The true perpetual motion machines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I think me might mean getting out a peice of paper and a pen and doing some math and logic check of your ideas instead of assuming it is correct just because it makes sense to you.,
 
As I suspected. But after very much of my own scrutiny in devising this theory for years, and trying to debunk it with physics, I've come to accept it. I believe I have the unified field theory and am willing to share my knowledge. Believe me, even as a child when most people were playing with their friends, I sat in class thinking how the universe worked. I'm not sure you have the experience to debunk my theory. You may have read a few books as I have but have you even thought for yourself, from the ground up or from the bottom up how everything works? You will always be a sheep to a book if you don't get up and study yourself. And my work is the culmination of years of thinking.
 
Sure, but then you have to propose testable hypotehses, and as far as I can make out, your hypothesis is junk.
 
The only way to test it that I know would be a complex computer model simulation. I don't see how it can be put into readable math in which one would even have time to write the formula. I would gladly pay someone to make a virtual model of my theory. Could you take a simulation of a jet airliner and put it into math? Including the visuals and all? Maybe I will have to study higher level math to figure it out so it will be easier to understand for those of you who would rather read in math than words.
 
A complex computer simulation has to be tested against something. Even the climate models are tested against data and make testtable predictions about the future. Now, what testable predictions does your theory make?
 
That the universe is infinite. Infinitely smaller and larger. That means we will not find the smallest particle there is. It is on the realm of infinity. How do you put that into math? That is one example. Like I mentioned before, how do you calculate infinite numbers? We have the turing problem again. You are familiar with that, right? That is one reason why computers can't simulate life events exactly, because you can't calculate infinity. There never will be a theory of everything put into numbers, it's scientifically impossible according to turing. Computers and math are specific. In specifics, you can't use infinity because it is numerically unspecified. That is why a unified field theory will never be able to be put on paper. Other than a description of it in words. Perhaps you can use the infinite symbol but it would be meaningless to calculate with it. Maybe some mathematician would know how to somewhat put it on paper but I can better explain it through words than math or perhaps a visual but then I wouldn't know of anyway to program the computer to simulate it since again, we have the turing problem.
 
usp8riot said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing anything, I'm just stating physical laws. Oh, and mass doesn't equal pressure (or force, for that matter) either.
 
A change in pressure = a change in mass
A change in mass = a change in pressure
And mass = energy/force
Energy/force = mass
But all of this is dependent on the forces which are acting on the specified particle. Mass=pressure, but pressure proportional to the forces acting upon the mass. If we have a high energy particle, it's mass is going to be greater of course around lower density particles and it's pressure less.
 
USP8:

can you put your unified theory into words. As one of many that can make complex models of anything, i need a description of the relationships between objects in your unified theory.

Waiting....
 
Yes, my theory is pretty much not one but a theory of the whole universe, a collection of more theories. You can argue it's not a theory since it's not put in a mathematical formula. But for one, there is no such thing as null space. In anything which is spherical in the universe has to have smaller outside forces pushing on it, such as the atom. Science seems to neglect these things. Maybe it has no use to know that, but it is important to see the universe as it really is. If you can put that into a formula, good luck. Then you would see my problem. I could also elaborate on more theories. I don't know if it's a theory or just a different way to see the universe, I just call it a theory since science hasn't established it.
 
usp8riot said:
That the universe is infinite. Infinitely smaller and larger. That means we will not find the smallest particle there is. It is on the realm of infinity. How do you put that into math?
Click to expand...
Planck length
 
You can imagine a basic algorithm for it but you can't define it. It will never be defined by human minds. Nor can it be calculated against any other number.
 
In terms of numbers, infinity is an unbounded quantity that is greater than all of the members of the reals.
 
Maybe I see what is meant on working a theory into numbers and predictions. The way I had it before was just more a thought. I have since been trying to work out how it ties into more thoeries to try to see if I can debunk it. That's a lot of work to do. To say the least, that won't be easy.
 
How do you know things don't go infinitely small? Why wouldn't they? Why would there suddenly be an indestructible "particle" or whatever?

While the planck length might be the smallest distance that has meaning to us, there is no reason to assume that the concept of space has absolutely no meaning beyond it. The Planck length is only a limit on the applicability of our ordinary notions of space and time, and it is quite arbitrary to suppose that there is nothing beyond this limit at all.

If matter is infinitely dividable, it probably means that it is illusive.

Anything which is absolutely indivisible -- whether we call it a particle of matter or a quantum of energy -- would be entirely homogeneous and inflexible. But how can something of this nature take part in interactions with other physical entities? If we apply a force to it, the force must cause deformation and be transmitted through the internal structure of the entity. But if it was truly homogeneous it would have no internal structure, there would be no deformation, and the force applied would have to pass instantaneously (infinitely fast) to the other side.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top