:00 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very! But it was actually the culmination of all of the concepts in the film before it. While impressive, it is not a TRUE perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine creates at least equal the energy required to run itself. The devices in the film are actually utilizing STORED energy in the magnets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Damn that last contraption is impressive. Very! But it was actually the culmination of all of the concepts in the film before it. While impressive, it is not a TRUE perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine creates at least equal the energy required to run itself. The devices in the film are actually utilizing STORED energy in the magnets. how do you store energy in a magnet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:46:08 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: how do you store energy in a magnet? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn that last contraption is impressive. Very! But it was actually the culmination of all of the concepts in the film before it. While impressive, it is not a TRUE perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine creates at least equal the energy required to run itself. The devices in the film are actually utilizing STORED energy in the magnets. how do you store energy in a magnet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:54:30 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is a good answer. Since the word perpetual means forever, and since the universe may collapse on itself according to one of three cosmological theories, the phrase "perpetual motion machine" is essentially meaningless. And are we talking machines on earth or can they be in space? So we need to actually quantify and specify what exactly are we trying to define. Let's say, instead of perpetual that we say "a billion years", and that the machine can be anywhere. And, for the sake of argument, we are talking purely mechanical devices versus bio-mechanical or chemical, etc. Then if we can create a frictionless system in deep space where the moving parts are free floating resting on electromagnetic fields powered by superconductors (due to the extreme cold of space) harnessing the Casimir effect (which utilizes particle/antiparticle pair creation/destruction in the quantum vacuum) could be a possible candidate. Such a system would run for a very, very long time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, the folks harping on the supremacy of various laws of physics are making a very great fundamental error, one that assumes we operate from a position of complete knowledge. We do not. The Laws of Newtonian mechanics are a systemized picture of our understanding of the physical world at a given time. Certain parts of Newtonian Mechanics were later superceded by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics introduced even more "laws" But we have a number of clearly evident facts that point out our understanding is STILL very incomplete, and it is even quite possible certain laws we assume are always true are only true in certain cases. For example, why is it that the amount of matter FAR exceeds the amount of antimatter? That seems to violate at least two absolute laws physicists assert to be absolutely true at all times. Regarding perpetual motion, energy from nothing or free energy, why do people ALWAYS fall back to Newton's laws, which have no mechanism to address the constant creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles at the quantum level? Free energy could indeed be drawn from the quantum vacuum, there are laws of attraction which people can measure in a laboratory setting caused by this particle interaction at the quantum level, which could power a device. How many of our brightest minds, Einstein and others, had to fight through the entrenched institutionalized arrogance in our scientific community before they were taken seriously? Perhaps a little humility would cause us to discover many new technologies. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who said around 1900, that science had discovered everything there was to discover. There were no new things to be invented. Had he shut his arrogant mouth, he would have seen Einstein and Planck sitting in the waiting room, waiting for their appointment to change the world. But could it generate excess energy? Simply being able to run itself is not the goal of a perpetual motion machine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 4:04:06 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But could it generate excess energy? Simply being able to run itself is not the goal of a perpetual motion machine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: But could it generate excess energy? Simply being able to run itself is not the goal of a perpetual motion machine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 5:16:09 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No we don't know everything about the physical universe. Are there large sources of energy beyond our understanding that we can tap into? Possibly. Did some tard on youtube discover it with his magnets? No. I've seen a lot of these clips and none of them demonstrate power generation. The B field is thoroughly studied and has been found to adhere to the known laws of physics countless times. If you want to find a 'free energy' source crack open a modern physics textbook and start experimenting with the unknown. Is that even possible? My mind is blown...how can I know the unknown? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 6:12:33 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you want to find a 'free energy' source crack open a modern physics textbook and start experimenting with the unknown. Then smash together magnets and springs and pendulums until something seems to run for a while*, connect a lot of instruments to it if it is electromagnet related (At least an oscilloscope, but a multimeter at minimum), then go on to mis-read your "technical" results on the test equipment, followed by mis-interpreting them, and put your video on YouTube. Any time somebody points out a flaw in your system, call them out for being big oil shills or demean them for being part of the government that wants this technology suppressed. * If it doesn't run for a while, CHEAT out of frame on the camera, or construct some large base that holds the power/motor needed to make it run. If you can't afford a good distraction, screw it down to a double layer bench so you can put the camera under the bench and say "see! no tricks!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 9:19:51 PM EST
[#19]
This one is a very efficient motor
He's not claiming perpetual motion, but it's still in the strange part of YouTube, and people are trying to make perpetual motion out of this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 9:33:16 PM EST
[#20]
The greatest intellectual minds all agree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxZm8WjlI8 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 10:26:04 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This one is a very efficient motor He's not claiming perpetual motion, but it's still in the strange part of YouTube, and people are trying to make perpetual motion out of this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM... for what that is, it's cool! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 1:04:19 AM EST
[#22]
Here's what I know:
There seem to be a great number of people that are incredibly smug and believe that they have it all figured out. History has shown us time and time again that while people are protecting their sacred scientific beliefs, somebody comes out of left field and causes science to have to re-adjust their held beliefs. At one point in time, if you thought man would fly, you'd be run out of town on a rail. Then, if you said man would walk on the moon. Not very long ago, we didn't even know what an atom was. Imagine what we will know tomorrow.... All I am saying is that it is tedious to see a bunch of dismissive personalities. That flies directly in the face of innovation and experimentation. Electricity was a curiosity once, like home cold fusion is now. Does that mean I don't take claims with a bucket of salt? No, but I'm not going to stop looking because all the science is settled either, and I'm sure as hell not gonna discourage someone else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 6:27:32 AM EST
[#23]
I put a wind turbine on the top of my electric car....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:56:43 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... for what that is, it's cool! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This one is a very efficient motor He's not claiming perpetual motion, but it's still in the strange part of YouTube, and people are trying to make perpetual motion out of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM... for what that is, it's cool! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:42:56 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He says no battery, which is true, but the capacitor is acting like a battery for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one is a very efficient motor He's not claiming perpetual motion, but it's still in the strange part of YouTube, and people are trying to make perpetual motion out of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM... for what that is, it's cool! Well that is what he said, so yeah. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:50:31 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well that is what he said, so yeah.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one is a very efficient motor He's not claiming perpetual motion, but it's still in the strange part of YouTube, and people are trying to make perpetual motion out of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM... for what that is, it's cool! Well that is what he said, so yeah.
On his web page, he has an atmospheric electricity generator a la Tesla. Combine that with the easy-spin motor and you have perpetual motion!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 4:20:57 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He says no battery, which is true, but the capacitor is acting like a battery for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one is a very efficient motor He's not claiming perpetual motion, but it's still in the strange part of YouTube, and people are trying to make perpetual motion out of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM... for what that is, it's cool! True, but he puts a meter on it and the motor only draws 1 microamp and stays spinning for quite a while. It's very efficient, but it can't really be loaded down past a straw dragging on it, or it stops. Two 2000µF Tantalum caps store a lot of power if the draw is only 1 µA. Current goes way up when a straw is dragging on it. It's a clever conversation piece, he has the files at shapely to order a 3D print of it, but winding the coils without a winding machine is a bitch. There are several other people that made them and use different capacitors and have similar extremely long run times, so there's no hidden source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 4:24:38 PM EST
[#28]
TINSTAFL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 4:31:00 PM EST
[#29]
Physics is a scheme created by the government to establish the NWO!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 4:36:53 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how do you store energy in a magnet? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damn that last contraption is impressive. Very! But it was actually the culmination of all of the concepts in the film before it. While impressive, it is not a TRUE perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine creates at least equal the energy required to run itself. The devices in the film are actually utilizing STORED energy in the magnets. how do you store energy in a magnet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 4:39:55 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-ing magnets!!!!!! How do they work??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 5:32:03 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bull. All of or physical laws were given by men who by definition on have limited knowledge. Many of our inventions today would not exist if the inventors thought the way you stated in red. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "Townes reports that several eminent physicists—among them Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, Isidor Rabi, Polykarp Kusch, and Llewellyn Thomas—argued the maser violated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and hence could not work.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#cite_note-14][14][/url] In 1964 Charles H. Townes, Nikolay Basov, and Aleksandr Prokhorov shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser–laser principle". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bull. All of or physical laws were given by men who by definition on have limited knowledge. Many of our inventions today would not exist if the inventors thought the way you stated in red. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "Townes reports that several eminent physicists—among them Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, Isidor Rabi, Polykarp Kusch, and Llewellyn Thomas—argued the maser violated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and hence could not work.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#cite_note-14][14][/url] In 1964 Charles H. Townes, Nikolay Basov, and Aleksandr Prokhorov shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser–laser principle". When you cite a source, you should check that the content of the source agrees with the point you wish to make. Otherwise, you may miss things like this: In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretical foundations for the laser and the maser in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation) via a re-derivation of Max Planck's law of radiation, conceptually based upon probability coefficients (Einstein coefficients) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation. In 1928, Rudolf W. Ladenburg confirmed the existence of the phenomena of stimulated emission and negative absorption.[11] In 1939, Valentin A. Fabrikant predicted the use of stimulated emission to amplify "short" waves.[12] In 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and effected the first demonstration of stimulated emission.[11] In 1950, Alfred Kastler (Nobel Prize for Physics 1966) proposed the method of optical pumping, experimentally confirmed, two years later, by Brossel, Kastler, and Winter.[13] Since Max Planck invented quantum theory and Albert Einstein derived the laser from them, that fact is important. Quantum physics introduced probability and matrices to physics. Planck described his use of probability to define quantum behavior as, "...an act of despair..." He wanted X+Y=Z, but nothing else described what was observed. At that point, the best physicists in the world were arguing and interpreting new theories with models they didn't like, but had to agree were the correct models. Sometimes, Einstein was wrong. "God does not play dice." Sometimes, Bohr was wrong. "You can't make a laser." |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
