The true perpetual motion machines

wind is not perpetual motion
the energy needed to produce it comes from the sun
the sun will eventually die.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time. - From an online dictionary

The life of the sun is undefined. We can argue semantics and play off technicalities all day, but I assume most people here know more than one definition of most words as do I. So in that definition, yes, it is a PPM. If your definition is infinity, of course, it isn't. Where else can you find fault in my statement? Did I misspell a word? Use improper punctuation? Use a word in which another meaning can be ensued?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're assuming that an external space is statically allocated to the universe in this model, but there is no external space to allocate.

No, the universe doesn't expand into anything. It just gets bigger. The actual space-time continuum in which we live increases in girth.

I don't know about the universe being pressurized, per se. It seems to be a meaningless notion to me, but maybe someone can calculate it. It would be very close to zero, I imagine.

That's right. The universe is both finite and expanding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics. No genuine perpetual motion machine currently exists, and according to certain fundamental laws in physics they cannot exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine

 

There you have it, need I even have to debate that? Finite and expanding are states which negate each other. Infinite is the same as expanding, supposedly in a 3D realm, both inwardly and outwardly. There has to be a canvas in which the infinite can exist in an infinite state. Therefore, there is something outside this universe. And this universe as I see it is like a spherical pressurized globe. And I assure you as there is light in the day that the universe has pressure. Pressure equals energy. Energy equals pressure, a pressing force exerting on other objects. And as there is energy in gravity, magnetism, etc to press against other forces, there is pressure. I don't know how you can get any more laymens than that. Maybe I could but this is a physics forum, surely you can comprehend that.

The universe doesn't expand into anything yet it expands (increases in girth)? So it expands into nothing? Again, why do I even waste my time? If you don't know, just say so I don't have to defend my theory against unthought-out, misunderstood, or deceptive ideas.

 

You really haven't seriously studied physics at all, have you? Someone with a high school education in physics would be able to tell that what you're spouting is nonsense. I tried - really, I did - but you and I are just not speaking the same language. You seem to have your own vocabulary for talking about these things, and it just doesn't mesh with established theory.

Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And let's leave it at that.

 

Let's just consider this one for those who believe a finite universe cannot expand: it only expands relative to those who are in the universe. If viewed from outside the universe in sort of a bubble fashion we are indeed getting smaller, thus increasing the relative distance from one another. This would explain everything.

 

Perhaps our universe is within another universe... Like think of a plane universe shaped like a sphere.. the plane universe is in a 3D universe.. and that this plane is expanding (expanding sphere) in the 3D universe that is a 4-sphere.. also expanind in a 5-sphere.. ect... :bugeye:

 

I looked at that, went through it, found nothing that was new. Again, my statement cannot be refuted unless we changed the laws of physics in which it is based on. Infinity cannot be blocked in or bordered. And pressure equals energy. Instead of debating with childish mocking, quoting other texts, and just saying someone is wrong without no backing to claim it, then why don't you think for yourself and put everything all into perspective as I do. Again, if you can refute the 2 principles stated above with 'real' physics and not magic or theories, then let's just leave it at that.

 

yes there is cos the expansion goes faster and faster.

lol we're talking physics here and you start talking about animals!

 

Yet at the same time, pressure is decreased. So no more work is done. In the initial big bang reaction, all the work required to make it happen, happened initially. So are you saying there is a God pushing the universe faster? Creating more energy? Or that new energy is just being created somewhere, we don't know where, and pushing us and all faster and faster? We're not speaking of magic here, we're speaking of physics.

Edit: Yes, I know, just because it's unexplained or unknown doesn't make it magic. Just a term I like to use since some call the theory of God 'magic' in the religion forum.

 

But the expansion doesn't exist. It is merely "creating" (for the lack of a better word) more vacuum which by its very definition is "nothing"

It's a phrase

 

OK, so you have no explanation for how you would make magnets work for you, and don't understand conservative energy fields.

So, we've established I'm funny, and that you are lacking an educaton.

Quite a productive thread then!

 

Actually, pressure equals force over area, which is not the same as energy. Pressure requires energy, but pressure itself is just a ratio to express how much normal force is exerted per unit of area. In this way, you could use a barometer to measure the pressure of a certain area of space - and in this sense the universe is "pressurized" - but there is no wall at the end of the universe keeping it in.

But again, since we seem to be using two different vocabularies (and you're ostensibly more concerned with semantics and thought experiments than physics) we'll just drop this whole debate and let the thread pursue its topic.

 

yesssss!!!!! the universe coming closer to the goal/source that's why it goes faster, like if you come closer to a planet!

but the energy is not created somewhere, it's created nowhere!

if it's nothing, it does not exist, and nothing could exist in it!

what a stupid phrase, perpetual motion machines aren't animals!
!!!!!!

 

Semantics, look who's arguing semantics. Yes, pressure requires energy, I know, that is what arguing semantics is. And pressure has to have a barrier to contain the energy. You know energy really is mass, right? Particles exerting forces against other particles. There is a barrier of other particles to contain the energy of particles. There always has to be a barrier to keep in pressure. If that is not a law, then it is a law in my book, I will make it my own law. Mass is the container of energy. To have mass is to contain energy. It is somewhat related to my law of opposites. If one doesn't exist, there is no purpose for the other to exist. This is not thought experiments, this is well known knowledge which is collaborated. Vibration/movement=force=mass. Energy has to be contained. Even if it is contained in a seeming unforseeable barrier. Take nitroglycerin, for instance, it needs no pressurized container to reach the pressure it needs to explode because it explodes so fast, with such force, that the thinner air molecules around it contain it well enough to explode. We may see no barrier, or no container, but there is. It is air. Just as the universe is exploding so fast, we may not see or sense a container, but it's there, it contains the forces of the universe. And I will not stop replying until my theories can be rebuked by you or anyone else using known physics. I stand for the truth and won't let the truth be put down unless I feel I'm proved wrong, then I will put it down myself.

 

Actually, nitroglycerine does need some kind of containment or it won't explode. Black powder would be a better example, or plastic explosives.

Pressure is the result of many molecules and atoms moving around a given area. Those molecules and atoms usually move at speeds slow enough that the local solar system, the local star cluster, galaxy, or galactic cluster keeps them within a certain range by gravitational attraction. Gravity is the container.

 

I agree the universe may be separating infinitely faster as you do, it's the semantics of it is what I don't agree with. You think it's an unknown force apparently, I say it's a decrease in pressure on the outside of the universe and an increase in pressure on the inside of the universe. Just as I was discussing earlier, in the way high explosives detonate. The universe is infinitely expanding because it has a substrate, it places an infinite pressure on it's sub-particles.

 

You ever made a pipe bomb as a kid with CO2 containers? I never did as a kid but late teens. Look here , nitro needs no container. Black powder does as far as I can recall. Plastic explosives, no, they don't which, if I'm not mistaken, are derived from nitro.

You're looking at the broad aspect. I'm looking sub-particle level. And by no means does pressurized particles move slow, pressure is force. These particles push back with as much force as they're being pushed with. They move at the same speed. When you compress air, sure, it gets hotter and the molecules seem to speed up. But it is because of the pressure exerted on them to make them exert back with force, just as with magnets. They do no work. They only work in as much force as which is applied to them. It takes work to compress and you get your work back when they compress and push back. Gravity in itself is not the container. In a whole, you're right, but it is pressure that is the container. Gravity creates pressure since it is energy after all. Well, I could go into more semantics but let's just agree on that.

 

I could go on about it, but plastic explosives are not derived from nitro, black powder does explode when heated even without containment, and nitro explodes much more reliably when hit with a shockwave than when heated.

Gravity is not energy. It can be the medium for the transfer of energy but it is not energy and it doesn't have to be. When a particle attempts to escape from a gravity well gravity transfers some of its energy back to the gravitational source.

Funny thing is that the particle, when it fails to escape, does not have the same kinetic energy that it started with when it falls back down to the level that it came from. The sign is reversed. The absolute quantity is the same but the difference between the kinetic energy that it started with and the kinetic energy it ends up with is twice the energy that it started with. Wierd, isn't it?