Volcanoes & Perpetual Motion

[Layman]

The force of gravity is more like a spring. If you stretch a spring and hold it out, it has more potential energy. Then the energy doesn't come from the spring itself. It is just that the energy you used to stretch out the spring is stored and then can be converted to pulling the spring back together. In a sense, Alan Guth is saying that a spring being stretched out has a total energy of zero just because the spring will pull back with an equal force that it was stretched with. This is simply not true, therefore the total energy of the universe is not zero, and it would have had to have been created at some point if it didn't have the God-like property of always existing.

 

[Layman]

But that is not what we were discussing. You said:

Then since gravity cannot be converted to any other form of useful energy

I supplied 2 simple examples that showed that you are completely wrong.

It would have took energy to lift the pile driver and push the soap box up the hill. It is just like the spring I mentioned. It would then have stored potential energy, and then it would be released. The energy doesn't come from gravity itself in classical physics. It comes from the energy that first counteracted the force of gravity.

 

[origin]

It would have took energy to lift the pile driver and push the soap box up the hill. It is just like the spring I mentioned. It would then have stored potential energy, and then it would be released. The energy doesn't come from gravity itself in classical physics. It comes from the energy that first counteracted the force of gravity.

Of course it takes energy to move a mass to a higher potential energy. The point is that the PE of gravity is directly converted into KE. That means of course that the gravity can be converted into another form of useful energy. That is precisely what a pile driver is telling you.

 

[Layman]

Of course it takes energy to move a mass to a higher potential energy. The point is that the PE of gravity is directly converted into KE. That means of course that the gravity can be converted into another form of useful energy. That is precisely what a pile driver is telling you.

Okay, but the only amount of PE from gravity that is converted from KE has to come from another form of energy every time. That is just the way it is in classical physics. They teach this in first year physics courses! You make it sound like there would be an infinite amount of energy that could be taken from the force of gravity. You sound like someone that promotes perpetual motion, because if energy could be taken from the force of gravity indefinitely with no outside force, then the perpetual movement of something like the volcano that I mentioned would then be possible!

I really just find it sad that you have a bad habit of disagreeing with me on accepted basic physical principals. It really makes it hard for me to know when you are actually right when you start pressing a basic issue, that you tend to do a lot. Then it is even worse when I saw a thread about pressure causing heat, and everyone seemed to be all for that. But when I make this thread, everyone turns 180 degrees on the issue. At least I know the difference between the actual physics and my own opinions.

 

[sideshowbob]

It has been my goal in life to disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because I personally hate it dearly.

It's my goal in life to disprove the notion that 1 + 1 = 2. I want 1 + 1 to be 1,000,000. Then I just have to ask two people for a dollar and I'll be set for life.

It doesn't allow for the universe to exist. Then I would think that me being here is experimental proof to the contrary.

Physical laws aren't about "allowing" things. They're more of a descriprion of what is. Entropy is increasing, so don't waste too much energy trying to prove it isn't.

The heat from the "heat death" of the universe would come from the force of gravity.

You don't seem to understand what "heat death" means. No heat "comes" from it. Heat death means that no energy can flow.

The Earth has been around for approximately 4.5 billion years. If it was cooling in this time, it would have had plenty of time to be cold already.

Kindly show us the math. How did you determine the rate of cooling?

Volcanoes are always active on the surface of the Earth. They erupt regularly in Hawaii. It wouldn't matter if one burns your house down. All that would really matter is that there would be one erupting somewhere on the planet, and that process wouldn't ever end even without any outside energy.

Even if that was true, how would you make that a useful source of energy? Are you going to move your power plant from place to place to catch each volcano erupting?

 

[Layman]

It's my goal in life to disprove the notion that 1 + 1 = 2. I want 1 + 1 to be 1,000,000. Then I just have to ask two people for a dollar and I'll be set for life.

Oh, that's rich, but I don't hear anyone laughing. I guess you would like to bet your money on something that was figured out in a similar fashion as anything is on these forums. That is how classical physics was done. Just a group of guys sitting around debating something. A closed system could never truly exist, therefore an experiment was never done on a truly closed system.

Physical laws aren't about "allowing" things. They're more of a descriprion of what is. Entropy is increasing, so don't waste too much energy trying to prove it isn't.

I never said they where. Entropy increasing is fine by me. I just wouldn't try to waste much energy trying to prove the universe doesn't exist because there is no such thing as free energy!

You don't seem to understand what "heat death" means. No heat "comes" from it. Heat death means that no energy can flow.

I don't seem to understand why you even feel it is necessary to even argue this. The "heat death" is the Big Crunch. The Big Crunch scenario shows an increase in heat. The "frozen death" is what would happen if dark energy overcame the force of gravity. Everything would simply fly too far away from each other to be effected by things that would generate heat.

Kindly show us the math. How did you determine the rate of cooling?

4.5 billion was a number that was substantially larger than any number I could picture in my head, and heat can transfer in only a couple of minutes in everyday things.

Even if that was true, how would you make that a useful source of energy? Are you going to move your power plant from place to place to catch each volcano erupting?

It would only mean that a hole would have to be drilled to a magma pool, and the heat of that energy could spin a turbine indefinitely. If the magma pool was connected to the Earths core, then it would never run out of heat for the plant. In a way, it would be like a windmill, but it could still work after the death of the sun.

 

[origin]

Okay, but the only amount of PE from gravity that is converted from KE has to come from another form of energy every time.

SO WHAT! The point is that gravitation can be converted into useful energy. Of course it is not FREE energy. No energy is free. That is like saying you cannot convert electrical current into useful energy because the current must come from a power plant. It is a stupid argument.

 

[sideshowbob]

That is how classical physics was done. Just a group of guys sitting around debating something.

Classical physics was done with weights and springs and so on. Galileo used cannon balls and the Leaning Tower of Piza. Some of us repeated the experiments in high school.

A closed system could never truly exist, therefore an experiment was never done on a truly closed system.

A closed system isn't particularly relevant to anything I've said.

I just wouldn't try to waste much energy trying to prove the universe doesn't exist because there is no such thing as free energy!

What?

What does that have to do with what we're discussing? And also just: What?

Everything would simply fly too far away from each other to be effected by things that would generate heat.

Yes.... So continue the thought.... You wouldn't be able to get any heat from your what? Volcanoes.

4.5 billion was a number that was substantially larger than any number I could picture in my head, and heat can transfer in only a couple of minutes in everyday things.

That isn't a very substantial calculation to base a claim on about how cool the earth "would be".

 

[Layman]

SO WHAT! The point is that gravitation can be converted into useful energy. Of course it is not FREE energy. No energy is free. That is like saying you cannot convert electrical current into useful energy because the current must come from a power plant. It is a stupid argument.

That is the "stupid argument" they teach in schools. That is the argument they came up with to explain why gravity wouldn't be an infinite source of energy in classical physics. I am sorry you don't like it; I didn't really like it either when I first heard it.

It obvious you want to have your own version of physics that doesn't even work with itself. It is no wonder with all the trouble you people have with such basic physical concepts on here all the time.

 

[Layman]

Classical physics was done with weights and springs and so on. Galileo used cannon balls and the Leaning Tower of Piza. Some of us repeated the experiments in high school.

That's nice and all, but we where talking about thermodynamics. I already knew that. It doesn't disprove what I said. I believe both of those things at the same time, and I find no problem with that.

A closed system isn't particularly relevant to anything I've said.

Hello! Thermodynamics, is anyone home?

What?

What does that have to do with what we're discussing? And also just: What?

It would just happen to be the sole reason why I started to think there should be a possibility of free energy to begin with. The laws of physics doesn't allow the universe to be here. The universe is here. What is so hard to understand about that?

Yes.... So continue the thought.... You wouldn't be able to get any heat from your what? Volcanoes.

This makes absolutely no sense. Why am I not surprised you wrote something like this?

That isn't a very substantial calculation to base a claim on about how cool the earth "would be".

Well, I didn't see you making any calculations either... I think my guestimate is way better!

 

[billvon]

It would just happen to be the sole reason why I started to think there should be a possibility of free energy to begin with. The laws of physics doesn't allow the universe to be here.

Nothing in physics "doesn't allow the universe to be here."

 

[origin]

That is the "stupid argument" they teach in schools.

You have no idea what they teach in schools about physics.

That is the argument they came up with to explain why gravity wouldn't be an infinite source of energy in classical physics. I am sorry you don't like it; I didn't really like it either when I first heard it.

Classical physics is where the second law of thermodynamics originated, you don't have a clue what you are talking about

It obvious you want to have your own version of physics that doesn't even work with itself. It is no wonder with all the trouble you people have with such basic physical concepts on here all the time.

It sound for all the world as if you were addressing yourself here.

 

[sideshowbob]

I already knew that.

It's hard to tell what you "already knew" because so much of what you say is so far off the deep end. Pardon me if I start at the Kindergarten level.

The laws of physics doesn't allow the universe to be here.

As I already said, the laws of physics don't allow or disallow anything. They describe what is here.

The problem is not with the laws of physics. It's that you don't understand them.

It would just happen to be the sole reason why I started to think there should be a possibility of free energy to begin with.

Free energy is easy. You can get it fom the sun or from the earth. As I already said, what costs is the infrastructure.

But perpetual energy is another thing. You can only use energy if it can "flow" from an area of high potential to an area of low potential. You can only use water power until all of the water is at the bottom of the hill. Conveniently, the sun pumps it back up for us - but the sun is not perpetual.

Well, I didn't see you making any calculations either...

I'm not the one making a claim. Scientists claim the earth is cooling and I can look up their calculations if I so choose. Conversely, your "guesstimate" is about as useful as a guesstimate that the moon is three miles away.

 

[Layman]

Nothing in physics "doesn't allow the universe to be here."

Then maybe someone would like to explain what laws of physics allow something to come from nothing? It has been thought that random particle pair creation and annihilation is a form of free energy, but no one here believes that either. It is a shame really because the law of nature that describes "energy can't be created or destroyed" has has already been broken in quantum physics. Then there would be no logical reason to hold on to such a law as an absolute truth when there is already a counterexample looming over your shoulder.

Then I already know what you will say, "it doesn't allow for free energy". Then the only reason why you will say this is because of ignorant of principles in quantum mechanics. It has already been propped up to be the free lunch responsible for the big bang. Then it cannot be proven, because then half of the universe would need to consist of antimatter.