Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Capntastic]

No, my primary assertion was merely that any belief, even when backed up by significant evidence has the potential to be false. I do not have any refutation of the actual principle in question.

Your belief is proven false by my belief that 1+1 is 2.

[tolkafox]

No, my primary assertion was merely that any belief, even when backed up by significant evidence has the potential to be false. I do not have any refutation of the actual principle in question.

Your belief is proven false by my belief that 1+1 is 2.

Unless 2 is actually 3 in disguise, in which case 1+1 is 3 and you are incorrect (That two is a spy!)

"You can't create something out of nothing, because first you would have to find nothing to create something out of, and it's impossible to find nothing." John Evans

"Case: There is a long line of people (enough people to form a line from one end of the universe to another) and each person can see the person directly in front of them all the way to the end. The person at the very end finally finds the fabled nothing, and in doing so becomes nothing. When he becomes nothing, the person with eyes on him finds nothing and thus becomes nothing, and this continues all the way down the line until the only thing that exists is nothing. Therefor, nothing exists. Since something exists, it's impossible for nothing to exist, because then something wouldn't exist. Since I exist, something exists, and nothing is a blatant lie." Me

^ I had this conversation when I was 14. Plato can't touch this.

Also: water requires gravity to flow, and gravity only pulls in one direction, it's impossible to expect gravity to pull in two different directions at it's own discretion. I mean, you could ask it really nicely to do so, but I doubt it's going to listen. Even if you found gravity based perpetual motion it still wouldn't be infinite perpetual motion (That's the whole point, right?) because gravity is reliant upon an all-or-nothing clause, eventually it will 'die' and kill everything surrounding it with crushing force. It would just be a perpetual as-far-as-we-can-see motion.

That's basically the whole theory of the perpetual motion mobile: Eventually it blows up.

[Simmura McCrea]

Also: water requires gravity to flow, and gravity only pulls in one direction, it's impossible to expect gravity to pull in two different directions at it's own discretion.

Not even going to touch your suedo-philosophy, but this quoted section is false. The Earth has a gravitational pull towards its centre. So does the Moon. And the Sun. So does your mother. And you. And that fly over there. Everything with mass has a gravitational pull. They're all pulling towards their centres. Gravity is pulling all over the place at once.

[BronzeElemental]

That wheel wont work. The author even states that in order to get it to "work" the third law of motion has to be broken.

Anyway I don't see what the big deal about "unlimited energy" is, we can provide many times the current energy needs of the entire planet using only what we have right now, it' just not currently practical. If we rrrreeeeaaalllyyy wanted to though.....

[Skyrage]

Too bad we won't rrrrreeeeeallllyyy want it until we've hanged and executed every corrupt and greedy fat oil baron and other energy Mafia boss that exists in the world....or most of them anyway. Without them we'd be at least 30-40 years ahead in technology.

[Azated]

Anyway I don't see what the big deal about "unlimited energy" is, we can provide many times the current energy needs of the entire planet using only what we have right now, it' just not currently practical. If we rrrreeeeaaalllyyy wanted to though.....

It's cheaper, cleaner, and allows use to do much more with what we have.


And on to the whole possible-impossible conversation, my original comment was just stating that basically, we don't know if something is possible or not. Natural Science is not exact, unlike Mathematics, which, as a science we've created, is always exact and precise. We don't know if something is true or false, despite our best attempts. All we can hope for is to be as close to the answer as possible.

Think of it this way. A dwarf thinks that if he stabs the Mayor with a leaf, he'll die. It's possible the dwarf will get a lucky shot and puncture the brain, but its far more likely that the leaf will have no effect. That simple fact of possibilities means that it's very difficult to determine an exact outcome, unless the dwarf modifies his understanding of science, places a limit on the chance of the mayor dying and leaves it at that.

Doing so, the dwarf will have an answer, but it won't always be correct.

[BronzeElemental]

Whatever way you spin it or try to reason that you could it doesn't change the fact that IT'S SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE. It's not even slighly possible, it's not even "what if we discover this, that and the other" possible. IT'S SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE. The End.

[JohnieRWilkins]

Also: water requires gravity to flow, and gravity only pulls in one direction, it's impossible to expect gravity to pull in two different directions at it's own discretion.

Not even going to touch your suedo-philosophy, but this quoted section is false. The Earth has a gravitational pull towards its centre. So does the Moon. And the Sun. So does your mother. And you. And that fly over there. Everything with mass has a gravitational pull. They're all pulling towards their centres. Gravity is pulling all over the place at once.

Tolkafox meant that you can't extract meaningful energy out of a gravity field because one field only pulls one way.

1+1=2 isn't true by definition. 1+1=2 is a concrete concept found in nature. Group two apples together. This concept can't be violated because of fundamental laws of our universe. You can't add two apples and have three apples.

The conservation laws we know are true can't be violated because of the fundamental properties of matter and energy. When you violate conservation, you aren't violating some vague concept, you're violating the principle that is matter and energy. Their property is to be conserved. And the universe likely bends over backwards to conserve when you consider dreaded quantum theories like chromodynamics.

[worldspawn]

That wheel wont work. The author even states that in order to get it to "work" the third law of motion has to be broken.

I'll need to read it again because I remember it saying how no laws would be broken. It just "seemed" as though the 3rd one was being broken from a first glance and then once the operation was broken down it shows that no laws are being broken. I also read the book on Bessler's wheel so perpetual or not he was at least onto something that could be utilized but got buried.

Also based on how it functions it's not technically "perpetual" motion but it's perpetual in the sense that it doesn't need to consume fuel to operate.

[JohnieRWilkins]

Right. No fuel. A massless pulley located in a total vacuum on a frictionless piece of wood.

[BronzeElemental]

That wheel wont work. The author even states that in order to get it to "work" the third law of motion has to be broken.

I'll need to read it again because I remember it saying how no laws would be broken.

Sorry, it is I that needs to read it again. It was about other "inventions" that the author states the law of motion would need to be broken. That's not to say that this crazy wheel will work any better though.

[worldspawn]

That wheel wont work. The author even states that in order to get it to "work" the third law of motion has to be broken.

I'll need to read it again because I remember it saying how no laws would be broken.

Sorry, it is I that needs to read it again. It was about other "inventions" that the author states the law of motion would need to be broken. That's not to say that this crazy wheel will work any better though.

Check out page 8 if you haven't since that shows the full schematic. It may not make much sense without reading the rest though.

[darius]

Anyone who believes that perpetual machines can exist first must watch everything here : R. Feynman's lectures and than ask themselves do they still believe in perpetual machines.
One of the things mentioned there is conservation of energy (and thus mass) that in all the known applications of known forces in known examples (both macro scale and quantum scale) WORKS. That in turn makes ANY perpetual or "free energy" machine impossible. So unless somebody finds something very extraordinary it will be impossible (and that most probably would not be constructed out of materials easily accessible and would not be DIY thing).

Edit: oh and I forgot to mention entropy- that is the main reason no work could be extracted out of some systems even if those systems have energy.

[tolkafox]

Also: water requires gravity to flow, and gravity only pulls in one direction, it's impossible to expect gravity to pull in two different directions at it's own discretion.

Not even going to touch your suedo-philosophy, but this quoted section is false. The Earth has a gravitational pull towards its centre. So does the Moon. And the Sun. So does your mother. And you. And that fly over there. Everything with mass has a gravitational pull. They're all pulling towards their centres. Gravity is pulling all over the place at once.

Negative. Gravity doesn't 'fight' with one another in your proposed gravitational tug-of-war. Either one side pulls, the other side pulls, or both sides hold an object in stasis. The only effect the earth has on the sun is keeping you from being pulled towards it. You can change distance from one field or another, or increase one fields power over another, but the above still holds true.

Blue-seudo philosophy!

[BronzeElemental]

That quite clearly isn't true.