Is it true that energy can't be created from nothingness? But if we have two magnets in space, they don't consume any kind of energy when they move to each other. They decide by themselves, they create their own energy, because they only try to reach their original state of being - more unity. I think it would be possible to create perpetual energy with magnets, or it has probably already been done.

Is it true that energy can't be created from nothingness?

Yes. That's the law of conservation of energy.

But if we have two magnets in space, they don't consume any kind of energy when they move to each other.

Energy is never consumed - only transformed from one form to another.

Separated magnets already have potential energy when separated, which is converted to kinetic energy as they attract each other.

I think it would be possible to create perpetual energy with magnets, or it has probably already been done.

Sorry, but no cigar.

No Yorda. There is no perpetual anything. Only perpetual confusion. In order to extract energy from a magnetic system, the two magnets have to be separated. Assume they start this way and let's ignore how they got there. The magnets move toward each other, and you can get some work out of this, but only once. To get more work,you have to expend energy to get the magnets apart again. You will always find yourself expending more energy getting them apart, than you can get out of them by letting them move together. Most losses show up as heat loss.

1) There's no free lunch
2) You can't even break even
3) You can't get out of the game

Oops. Just posted right on top of yours James.

I always liked #3 stated as:

Most of the time, you can't even come close. Captures the idea's of Carnot better. ;)

Might now be a good time to bring up quantum vacuum fluctuations?

There is no perpetual anything.
Is not space expanding perpetually?

1) There's no free lunch

Squirrel seem to do all right with nuts scattered about

2) You can't even break even

Fault of oligarchy's domination of resources, more than universal law

3) You can't get out of the game

yu CAN. you have the power of choice

Is not space expanding perpetually?

This infers an infinite future. Most scientists believe continued expansion will result in an ultimate "Heat Death" due to entrophy.

Electrons are negative and protons are positive. Since they are opposites they should attract each other, but why doesn't the electrons fall on the nucleus? For example, my hand is made of atoms, so if I'd bring a magnet towards my hand, the atoms should be affected by magnetic field, but nothing happens. Why? There must be something which holds the electrons in their orbits, with a power equivalent to the attraction, the same force which holds the planets on the orbits around the sun. I think all particles are at the same time attractive and repulsive, which is normal, since we know that magnetic energy is the only energy which gives off particles.

Yes. That's the law of conservation of energy.

But how did the energy appear in the first place? I think it started with magnetism. Planets and atoms never stop moving, the planets spin around the sun because they're magnetic and electrons spin around atoms because of the same reason.
I really think magnetic energy is the only energy in the universe, all other forces are variations of magnetism under different circumstances.

I wonder if this would work, a machine powered only by permanent magnets.

http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/mag-k_pullo2.gif

http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-magnet.html

Your hand is affected by the magnet; just not in a very strong way. Most of the time a magnet just aligns dipoles, but if the molecules in your hand have weak magnetic dipoles (which most of them do) the effects of the magnetic field typically gets drowned out by thermal effects.

As for the falling in thing, it's for the same reason that the moon doesn't collapse into the earth, or the earth into the sun: there are other features of the dynamics acting than "I'm falling towards you and you're falling towards me." An example would be the angular momentum barrier.

Your magnet thingy wouldn't work because there's no such thing as a permanent magnet; eventually your magnets would demagnetize due to all the other magnets around it moving around the orientation of the domains.

Might now be a good time to bring up quantum vacuum fluctuations?

Sure why not? I assume you would use the Casimir effect? You still are not getting energy from nothing. I have seen patented ideas for a Casimir "battery", but the plates still have to be separated (recharged) using mechanical work.

The net result of quantum vacuum fluctuations is zero. There is no net positive energy flooding into the universe. Probably. I only say "probably" because there is "dark energy" (what is it???) and evidence for an accelerating universal expansion. (what's causing it???)

Actually, the reason the "magnet thingy" won't work is that the net torque on the armature is zero. The magnetic field configuration of the armature is rather different that most people assume. This occurs as a result of Maxwell's equations re no magnetic monopoles.

As for the falling in thing, it's for the same reason that the moon doesn't collapse into the earth, or the earth into the sun: there are other features of the dynamics acting than "I'm falling towards you and you're falling towards me." An example would be the angular momentum barrier.

I think it's because of the magnetic bipolarity of all particles. How/why do you think electrons started orbit the nucleus (or planets around stars)?

It's very clear to me that all things are magnetic, even if I would throw and apple to space, I would see that it has two magnetic poles (of course far enough from earth so that it won't be affected by its "gravitational" field) Gravity is also magnetism, just under different circumstances, so it seems different (only attractive).

Ooooo K then...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that magnetism and gravity are the same thing. Well, I have an idea...Celestial Dynamo?

Yorda,

Electrons are negative and protons are positive. Since they are opposites they should attract each other, but why doesn't the electrons fall on the nucleus?

That's because a quantum mechanical effect called the Pauli exclusion principle stops it from happening. Without that effect, atoms could not exist.

For example, my hand is made of atoms, so if I'd bring a magnet towards my hand, the atoms should be affected by magnetic field, but nothing happens. Why?

Because the atoms in your hand are not aligned so as to produce a net magnetic field.

There must be something which holds the electrons in their orbits, with a power equivalent to the attraction, the same force which holds the planets on the orbits around the sun.

Electric forces hold the electrons in their orbits. The Pauli principle prevents them from getting too close to the nucleus. The force which holds planets in orbit around the sun is gravity.

Planets and atoms never stop moving, the planets spin around the sun because they're magnetic and electrons spin around atoms because of the same reason.

No force is required to keep something moving. That's Newton's First Law of Motion.

I really think magnetic energy is the only energy in the universe, all other forces are variations of magnetism under different circumstances.

Magnetism is well understood. It is one aspect of the electromagnetic force. Gravity and the nuclear forces are definitely different.

I wonder if this would work, a machine powered only by permanent magnets.

No. Your machine wouldn't rotate. Or, it might rotate slightly at first, then stop.

Electrons are negative and protons are positive. Since they are opposites they should attract each other, but why doesn't the electrons fall on the nucleus? http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/918286257.Ch.r.html
It's a fascinating question. Modern science accepts two explanations that work together. One is that the electron cannot fall into the nucleus becuase the act of doing so requires it to exist in non-quantum states. It would be found between allowable levels.

The second reason is that if the electron were in the center, then we would simultaneously know both it's location and momentum, which violates the uncertainty principle. I disagree with that logic, but the guys who are smarter than I am accept it.

Because the atoms in your hand are not aligned so as to produce a net magnetic field.

A particle is simultaneously attractive and repulsive with reference to any other particle. One aspect of it is repulsive to the like aspect of the other, and attractive to its opposite aspect. They cannot be in a solid state of repulsion or attraction with another particle. That is the reason why my hand remains a hand. A particle is attracted by another, but also repelled and with the same strength, and thanks to the "synchronized spins" that this generates, when disturbed, it balances the disturbance by an acceleration or a reduction of speed in its motion.

Electric forces hold the electrons in their orbits. The Pauli principle prevents them from getting too close to the nucleus. The force which holds planets in orbit around the sun is gravity.

How does the ELECTRIC forces hold the electrons in their orbits? Gravity is the force which pulls everything towards it, the attracting force, but the earth is not pulled towards the sun. The magnetic attraction and repulsion is what keeps them in their orbits, just like with the electrons spinning around the nucleus of atoms.

No force is required to keep something moving. That's Newton's First Law of Motion.

So how did all the motion start in the first place, was there a big "explosion" out of Nowhere in space/time? The motion occures because of the magnetic attraction and repulsion (ie. they CAN'T stand still) There doesn't need to be a first energy because universe has its own infinite energy: magnetism. Why does the electrons spin around the nucleus, according to you?

Magnetism is well understood. It is one aspect of the electromagnetic force. Gravity and the nuclear forces are definitely different.

Magnetism differs from gravity the same way as the colours red and green differs from each other. And they don't really differ since the origin of all colours is light. All forces are consequences of only one force: the magnetic force. Depending upon the circumstances, this one energy produces such and such a behavior, to which physicists give special names. For example, the heat of the sun is never CAUSED by nuclear explosions, they are the consequence of heat, the heat the consequence of the rotation of the sun, and the rotation is due to "magnetism".

The spinning of masses in space produces a wavelike effect which we call gravity. Earth, like every other mass in the universe, is a magnet, but because it spins syncronically, it produces "gravity", magnetism which only attracts. This is also why gravity seems to be a "weaker" force than the "other" forces.

Scientists don't know why planets spin around. They think this serves no purpose, when in fact it provides the source of gravitation. They can't explain why planets turn on their axes in about 24 hours, 12, 6 or 48 hours, which allows synchronism and attraction (the genesis of these motions is explainable only if planets are complete magnets). The nucleus of the sun spins on its axis in 24 HOURS just as does the Earth's. But since it is very big (1,300,000 times bigger than Earth), its surface cannot turn at such a speed. Between the nucleus and the surface, the magma is liquefied by swirling at slower speed than the nucleus, and rubbing, producing heat and light. Heat doesn't exist without atoms.

If the earth, like any other mass in the universe, is not a magnet, how do you think compasses work? Is it really a "coincidence" that the moon always faces the earth, or is it governed by special laws? Since all objects in the universe are "magnets" they don't need any energy from outside, like from an explosion (Big Bang).

No. Your machine wouldn't rotate. Or, it might rotate slightly at first, then stop.

Why would it stop?

Yorda,

It won't stop. Don't listen to JamesR or anyone else who tells you otherwise. I built one and have it running in my basement. It supplies all my electricity and domestic hot water. The government tried to get it from me but I have a restraining order against the government, and a shotgun.

Build your own! Free power to the people!

Is it true that energy can't be created from nothingness? But if we have two magnets in space, they don't consume any kind of energy when they move to each other. They decide by themselves, they create their own energy, because they only try to reach their original state of being - more unity. I think it would be possible to create perpetual energy with magnets, or it has probably already been done.
Yorda,. go outside at night and look up: Can you see the slightest, the merest possibility that the emergy will be gone at some point and that just the tiniest of tiny proportion of what you see contains more energy than a thousand times a thousand scientists can use in a thousand times a thousand times a thousand mellenia. All the mathematics scribbled on their precious papers cannot theorize away the energy of each wave being 1 does not add up as 1 + 1 = E is adds as (1+1)^2 = 4 . So how does one get here? Isn't this a violation of the conservation of energy? No, as there is a negatve energy somewhere (usually nearby) to balance the books, but for a brief period of time the extra energy is available and can be tapped. That an isolated process does not add up to zero does not violate conservation of energy law. The conservation apples to the energy of the universe but is not applicable to single isolated devents.
So, take the cash and let the credit go nor heed the rumble of a distant drum. Let the books balance some where on the other side of the universe, hell, let St. Peter sort it out.

Geistkiesel.

Yorda,

A particle is simultaneously attractive and repulsive with reference to any other particle. One aspect of it is repulsive to the like aspect of the other, and attractive to its opposite aspect. They cannot be in a solid state of repulsion or attraction with another particle. That is the reason why my hand remains a hand. A particle is attracted by another, but also repelled and with the same strength, and thanks to the "synchronized spins" that this generates, when disturbed, it balances the disturbance by an acceleration or a reduction of speed in its motion.

That's not the usual physical explanation. The atoms in your hand attract each other via electric forces, and that's why your hand remains a hand. However, the atoms remain a particular distance apart from each other because if they get closer together a net repulsive force develops which pushes them apart again.This is mostly also due to the electric force. It's a little complicated.

How does the ELECTRIC forces hold the electrons in their orbits?

The nucleus of an atom has a net positive charge. The electrons have a net negative charge. Positive and negative charges attract each other via an electric force. That force holds the electrons in orbit.

Gravity is the force which pulls everything towards it, the attracting force, but the earth is not pulled towards the sun.

Earth is constantly pulled toward the sun by the sun's gravity. If it wasn't, it would head off in a straight line into interstellar space, rather than orbiting as it does. An attractive force is needed to keep the Earth in orbit, just as an attractive force is needed to keep an electron in orbit around its nucleus. In the Earth's case, the force is gravitational; in the atom's case it is electrical.

The magnetic attraction and repulsion is what keeps them in their orbits, just like with the electrons spinning around the nucleus of atoms.

No. Magnetism doesn't really come into it.

So how did all the motion start in the first place, was there a big "explosion" out of Nowhere in space/time?

Roughly, yes. It is called the Big Bang.

Why does the electrons spin around the nucleus, according to you?

This is a more difficult question than you might think. A proper answer requires quantum theory. Roughly, though, no force is required to keep electrons moving along their orbits. The electric force only keeps the electrons orbiting. In other words, the electric force keeps the electrons moving in circles, but it doesn't have any effect on their speed.

Magnetism differs from gravity the same way as the colours red and green differs from each other. And they don't really differ since the origin of all colours is light. All forces are consequences of only one force: the magnetic force.

You're covering territory which has already been examined by physicists, and you're on the right kind of track, in a way. Most physicists believe that, under the right conditions, gravity, electricity, magnetism and the nuclear forces are different aspects of a single "superforce". However, that force is not magnetism.

Depending upon the circumstances, this one energy produces such and such a behavior, to which physicists give special names. For example, the heat of the sun is never CAUSED by nuclear explosions, they are the consequence of heat, the heat the consequence of the rotation of the sun, and the rotation is due to "magnetism".

No. The sun's heat results from nuclear fusion. You're right that some heat was needed to start the fusion process in the first place. That heat came from the gravitational collapse of the gas cloud which formed the sun in the first place. The heat has nothing to do with rotation.

The spinning of masses in space produces a wavelike effect which we call gravity. Earth, like every other mass in the universe, is a magnet, but because it spins syncronically, it produces "gravity", magnetism which only attracts. This is also why gravity seems to be a "weaker" force than the "other" forces.

If you were right, then faster spinning planets would have more gravity. But that isn't the case. Planets with more mass have more gravity, regardless of spin. Therefore, gravity is caused by mass, not spin.

Scientists don't know why planets spin around. They think this serves no purpose, when in fact it provides the source of gravitation.

Hopefully, you can see why this is wrong now.

The nucleus of the sun spins on its axis in 24 HOURS just as does the Earth's. But since it is very big (1,300,000 times bigger than Earth), its surface cannot turn at such a speed.

In fact, different parts of the sun's surface rotate at different speeds. I don't think anybody actually knows how fast the core of the sun rotates. Where did you get your information?

If the earth, like any other mass in the universe, is not a magnet, how do you think compasses work?

The Earth has magnetic properties which allows compasses to work. That is quite a separate effect from gravity.

Is it really a "coincidence" that the moon always faces the earth, or is it governed by special laws?

It isn't a coincidence. It is a result of tidal friction. That's a gravitational effect, and once again has nothing to do with magnetism.

No. Your machine wouldn't rotate. Or, it might rotate slightly at first, then stop.

Why would it stop?

Because the magnets would settle into a configuration where the attractive and repulsive forces were balanced.

Before you try to rewrite the laws of physics from scratch, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn what they are, and why people believe they are as I have described?

Earth is constantly pulled toward the sun by the sun's gravity. If it wasn't, it would head off in a straight line into interstellar space, rather than orbiting as it does. An attractive force is needed to keep the Earth in orbit, just as an attractive force is needed to keep an electron in orbit around its nucleus. In the Earth's case, the force is gravitational; in the atom's case it is electrical.

Before you try to rewrite the laws of physics from scratch, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn what they are, and why people believe they are as I have described?

I'll only note here for the record that in past discussions you have argued gravity is not a force, that according to Relativity (GR) the earth, etc are following neutral paths of curved space.

Roughly, yes. It is called the Big Bang.

How could energy come from nothingness? Doesn't that violate the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?

Most physicists believe that, under the right conditions, gravity, electricity, magnetism and the nuclear forces are different aspects of a single "superforce". However, that force is not magnetism.

It's because they don't know what "magnetism" is.

If you were right, then faster spinning planets would have more gravity.

I thought it would be the opposite. However, I don't know if the spinning itself has anything to do with the strength of a planet's gravity. It's kind of natural that the gravity is stronger on planets with more mass.

Because the magnets would settle into a configuration where the attractive and repulsive forces were balanced.

I guess so, but why does this website say that it works? http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-magnet.html

I have a feeling that people are too consumed with "laws" they have set, in the same way as with religious laws, they think the laws are always right and more important than the source of the "law", which is man.

You should read http://www.hatem.com/atomsuite.htm

Nut.

I have a feeling that people are too consumed with "laws" they have set, in the same way as with religious laws, they think the laws are always right and more important than the source of the "law", which is man.

You may be right in a way, but when there is no reason to believe the laws are wrong, and testing confirms the validity of the theories, then there's no reason to assume that they are wrong.
And as James R already said, you should first understand what the laws mean and how can you use them, before you could possibly say that they are wrong.
You can't prove your theories by saying "it just seems right".

How could energy come from nothingness? Doesn't that violate the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?At the singularity our laws of physics break down, meaning that they no longer apply the way we think they do. There is a second possibility though. Alan Guthrie suggested that perhaps space-time is the other side of matter-energy. He said that as long as you also created space-time when you created matter-energy, you have not really violated conservation. This would mean that the law of conservation, as we currently understand it, is incomplete. This would make the entire universe the ultimate free lunch.

I guess so, but why does this website say that it (perpetual motion) works?Anyone with $10 in their pocket can register a domain and then say anything on it they want to.

MacM:

I'll only note here for the record that in past discussions you have argued gravity is not a force, that according to Relativity (GR) the earth, etc are following neutral paths of curved space.

It's a good idea to understand Newtonian gravity before tackling General Relativity, don't you think?


Yorda:

How could energy come from nothingness? Doesn't that violate the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?

No. It does violate the principle of conservation of energy, though. But that principle doesn't necessarily apply at the start of the universe.

Alternatively, it is possible that the big bang didn't create energy either - it might have already been there. We don't know yet.

Most physicists believe that, under the right conditions, gravity, electricity, magnetism and the nuclear forces are different aspects of a single "superforce". However, that force is not magnetism.

It's because they don't know what "magnetism" is.

Magnetism is one of the fundamental forces which we know the most about, actually.

Because the magnets would settle into a configuration where the attractive and repulsive forces were balanced.

I guess so, but why does this website say that it works? http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-magnet.html

I guess they made a mistake.

I have a feeling that people are too consumed with "laws" they have set, in the same way as with religious laws, they think the laws are always right and more important than the source of the "law", which is man.

The "laws" of physics are based on our observations. They are not like legislation. They just encapsulate parts of our understanding of the world. If we ever find exceptions to the known laws, then the laws will have to change. That's one of the good things about science - it is self-correcting.

MacM:

It's a good idea to understand Newtonian gravity before tackling General Relativity, don't you think?

What I think is it is not appropriate for others to cast innuendos about someone for refering to the force of gravity by claiming GR and that gravity is not a force but then themselves arbitrarily chose to refer to the force of gravity because it suits the moment. :D

Alternatively, it is possible that the big bang didn't create energy either - it might have already been there. We don't know yet.

Magnets provide free energy, so I'm sure the energy was there already.

Magnetism is one of the fundamental forces which we know the most about, actually.

Not good enough.

I guess they made a mistake.

How can they be so stupid?

But I've always liked magnets, so I know that I can build a perpetual motion machine with them. Later, when I have time, I'm gonna buy some neodym magnets and build one.

Don't feel too bad when it dosen't work.

How can they be so stupid?

Well if they're right, then this would mean that all the scientists in the world are stupid.. I guess thats more probable, then the website being wrong.. :rolleyes:

But I've always liked magnets, so I know that I can build a perpetual motion machine with them. Later, when I have time, I'm gonna buy some neodym magnets and build one.

You'd better get lots of them, so you can build a reeealy big one.. This way you could probably provide enough energy for the entire world.. You will probably be known as the smartest guy in the world, because no-one else before you has ever tried, or even thought of this.. :cool:

i don't fel bad about it. i'll make ine. and there'll come others who'll make too, later after some years, maybe centuries.... and there... they knew there were... in egypt... they had machines likee this... that i'm gonnay... build...

Let the books balance some where on the other side of the universe

You don't think statistics will spoil that idea?

How could energy come from nothingness? Doesn't that violate the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?
BB comes from the answer to a creationist alternative. In the zeal to provide an alternative answer scientists (they are attempting to replace the priest) conjur up a response using esoteric mathematical models. This requires a complete and total violation of all the laws of physics. The BB Theory has an "infaltionery period". This is where the universe doubles in size many, many orders of magnitude all in a time of approximately 10^-34 seconds. This inflation requires that gravity pushes instead of sucking. The expansion is not through the motion of the mass of the universe, it is the space between mass particles that expanded. This requires space to be an object of reality as commion as baseballs i.e. with mechanical properties. Space has never been isolated in any laboratory, yet it is seen all over the surface of theoretical physicists papers that they scratch on.



It's because they don't know what "magnetism" is.

Correct, but they will never confess such ignorance. The quantum mechanical models used by the current generation of scientists is critically void in inclusion of nonolocal forces which magnetism is a good example. Magnetisim appears when a time varying electric field is manifest. The earth's magnetic field is only inferred when the compass needle return to the north after being perturbed, but the continuous existence of the field in the absence of magnetized "needles" is implied and therefore no need is shown to dig into the nonlocal reality that is manifestly as real as sunsets.




I thought it would be the opposite. However, I don't know if the spinning itself has anything to do with the strength of a planet's gravity. It's kind of natural that the gravity is stronger on planets with more mass.
James R gave the standard model answer, but gravity, so obvious right(?), is the least understood of forces.

Consider the forces observed in so called 'conservation of angular momentum experiments'. The Sun's mass is 1000 times the mass of he planets yet provides only 1% (and change) to the total angular momentum of the solar system.

Angular momentum forces must be an integral and crucial atribute of the resulting trajectiory and motion of the solar system.





[edited out Yorda's link]
I have a feeling that people are too consumed with "laws" they have set, in the same way as with religious laws, they think the laws are always right and more important than the source of the "law", which is man.'

There has been a continuous sliding away from pure religious descriptions of creation when the scientist and priest wore the same hat. The scientist is nothing more than the neo-priest with his religious prophecy in the form of mathematical scribbling.

We were all born into a world of competing theories about the totallity of it all, each theory being presented by a different priest all too willing to educate the naive and innocent to the reality of 'what is'. One picks and chooses her or his own priests, some become their own seers into the unknown that is the vastness of our universe.

You should read http://www.hatem.com/atomsuite.htm

Be your own lantern Yorda, and always be cognizant of a very basic and ancient principal of life force when dealing with priestly and authroitarian demands for conformity:
"Non et tu illegitimus carborundum", (don't let the bastards grind you down).

Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel,

You are the biggest fool I have ever run across. You have taken the concept of intellectual non-conformity to incredible heights of absolute stupidity. Your post speaks for itself. You wallow gleefully in a pit of ignorance, and will never contribute a damn thing to any intellectual pursuit. Your posts clearly show that you have chosen the priest of stupidity as your guide.

Yes, Yorda, be your own lamp and see this bufoon for what he is.

Why don't you post in the pseudoscience forum? You should have many friends there.

Disrespectfully, SL.

MacM:

What I think is it is not appropriate for others to cast innuendos about someone for refering to the force of gravity by claiming GR and that gravity is not a force but then themselves arbitrarily chose to refer to the force of gravity because it suits the moment.

I don't know why you're getting all defensive, MacM. I haven't attacked you.


Yorda:

I encourage you to try to build a perpetual motion machine using magnets. You'll learn a lot in the process. Good luck!


Geistkiesel:

BB comes from the answer to a creationist alternative.

Er... no. Creationism is not something physicists spend much time worrying about.

In the zeal to provide an alternative answer scientists (they are attempting to replace the priest) conjur up a response using esoteric mathematical models.

Actually, the vague idea came first. The maths followed to see if the idea was any good. That's how physics works.

This requires a complete and total violation of all the laws of physics.

Which laws, in particular?

The BB Theory has an "infaltionery period". This is where the universe doubles in size many, many orders of magnitude all in a time of approximately 10^-34 seconds. This inflation requires that gravity pushes instead of sucking. The expansion is not through the motion of the mass of the universe, it is the space between mass particles that expanded.

More or less correct...

This requires space to be an object of reality as commion as baseballs i.e. with mechanical properties.

This is incorrect. Space doesn't have mechanical properties.

The quantum mechanical models used by the current generation of scientists is critically void in inclusion of nonolocal forces which magnetism is a good example.

The magnetic force is not non-local in the standard model. It is mediated by photons.

Angular momentum forces must be an integral and crucial atribute of the resulting trajectiory and motion of the solar system.

What is an "angular momentum force"? I am unfamiliar with the concept.

The scientist is nothing more than the neo-priest with his religious prophecy in the form of mathematical scribbling.

You obviously know little about science. Perhaps you ought to do some reading on the differences between science and religion.

MacM:

I don't know why you're getting all defensive, MacM. I haven't attacked you.

I'm not. Just giving a friendly reminder since you apparently have forgotten that you did infact berate me months ago when I talked about the force of gravity and you gave me a lecture about not knowing physics. That gravity was caused by GR and that in GR gravity is not a force. :D

MacM:

I'm not. Just giving a friendly reminder since you apparently have forgotten that you did infact berate me months ago when I talked about the force of gravity and you gave me a lecture about not knowing physics. That gravity was caused by GR and that in GR gravity is not a force.

Presumably, that must have been in the context of a discussion about relativity.

Let's clear this up for you.

In general relativity, gravity is not a force, but an apparent effect of curved spacetime. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. The results of GR, in a suitable approximation, duplicate the results of Newtonian mechanics. However, the Newtonian picture of gravity can be shown to fail in certain circumstances, in which case the full apparatus of general relativity becomes necessary.

Just as classical mechanics is a subset of quantum physics in the appropriate limit, so too is Newtonian gravity a subset of general relativity, in the appropriate limit.

Clear?

MacM:



Presumably, that must have been in the context of a discussion about relativity.

Let's clear this up for you.

In general relativity, gravity is not a force, but an apparent effect of curved spacetime. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. The results of GR, in a suitable approximation, duplicate the results of Newtonian mechanics. However, the Newtonian picture of gravity can be shown to fail in certain circumstances, in which case the full apparatus of general relativity becomes necessary.

Just as classical mechanics is a subset of quantum physics in the appropriate limit, so too is Newtonian gravity a subset of general relativity, in the appropriate limit.

Clear?

No arguement with your presentation. It was however your impostion of GR into a general discussion about gravity where yo objected to refering to it as a force. I must remind you that GR is also only a theory and it too doesn't seem to hold true at the QM level, nor for that matter even at the galatic level since it requieres made up AD HOC 5 times as much mass than we actually can account for. Nor does GR account for the accelerating expansion of the universe. So I don't find ot appropraite to only discuss gravity in GR terms. If one is discussing Relativity then certinaly one must refer to GR.

It was however your impostion of GR into a general discussion about gravity where yo objected to refering to it as a force.

If you're talking about the GR model, then gravity isn't a force.

I must remind you that GR is also only a theory and it too doesn't seem to hold true at the QM level, nor for that matter even at the galatic level since it requieres made up AD HOC 5 times as much mass than we actually can account for.

Every statement worth anything in science is "only a theory". That is neither here nor there.

GR doesn't apply at the quantum level. Attempting to apply it there is just wrong. And just about every physicist is well aware of that.

The "dark matter" problem is a question, not a solution. I think you're mixing up the two. People are currently looking for the answer. It is far from clear that the problem is GR. That's just your prejudice coming out.

Nor does GR account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

It was only in light of GR that such models even came to be considered in the first place.

So I don't find ot appropraite to only discuss gravity in GR terms.

You're right. GR isn't always necessary. Which is why I didn't mention it in this thread, originally. It was only you who thought it necessary to bring it up.

If you're talking about the GR model, then gravity isn't a force.

I have no disagreement. My point was when this occured the discussion was generally about gravity and not specifically about GR. It was your nature to interject GR and being the only valid view.

GR doesn't apply at the quantum level. Attempting to apply it there is just wrong. And just about every physicist is well aware of that.

I simply pointed out that GR has limits and is not an all inclusive theory of everything.

The "dark matter" problem is a question, not a solution. I think you're mixing up the two. People are currently looking for the answer. It is far from clear that the problem is GR. That's just your prejudice coming out.

No prejudice on my part. I merely point out for GR to be correct Dark Matter" MUST be a reality. Since it is AD HOC that leaves GR questionable as a description of gravity.

It was only in light of GR that such models even came to be considered in the first place.

I question that. On the macroscopic scale (galatic) what is the differance between GR and Newton?

You're right. GR isn't always necessary. Which is why I didn't mention it in this thread, originally. It was only you who thought it necessary to bring it up.

Just keeping the record straight. So the next time I refer to the force of gravity (and I am not specifically discussing GR) are you going to again interject innuendo that I don't know what I am talking about and that gravity is not a force. If so then I will once again interject this reminder when you do likewise.

I hope you see my point. While I or some other poster are put down for making a comment about the force of gravity, you do it when you chose to do so. That has been my point.

Unless you wish to continue this, I have had my say. :D

MacM,

I simply pointed out that GR has limits and is not an all inclusive theory of everything.

Then I agree with you.

No prejudice on my part. I merely point out for GR to be correct Dark Matter" MUST be a reality. Since it is AD HOC that leaves GR questionable as a description of gravity.

It leaves Newtonian mechanics equally questionable. Do you have a better explanation?

I question that. On the macroscopic scale (galatic) what is the differance between GR and Newton?

Well, for a start, Newton can't explain the Hubble expansion.

Just keeping the record straight. So the next time I refer to the force of gravity (and I am not specifically discussing GR) are you going to again interject innuendo that I don't know what I am talking about and that gravity is not a force.

I don't believe I have ever done that.

While I or some other poster are put down for making a comment about the force of gravity, you do it when you chose to do so. That has been my point.

I dispute this. But I'm really not interested in pursuing it. Are you?

No Yorda. There is no perpetual anything. Only perpetual confusion. In order to extract energy from a magnetic system, the two magnets have to be separated. Assume they start this way and let's ignore how they got there. The magnets move toward each other, and you can get some work out of this, but only once. To get more work,you have to expend energy to get the magnets apart again. You will always find yourself expending more energy getting them apart, than you can get out of them by letting them move together. Most losses show up as heat loss.

1) There's no free lunch
2) You can't even break even
3) You can't get out of the game
Yorda,
This post is not totally accurate. Your two magnets drawn to each other do work as they approach. By neutralizing the poles of just one magnet the elevated velocity of the magnets will result in their separation work free, a least up to a point. This would depend on the absolute velocity achieved by each which we assume is equal. The magnets, in short would seaparate by themselves. Those that preach dogma like the above never have anything to offer in the way of proof, smug assuredness being the observed exception of course. Have you noticed this also?
Consider this in the next step of your system deisgn. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3973&stc=1)

Geistkiesel

By neutralizing the poles of just one magnet the elevated velocity of the magnets will result in their separation work free, a least up to a point.

You've ignored the fact that to neutralise the poles would, itself, require an extra energy input from somewhere.

Hmmm... "Geistkiesel"... Is that German for "clown"? FL* (Free Lunch) system! I'm rollin' on the floor. Have you tried standup comedy?

The proof is, guys, that:

1) It's theoretically impossible based on the most fundamentally observed phenomena in the universe (thermodynamic conservation laws)

2) Despite that, it's been tried thousands of times in thousands of different ways!

There's no dogma here. Not only can't it work, it dosen't work! Really!

MacM,

It leaves Newtonian mechanics equally questionable. Do you have a better explanation?

HeHe. Do you really expect me to say yes or no?

Well, for a start, Newton can't explain the Hubble expansion.

My question was more limited to the galatic star rotational velocity issue.

I dispute this. But I'm really not interested in pursuing it. Are you?

No.

it is very much amusing to look at all of you in this thread on each other's comments on the subject topic u guys are debating on. what i am perplexed with is that most of the debating going on is not very much related to the thread topic on Energy from Nothingness. of course, a few of you guys have touched on the topic, stating that energy could not have been created from nothing, i.e the universe could not have just appeared from emptyness?

i may not know much on physics and the bulk of its laws but what i understand from my other sources of information is that 2 beams of super concentrated energy collided in the velvet backdrop of space and thus created everything that we see today, the 4 major forces; from the governing SuperForce came about a Strong Force, a Weak Force, Gravity and Electromagnetism, all mass and energy. i have also read from somewhere that according to our Father of Science's all famous equation of E=mc^2, that mass is concentrated energy in itself. that is to say that mass is a type of energy. if this were true, then all of the mass in the universe put together combined with the energy in the universe had to come from the collision of the giant energy beams. following the principal of conservation of energy, all this energy in the universe, existing and mass, had to be part of the combined amount of energy within the 2 beams. realistically, all of that energy could not have completely been converted into the energy we have now and the combined mass of the universe, i.e some of it was converted into energy that caused the Big Bang and the overall expansion of the universe since planck time (10^-43 seconds). at the time of planck time, the temperature of the universe was billions upon billions of degrees hot, and this enormous amount of heat energy was brought to the low we have now in the universe because of the (until now) exponential expansion of it due to the heat being uniformly distributed throughout the massive size of the universe.

if we were to take all of this into consideration, then the amount of energy that allowed the occurance of the Big Bang must have been really really huge!! then, at this point, you cant really say that energy, in all its great forms, was created from nothingness.

anything wrong in what i have said, plz enlighten me. like i said, i do not delve into any of the fields of physics in great detail and it is only the subject that interests me.

thanks

Hum,
I sense the force is strong in this one.

You missed out the matter/antimatter annihilation and the bit about higgs bosons decaying on the surface of false vacuums right at the start.

But, spot on…

Separated magnets already have potential energy when separated, which is converted to kinetic energy as they attract each other.

This leads me to an interesting thought experiment. You have considered the case where they fall together with their norths along the same direction and axis so that they come together with opposite poles facing each other. If instead you considered them comming together with their same poles facing each other they would have repelled and lost kinetic energy as they came together or else you would have to have done work on the system to bring them together. Potential energy is a function of position only and as such can not describe this scenario. He actually turns out to be right (sort of) that this can be used to make a kind of perpetual motion machine. However, the magnets will demagnetise in the process as the energy of their magnetic feilds will ultimately be where the working energy will come from. Here is a simple perpetual motion machine set up:
Fix a magnet north up on a table top. Fix a sort of eliptical plastic tube virtically above it which guides a magnet so that when it falls down south is down and when it rises north is down. You should see that through the entire cycle except at the very top and bottom points it is accelerated faster and faster by the other magnet. This does indeed work as a perpetual motion machine at least untill they demagnetise.

Fix a magnet north up on a table top. Fix a sort of eliptical plastic tube virtically above it which guides a magnet so that when it falls down south is down and when it rises north is down. You should see that through the entire cycle except at the very top and bottom points it is accelerated faster and faster by the other magnet. This does indeed work as a perpetual motion machine at least untill they demagnetise.

Or until you consider the dynamics of the transition from north up/down to south up/down.

Or until you consider the dynamics of the transition from north up/down to south up/down.
No, ignoring friction there is nothing to interfer with the perpetual acceleration there. If there was no friction the magnet in the tube would continue to make the loops faster and faster until it is demagnetised as the kinetic energy comes from the magnetic fields. Also it doesn't have to even be virticle, I just set it up that way so one could imagine droping in the magnet at a hole from the top and as I think it would be easy to actually build that way. In practice rather than in frictionless vacuum thought the period of the loops will minimize out due to friction and then will get longer as they demagnetise working against the friction.

No, ignoring friction there is nothing to interfer with the perpetual acceleration there.

Your say so is good enough for me to ignore the dynamics of the magnetic field during the near transition of your system. I doubt nature is as kind. Take care.

blobrana refering to my post?
anyhoo, the part about matter-antimatter annilation and all that wouldt really fit into what i have said... it just supports my point that they were created and didnt appear from nowhere

Hum,
Yeah, no big deal not including the violation of CPT invariance of matter antimatter.
The reason for the excess of matter over antimatter in our universe is incidental.

Yorda
>> All forces are consequences of only one force: the magnetic force. >>

One is split into two....

we see electrons... electric spinning (motion), static circulation
we see static magnets fields, static circulation
we see electric currents, dynamic circulation

Now the electric currents are induced by motion of magnetic fields
and the motion of static electric fields induce opposing magnetic fields. (see Lenz's Law)

So there is a harmonic relation between magnetic forces, motion and electric forces...
For a body in motion there is no magnetic field without an electric field and no electric field without a magnetic field.

The magnetic and the electric energy do not exist in isolation. They should be modeled as a Poynting energy vector where the two energy flows are orthogonal (at right angles to each other).

Light has (for example) and up magnetic field, an across electric field, and a resultant.. the transverse propagation of the wave.... forward.
[model here in 3D, using the right hand rule to show vector directions]

Such is gravity, matter has a crossed magnetic and electric energy flow around it, that results in a resultant towards the centre.... you call gravity

If you include electric energy as well as magnetic energy in your theories re the Universe, then the models you conceive will be much more robust and predictive.

Here is a simple perpetual motion machine set up:
Fix a magnet north up on a table top. Fix a sort of eliptical plastic tube virtically above it which guides a magnet so that when it falls down south is down and when it rises north is down. You should see that through the entire cycle except at the very top and bottom points it is accelerated faster and faster by the other magnet. This does indeed work as a perpetual motion machine at least untill they demagnetise.
Forgive my skepticism, but have you actually tried this yourself?

I think the demagnetising idea is a red-herring to make it appear that you're not violating the conservation of energy. The magnetism of a permanent magnet is not a source of energy - you can't extract energy by demagnetizing it.

No, ignoring friction there is nothing to interfer with the perpetual acceleration there
Sure there is - turning the magnet from South-down to North-down takes work.

Sure there is - turning the magnet from South-down to North-down takes work.
No it doesn't take work at the top where it is far away and at the bottom the work does not depend on how far up you had released it. So release it from far away and you will see that it does not match the work the fields do in accelerating it. Plus work done by torque and angular displacement does not effect translation.

at the bottom the work does not depend on how far up you had released it.
OK, that's progress. So now the question is whether the work gained from running the magnet up and down can exceed the work required to turn the magnet, right?
I'd be surprised if it can, but I don't know for sure. Let me think, and see if I can come up with some sort of quantitative analysis.

So release it from far away and you will see that it does not match the work the fields do in accelerating it.
Well no, I don't see it. I don't think you can get aribtrary energy in by releasing from arbitrarily far away - the field strength drops off pretty quickly, doesn't it?

Out of interest, where did you get the idea from in the first place? Is it your own idea? Did you read it somewhere?

Trilairian:

Fix a magnet north up on a table top. Fix a sort of eliptical plastic tube virtically above it which guides a magnet so that when it falls down south is down and when it rises north is down. You should see that through the entire cycle except at the very top and bottom points it is accelerated faster and faster by the other magnet. This does indeed work as a perpetual motion machine at least untill they demagnetise.

From your description, I don't get a clear picture of how this is supposed to work.

What happens when the moving magnet goes past the stationary magnet, in its loop?

OK, that's progress. So now the question is whether the work gained from running the magnet up and down can exceed the work required to turn the magnet, right?Actually it turns out that it doesn't matter how they compare because work from torque does not effect translation.
Well no, I don't see it. I don't think you can get aribtrary energy in by releasing from arbitrarily far awayI didn't say it would be arbitrary, just that it is not equal.

Trilairian:



From your description, I don't get a clear picture of how this is supposed to work.

What happens when the moving magnet goes past the stationary magnet, in its loop?
It turns around.
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/osiris_dionysus1618/pmmach.GIF" WIDTH=404 HEIGHT=363>

Actually it turns out that it doesn't matter how they compare because work from torque does not effect translation.
The work performed in turning the magnet against the field must come from its kinetic energy, yes?
In force terms, I think that as the track pushes the magnet out of line with the magnetic field, the field exerts a force which pushes the back of the magnet upward. This force has a component opposing the magnet's motion.
I didn't say it would be arbitrary, just that it is not equal.
OK, I don't see that the energy gain in releasing the magnet from far away could exceed the energy lost in turning the magnet.


Here's an interesting question - does the energy required to turn the small magnet depend on its speed? I have a vague notion that it does, but I don't have the theory to support it.

The work performed in turning the magnet against the field must come from its kinetic energy, yes?
In force terms, I think that as the track pushes the magnet out of line with the magnetic field, the field exerts a force which pushes the back of the magnet upward. This force has a component opposing the magnet's motion.
Even if it does slow it down which I don't see happening, it doesn't matter because the two works are not equal and so the system is still not conservative if you don't consider a change in magnetic field strength as that field contains energy.
OK, I don't see that the energy gain in releasing the magnet from far away could exceed the energy lost in turning the magnet.Even if you turned out to be right that it didn't exceed the amount you would still have a nonconservative system as the two works arent equal unless you were exchanging energy with the magnetic field as I assert. The energy of the magnetic fields actually accounts for the variations in the magnets kinetic energy, not and kind of potential.
Here's an interesting question - does the energy required to turn the small magnet depend on its speed? I have a vague notion that it does, but I don't have the theory to support it.No. The torque is given only by the location and orientation of the turning magnet and the work is only the integral of the torque with respect to angular displacement.

I thought of a better set up that eliminates the question of work at the turn. Instead of following the loop as above transport the small magnet strait down inside the base magnet until it no longer experiences a force at that location it bounces off bottom of the hole in a little bubble given enough width there for the little magnet to turn. With the magnetic moments initially parallel the torque due to the base magnet will actually help turn the little magnet instead of oppose the turn so that it will flip in the bubble. It then continues to accelerate back up the virticle shaft and to assist the turn at the top one can put another manget there like at the bottom. Here is the new improved ppm machine design done horizontally so gravity can be ignored.
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/osiris_dionysus1618/ppmmach2.GIF" WIDTH=640 HEIGHT=512>

What about friction on the walls?


And it still requires work to turn the magnet...

What about friction on the walls?Neglect it if you like.
And it still requires work to turn the magnet...Nope. Where it turns now the magnetic fields actually force the turn. The turn itself is energy productive now. If you don't consider the energy of the collapsing magnetic fields this system is not conservative.

In the tube arrangement two posts above this one, there's no reason the magnet would turn. It would simply sit at one end or the other of the apparatus.

Even if it does slow it down which I don't see happening
Think about it. The magnet won't turn on its own. The magnetic field won't turn it (it opposes the turn). Where does the energy come from to turn it? There's not other source except the magnet's kinetic energy, so it must slow down.

it doesn't matter because the two works are not equal
Which do you think is greater, and why?
Have you done a proper analysis, or are you guessing?

With the magnetic moments initially parallel the torque due to the base magnet will actually help turn the little magnet instead of oppose the turn so that it will flip in the bubble.
I really don't think you've thought this through. Think about the field lines in the cavity. Remember that the small magnet "wants" to be aligned with that field.

No Yorda. There is no perpetual anything. Only perpetual confusion. In order to extract energy from a magnetic system, the two magnets have to be separated. Assume they start this way and let's ignore how they got there. The magnets move toward each other, and you can get some work out of this, but only once. To get more work,you have to expend energy to get the magnets apart again. You will always find yourself expending more energy getting them apart, than you can get out of them by letting them move together. Most losses show up as heat loss.

1) There's no free lunch
2) You can't even break even
3) You can't get out of the game

Overunity is the answer, Yes it exists, it may even buy you a free lunch.

http://members.aol.com/jnaudin509/images/weblinks.htm

http://www.stardrivedevice.com/power_plant.html?source=overture#over-unity&OVRAW=overunity&OVKEY=over%20unity&OVMTC=standard

Is it true that energy can't be created from nothingness? But if we have two magnets in space, they don't consume any kind of energy when they move to each other. They decide by themselves, they create their own energy, because they only try to reach their original state of being - more unity. I think it would be possible to create perpetual energy with magnets, or it has probably already been done.

It can be done and probably already has been done.