Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 8, 2020.

  1. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    as per mr. penrose's twister theory was it, idk equilibrium of heat when attained is the start of universe.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    since the velocity has opposite direction the momentum is also opposite and thus they cancel each other like wave. when i think about it as per equilibrium law the universe as a whole should be sphere. from in to out diffferent energy level so when heat is made it travels from in to out but the gravity transform it into mass and perpetual cycle begins. if we were to capture quantum fluctuation over time i do think it is possible in theory. or catch vitual particle and seperate it in poket dimension and when enengy is needed convert mass into energy....lol
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    velocity is a field itself in GR. so i think the energy is transformed into heat to quantum to field energy since universe is a whole field.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    absolute zero because surrounding energy is such that the minimum energy state is in equilibrium with its surrounding. if we were to talk about zero energy in system there is still zero there. so in math.0=+1-1. if we design such that one of these one particle decay faster than the other one. i.e. there is fault in (what) symmetry. then we can say something was made from nothing. just consider the idea and have fun with it. another thing i am starting to go crazy like socrates, if we consider our memory to be energy in some dimension.lol should have posted on psuedo science but the idea was hilarious.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just a note:
    There is some confusion in many fields as to what exactly energy is.
    Some seem to imply it to be a "substance" of some sort when really it is only a property or an attribute of potential to do work.
    In the ship with two opposing thruster's scenario there is a heap of energy being applied yet no increase in potential for the ship to do work.
    And thus at first glance one could say that the energy is not conserved.
    I am confident there is a solution but I have yet to find one...
     
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,230
    Yes, Jaffe's alternative formulation of the Casimir effect in terms of London dispersion forces seems to be still regarded as good science, so far as I can see. Where this leaves the QFT version I am not sure. Some sources appear to suggest they are simply alternative mathematical formulations that express the same thing, but I can't really follow that.
     
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  10. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Neither can I. The numerical results are iirc identical for the idealized case of perfectly conducting parallel plates, but not sure if that extends to lossy media etc.
    At any rate, the two approaches are conceptually quite distinct. If each yielded 50% of the observed values one could be happy with a synthesis, but that's not the case. Choose a side!
     
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  11. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    lets dicuss this in another post..i have idea about gravity now it more clearer
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,230
    Well, I am a chemist, so you can guess which side I prefer.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  13. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,230
    Something wrong with this video. It keeps jumping. Doesn't look like an original unedited talk to me.

    Also it is not clear why it is relevant to include a 10 minute talk on the nature of energy in this thread.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,485
    I agreed with you. The ship is not accelerating in your first case.
    Why are you ignoring the momentum of the exhaust? The system we are referring to is the ship AND ITS EXHAUST. Within that system, both energy and momentum are conserved. That's how rockets work.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and you probably wonder why I and others are confused...
    edit: I just re-read the relevant posts and can see how it got confused. Sorry about that.
    and why are you ignoring the lack of momentum of the ship that would other wise be present.

    btw I Accept that you may have off offered, in part, a solution..
    In that the loss of potential momentum of the ship is taken up by an increase in momentum of the rocket output (exhaust)
    However I doubt if the math were done that this would fully solve the issue...because effort is being applied on the ship by the rockets and that effort is not being converted in to mass *velocity (Momentum.)

    Unless of course you deny that energy is being applied to the ship.

    perhaps considering:
    Energy balancing to equilibrium may be relevant. ( thermodynamic equilibrium)
    Massive entropy
    0=x-x

    >---(0)---<
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2020
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    billvon,
    I think with your help we have solved this damn puzzle that has been going on in my head for ages... thanks...
    The solution is actually quite simple.
    Remove the ship for the equation.
    and just have two rockets facing each other.
    x + (-x) = 0
    thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved thus zero momentum ...
    Yes?
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    typically energy is a potential and so is time.
    Does that mean that axiomatically energy IS time?
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,485
    Because you added a second rocket with your example. The momentum balances because the second rocket generates a tremendous amount of momentum in the other direction.

    Single rocket? The momentum of the exhaust is balanced by the motion of the rocket. 1/2MV^2 = 1/2M^2. The rocket has high mass and low speed; the exhaust has low mass and high speed. They balance.
    Two rockets opposing each other? The momentum of the exhaust is balanced by the momentum of the other exhaust. 1/2MV^2 = 1/2M^2. They balance.

    It does balance, perfectly.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    yeah... it does... however I arrived at the conclusion of equilibrium from a different tact.
    thanks to you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The vector of the energy applied by the opposing thruster's travels to through the ship and hit head on neutralizing in the way adding 1 +(-)1 does. Thus no energy is converted into momentum.
    no vector = no velocity = no momentum
    >----0----<
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    No the second rocket was to highlight the momentum that would normally be present if the thruster's were pointing in the same direction.
    here is the original gendanken:
    see?
    Sorry if I have confused you...
     
  22. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    I'd be careful about making axiomatic assertions that lack any logic. Potential energy btw is not a potential, even less so for time.
    Given the first assertions are totally wrong, the proceeding question is meaningless and at any rate also totally wrong. One need only apply basic dimensional analysis to see that.
    You seem to fare much better in the political/ideological sections and imo best to limit participation to those and similar.
    PS: Don't just take my word in respect of meaning of potential in physics:
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352901/what-is-a-potential
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    of course when it comes to discussing physics I am well out of my depth. The language of physics is probably more complex than Mandarin and probably take just as long to learn and be fluent in, however even blind Freddy can conclude that if E=0 then there is no time.
    In fact, there is nothing...at all...
    Now when I cite "time" I mean duration or length or what ever semantic you wish to apply.
    The duration of time is directly related to the energy potential in any system.
    In Fact so closely related that one could infer that energy and time are just two different words that mean the same thing.
    This links very closely to the fact that if duration of time is zero then distance is also. ( zero dimensional space)
    thus if energy is zero then distance also is zero.. Thus nothing exists.
    Axiomatic? Perhaps.
    I am confident that GR would support the above with out a problem in fact it's base premises would have to include such...

    The definition I am using for potential is akin to common use.

    1. potential
      /pə(ʊ)ˈtɛnʃ(ə)l/

      adjective
      adjective: potential
      1. having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
    the words in the future are important.

    Suffice to say (claim) that the universe exists in the present moment only because it is in the continuous process of fulfilling it's energistic potential
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020

Share This Page