Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by nwaogu, May 20, 2006.
nah, it's just magnetism
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I can assure you as there is light in the day that all particles have energy. Even particles at rest have kinetic energy to push back when pushed on. Gravity is energy. All particles which have energy. You have the concept of gravity wrong. You don't even know what composes gravity and trying to tell me what it is. I know what gravity is at the molecular> level. Of course, it gains energy when it fails to escape gravity, the energy is transferred to the object, or composition of objects, I should say, that give the gravitational field. I enjoy the arguments you proposed but we have a different view on what gravity exactly is.
It's rather hard to grasp, but while it contains nothing, it is extant "empty space" as opposed to just "blank where nothing can exist".
To reword, the universe is expanding, creating more "empty space where things can exist"
So magnetism is making the universe expand faster? Yes, I agree in a way. Magnetism, just as gravity, is made up of like and repel charges. The difference is the strength of those charges. So technically, to me, it is not magnetism but a force equal to the sum of energy within the universe. It is my theory that there is no other way for a universe to be expanding ever faster and keeping the same pressures than the universe being infinitely growing ever faster at an infinite speed and infinitely shrinking ever faster at an infinite speed. That is the only way I can theorize to maintain the law of conservation of momentum. The pressures of the infinite growing and shrinking of the universe keeps the same pressure on any given point in the universe, neither adding any or taking away.
No, you conceited dunderhead, the energy to create the wind is not perpetual, it merely lasts as long as the sun is shining on earth. Which is a finite, therefore not perpetual, time.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time. - From here .
Must I post that definition again? The sun is indefinite=undefined in the years it will last, so therefore, sun=perpetual.
Know your semantics before you argue semantics and call me a dunderhead, dunderhead.
There is a difference between indefinite and infinite. Indefinite you just dont know how long. Infinite = forever. So yes, the sun is indefinite, for you anyhow. I on the other hand know when it will burn out, so for me sun == definite.
For a perpetual motion machine to run infinitely (the definition), it would have to consume no energy. One running using the sun is not a perpetual motion machine, how about calling it an indefinite motion machine. Like the one on page 1 of this thread, with the indefinite definition.
Yup, Aristootle has it about right. So, want to lecture me on semantics, oh person of little worth?
uh gravity is made up of like and repel charges?
no no, gravity is made up of energy, and particles have energy with which they push back when pushed. It all makes sense!
So, aspatriot, care to tell us how this gravity energy is mediated or transferred?
No, I am right on the semantics. Did I lie when I said the online dictionary stated perpetual = undefined? Undefined doesn't mean infinite.
Yes, gravity as a whole is not a like and repel charge, but it is simply made up of smaller particles which consist of a like and repel charge. That's the reason it isn't as strong as magnetism. Gravity is simply a culmination of particles with like and repel charges, like the earth, but kind of clustered and not aligned like that of a magnet, hence the less strength of gravity.
What exactly is gravity? Does anyone really know? I have a theory but I want to hear your answer.
Yes, gravity is made up of energetic particles. Yes, of course, they push back when pushed. Gravity is just a culmination of these particles which are all pushing and pulling on each other. And since they are a culmination, they are, pretty much a cluster of pushing and pulling particles. And when combined together in a gravitational cluster, they exhange energy, and that energy is averaged between the particles when they come together. So imagine a huge ball of particles pushing and pulling, exerting force on each other and the particles around it. As clustered, that energy will become stronger so the net force is increased, thereby increasing it's 'gravity' or force to attract. It's better when put in lamens terms such as I stated in my theory, which is about as layman's as you can get. That way you can imagine the cluster of the particles better and how the cluster relates to clusters and other particles around it.
Nope, still doesnt make any sense. Are you saying that when you get more matter together in one spot, the gravitational attraction increases?
The last I knew, gravity is still best explained as space-time curvature due to concentration of particles of certain types, i.e what we call atoms, mad eup of neutrons, protons and electrons.
Well, what do you know, wikipedia sort of agrees with me.
Suffice to say, we know what gravity does, and we have a cuople of good, testable ideas on how it does it, we are still trying to test the more accurate ones. For example, the LIGO experiments.
I am saying that when you get more energetic matter together the gravitational attraction increases. Matter, as I see it, is all that is, including antimatter and every other kind of particle imagined because at the core, it's all just one particle, just operating at a different energy level. The energy level = the properties of the particle which of course changes it's wave that it creates. So it is interpreted as a different kind of particle. Matter is sorted in the universe according to it's energy level. High energy particles cluster to form a gravitional cluster, even if it is just two particles, while low energy particles or say, negative energy particles, if you will, do their part by, at the same time, repell the high energy particles. The planets/stars are composed of high energy particles clustered together while inbetween, the dead space, whatever kind of particles you want to call it, is low energy particles. Like heading towards the sun, the closer you get, the higher the energy of the particles you encounter. That's probably not put in my best terms but maybe it will help.
Ok, I didn't have the best punctuation going on there but it's best to imagine a universe full of particles with a pressure likened to the sea. I know, because of the properties of outer space, we don't think of pressure in the universe, but it is, just like we don't feel much pressure in the air but there is. It's varying degrees. I just imagine a sea of particles in a pressurized chamber all sorted, or attracted, by the energy in which they carry. And to clarify again, let me state, high energy particles attract the like, and repel the opposite, same with low energy particles. And there is no two states, there is varying energy levels between the states. Such as the gravity level in outer space, but close to the earth. And outer space has we know has low pressure, hence the very low energy particles in space. But light can move through it because light is a very high energy force. So high but so small a photon is, that it projects a beam through low energy particles such as space. Like a quick punch, it hits particles with a very high pressure, which speeds more particles in it's direct path, like how electricity works, somewhat.
what does all this have to do with a true perpetual motion machine?
Nothing that I can see.
Why is it that people think they can do science by sitting behind their computer imagining things?
Some of us can visualize, and some think they can but suck ass at it.
Because energy is perpetual. We are speaking of it's states and how to go about capturing it as one small, portable, infinite source, which is impossible. Now you can see that. Physics, BTW, is based off of study and research by other physicists, that's how you do science behind a computer. And when speaking of theoretical physics, it is not something you do 'in the field'.
Separate names with a comma.