Print

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

[tolkafox]

Then you're effectively saying "the only force that acts on you is the net force, which should be obvious, and which isn't really one of the original forces anyway, even though my language is making it sound like it is".

Actually the original force is the earth, as we are talking about perpetual water wheels. But breaking away from the scenario that stemmed this in the first place...
 

No, that's not what I meant. The object can be pulled, but in a direction that isn't immediately toward either object attracting it. Force vectors, people. If you have one force pulling you northwest and another pulling you northeast, you'll be pulled north (assuming they're of equal magnitude; you get the gist).

And just how far 'north' (still not taking relativity into account) can this object travel before the two forces start pulling the object 'south'? You are assuming that they will pull the object and then somewhere along the line disappear entirely. And how long do you believe this will work before the object ceases to move as it falls towards the balance point between the two forces? The object as you have described it in the scenario you have described it in is held in stasis.

That sentence has a meaning that could very much be inferred as "either you'll go towards one source of gravity, toward the other source of gravity, or go nowhere at all", which isn't how reality works.

Not sure what reality you're living in, but see above.

[G-Flex]

And just how far 'north' (still not taking relativity into account) can this object travel before the two forces start pulling the object 'south'? You are assuming that they will pull the object and then somewhere along the line disappear entirely. And how long do you believe this will work before the object ceases to move as it falls towards the balance point between the two forces? The object as you have described it in the scenario you have described it in is held in stasis.

Of course it eventually winds up in a point of stasis. Eventually. Assuming the system is symmetrical as described. If your point was that the object would eventually either end up attracted to one object or held in statis, then yeah, that's pretty much correct, but if you're talking about the initial direction or magnitude of the force, that's something else entirely.

[tolkafox]

Well once you create a gravitational force large enough to be brought into any equation we'll talk about initially.

Until then, I'll continue to assume that we're talking about 'eventually' as this is a thread about perpetual motion, which 'eventually' never stops moving.

[BronzeElemental]

In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!

[Azated]

I seem to have a habit of starting threads that eventually spiral into a scientific discussion of some sort.



If 1 and 3 exerted gravity on 2 , 3 would win because it has a larger mass.

If 2 and 2 exerted gravity on 1, 1 would be held in stasis, either instantly or eventually, or it would escape from the field of gravity if it was far enough away to begin with.

If 1 and 2 exerted gravity on 3, both 1 and 2 would be pulled towards 3.

If 1 and 3 exerted gravity on 2, with 2 placed  between 1 and half way, 2 would be held in stasis, either instantly or eventually, or it would escape from the field of gravity if it was far enough away to begin with.

If 1 was a moon, and 9001 was a gas giant of equal size, and they both exerted gravity on another 1, the other 1 would suffer a similar situation to the previous stasis arguments.



I think I just explained gravitational physics right there, using only five sentences.

[Vactor]

Perpetual motion needs the further study of gravity and it's effect on dark matter.

Oh, and it uses gravity. There was a thesis I wrote a while ago about a planet orbiting around a sun and being pulled 'back' by a secondary distant sun thus remaining in permanent orbit until something disturbs it, but I appeared to have misplaced it.

Also: space. Just think of a turbine that doesn't stop because there isn't any large force of gravity and air friction. Only problem is it moves in one direction :/ Still, it's damn well close enough for anything we need.

This isn't permanent, it becomes unstable on a larger time scale, namely when the two distant suns move towards each other.  Don't forget that in order to pull your planet slightly away from the sun, the distant star has to be pulled proportionally toward the planet, even if you ignore the draw between the two stars themselves.

As to the original video, its an optical illusion, the water runs along the floor until the final "top" part, where there is some sort of pump or mechanism behind the pillar that moves it from the floor directly towards the camera, to enter the "top" part

[Putnam]

You people are on the same side and you're arguing? To an observer, there is very little difference between the two explanations you're giving.

[Azated]

You people are on the same side and you're arguing? To an observer, there is very little difference between the two explanations you're giving.

Yeah, scientific discussions have a way of doing that.

[Putnam]

Also, note that by "observer", I do not mean an observer of the argument, I mean an observer of the forces you both are describing.

[Azated]

Also, note that by "observer", I do not mean an observer of the argument, I mean an observer of the forces you both are describing.

You're observing both stasis-like gravity, and gravity that exists in such force that other kinds of gravity no longer matter?

That's impressive.

[Putnam]

Also, note that by "observer", I do not mean an observer of the argument, I mean an observer of the forces you both are describing.

You're observing both stasis-like gravity, and gravity that exists in such force that other kinds of gravity no longer matter?

That's impressive.

Watch a person standing. When the moon is straight above, it is true that the moon's gravity is affecting them. It is also true that, to a casual observer, the effect isn't noticeable. That is what I'm talking about.

There are, of course, noticeable effects that come about from such things; the tide being the best example I can think of, a bulge in the water caused by the moon pulling on it.

[Darvi]

If 1 and 3 exerted gravity on 2 , 3 would win because it has a larger mass.

If 2 and 2 exerted gravity on 1, 1 would be held in stasis, either instantly or eventually, or it would escape from the field of gravity if it was far enough away to begin with.

That would depend on the distance between the 3 objects.

If 1 and 2 exerted gravity on 3, both 1 and 2 would be pulled towards 3.

Correct.

If 1 and 3 exerted gravity on 2, with 2 placed  between 1 and half way, 2 would be held in stasis, either instantly or eventually, or it would escape from the field of gravity if it was far enough away to begin with.

You can't escape a field of gravity. Every object in the universe exerts a gravitational force on you.

If 1 was a moon, and 9001 was a gas giant of equal size, and they both exerted gravity on another 1, the other 1 would suffer a similar situation to the previous stasis arguments.

Size is completely irrelevant. Only mass' what's important. And distance.

Also, that's either a tiny gas giant or a friggin' hueg moon.

[Azated]

Size is completely irrelevant. Only mass' what's important. And distance.

Yeah, that's kinda why I said size and not mass.

For all of those though, we're assuming that each object being exerted upon is exactly between the other objects, unless stated otherwise.

[Number4]

By Armok, stop it lads. I don't really see what you are fighting about. One is saying A+B = C, and the other C-B = A, to put it simple. I'm no full-blown physicist, but I think I understand enough of gravity to contribute to this thread. I also am very sure that a "perpetuum mobile" in the truest sense, a machine that gaines net energy, is fucking impossible. It's along the same lines as saying "1-1 is NOT 0". No. That you can't gain energy from nothing is a fact. For every idea that sounded impossible and turned out to be well possible, there are thirty that sounded truly fucking bonkers and still are. The world isn't standing on a turtle, there is no god in the sky above us, Santa doesn't bring us presents, etc.

Anyway, it's been 3 years since my last calculations with gravity and centripetal force, so could this be theoretically feasible:

2 objects of sufficient speed, completly frictionless, orbiting themselves in a stable orbit, which, assuming no outside interference at all, would be eternally stable. (I know not realistic - just a theroretical model). Or would entropy still win and those objects would, given enough time, still crash. If this is possible, then a "perpetuum mobile"-like-device could be constructed, it's just practically impossible instead of theoretically. Even then it would only be "moving without an end", however you still couldn't extract energy from this system.
(Strange Mood over - any comments?)

[Azated]

The world isn't standing on a turtle, there is no god in the sky above us, Santa doesn't bring us presents, etc.

You just destroyed all of my childhood fantasies.

I hope you're happy. 


Also, a turtle? Which fantasy is that from?