1

New Theories / Re: Is perpetual motion possible?

« on: 28/07/2013 00:30:20 »

Matter will not exist for an infinite period of time ...

It may become energy. Then that energy may become mass again. Then that mass may become energy again.  On and on.

The "heat death of the Universe", nor any other "death of the Universe", which would result in all motion ceasing has not been proven to be a definite event. Thus, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, all things are in perpetual motion.

2

New Theories / Re: Is perpetual motion possible?

« on: 27/07/2013 15:48:36 »

No perpetual motion in nature : e.g. Earth's rotation is slowing ...

Even if the Earth's rotation stopped altogether, it would still orbit the Sun.  If the Earth stopped orbiting the Sun, it would still move toward the Sun and merge with it.  It's mass would then become part of the Sun's motions of rotation and the Sun's orbit around the galaxy.

If the Sun were to eventually stop orbiting the galaxy, it would move toward and merge with the galactic hub.  It's mass would rotate with that.

Tha galaxy is moving is some way with respect to the Local Group [of galaxies].  If it merged with them, it's mass would still move along with the Local Group's motion through the universe.

Ad infinitum.

No matter what happens, motion never ceases in the Universe.

3

New Theories / Re: Is perpetual motion possible?

« on: 26/07/2013 02:00:24 »

Nature seems to have done it as motion is both universal and eternal.  Absolutely nothing we know of in the Universe is in a state of absolute rest even for a single moment.  An object may appear to be at rest in a certain frame of reference but when viewed from another, it is found to be in motion.

Perpetual motion usually refers to what is known in physics as a perpetual motion machine. Please see details and clarification at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Physics has no problem with perpetual motion in the sense that the motion does not stop. Newton’s second law states that any body will continue in its state of motion or at rest unless acted upon by a force. However a perpetual motion machine is not a machine which is in perpetual motion (I know. That name is confusing, isn’t it?). A better name is free energy machine.

Thermodynamics prohibits the existence of perpetual motion machines. So if someone actually created one that works then they’d have proven that one of the laws of thermodynamics is wrong. They’d then win the Nobel Prize which is about a million bucks if I recall correctly.

Pmb,

I understood from the start.

I was thinking along the line that if we could figure out and duplicate how Nature maintains perpetual motion then we may be able to figure out how to make a perpetual motion machine.

Figuring that out may then pave the way for figuring out how to make a free energy machine.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do gravitons escape a black hole to convey gravity?

« on: 25/07/2013 17:28:48 »

I don't believe gravity is caused by a stream of particles, such as the hypothesized gravitons, streaming out of a celestial object such as a planet or singularity.  In the case of a singularity, they theoretically could not escape from it.

Perhaps gravity is caused by a stream of particles (gravitons) streaming into a celestrial object. In this way they could somehow carry things along with them toward the surface.  The problem with this tho is what happens to those particles (gravitons) once they reach the center of the object?  They don't seem to just pile up there as that would seem to produce a gravitational field of ever-increasing strength (unless motion of the particles is necessary for gravity).  However, I would think some other effect of there piling up there should be noticable (someday).  Maybe they pass right through each other at the center, continuing along their path, and are rendered unable to effect anti-gravity while they are passing through a stream of gravitons moving in the opposite direction which are producing gravity.

In the case of a singularity tho, the gravitons may be unable to escape and simply pile up after passing through the center.  Again, some effect of their piling up may be noticable (someday).  Another possibility is, they may not be affected by gravity in any way and simply continue on their way, thus escaping from the singularity.

5

New Theories / Re: perpetual motion

« on: 25/07/2013 13:53:01 »

Nature seems to have done it as motion is both universal and eternal.  Absolutely nothing we know of in the Universe is in a state of absolute rest even for a single moment.  An object may appear to be at rest in a certain frame of reference but when viewed from another, it is found to be in motion.

Example: a cup sitting on a table seems to be at rest but it is really in motion due to the rotation of the Earth.

If we can figure out how Nature does it then we may be able to do it ourselves someday.

Maybe my thread, "Seeking Your Opinions on the Purpose of Motion", can help in some small way.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48422.0

6

New Theories / Seeking Your Opinions on the Purpose of Motion

« on: 25/07/2013 02:28:47 »

This is my opinion.  What is yours?


For my example I will consider a sub-atomic particle in motion and free from any external influences.


Question...

What purpose does motion serve?


Assumption #1...

The purpose of motion is to bring the particle to a state of balance.

Question...

How does motion serve to bring the particle to a state of balance?


Assumption #2...

Motion serves to bring the particle to a state of balance by shifting its substance, and any associated field, in the direction of an imbalance within it's substance and/or any associated field.

Question...

How does the particle determine if it is in balance or not?


Assumption #3...

The center point of the particle serves as a balance reference point by which it gauges the degree of uniformity within its substance and/or any associated field.

Question...

Why does the particle need to determine if it is in balance or not?


Assumption #4...

Balance is the natural state of the particle.

Question...

Why is balance the natural state of the particle?


Assumption #5...

Balance is the natural state of the particle because it is the only state in which absolute rest is possible.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would gravity behave inside a hollow planet?

« on: 25/07/2013 00:09:26 »

As I am new here, I was unaware of a "New Theories" section.  I happened upon this forum by way of a search on the topic of "hollow planet" and got involved in the discussion.  So sue me for presenting my opinion and my argument in defense of it when it was challenged.

I will move on to the "New Theories" section.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would gravity behave inside a hollow planet?

« on: 24/07/2013 22:38:38 »

That’s wrong. Each particle is attracted by every other particle by Newton’s law of gravity between two point particles. When the particle is inside the shell all the forces due to the particles which make up the shell cancel out resulting in a gravitational field of zero everywhere inside the shell. If you had or have another way of thinking of how it may work then you’re quite wrong. This fact is demonstrated by every single physics student at least once before he gets his Bachelor’s degree. I promise you that.

You are mistaken.

Also, just exactly how does a physics student produce a gravitational field in order to demonstrate that?  You mean they solve one or more equations concerning a gravitational field.  Solving an equation does not demonstrate a thing.  It only shows the solving of an equation thought to express/explain a thing in mathematical form.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would gravity behave inside a hollow planet?

« on: 24/07/2013 20:56:07 »

The gravity outside the hollow planet "pulls" toward the center.

And, given the fact that gravity always "pulls" toward mass regardless of the orientation or configuration of the mass, inside a hollow planet gravity also "pulls" toward the inner surface.

Gravity is not dependent upon a center point to "pull" towards as a requirement for it's manifestation nor its continuance.

If there is no mass floating at the center point within a hollow planet then there is no mass for gravity to "pull" toward that center point.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does dark matter really exist?

« on: 24/07/2013 20:30:33 »

You missed by entire point. You claimed that Dark matter, dark energy, etc are things made up by Quantum physicists who are attempting to explain away the discrepancies which repeatedly show up in the equations and experiments of their unfoundable theories. That is what’s untrue. The reason their existence was postulated had nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I never intended my response to be interpreted to mean that dark matter detection had nothing to do with quantum theory. It’s your claim that dark matter/energy was postulated by quantum physicists for the purpose to explain a quantum theory or experiment that’s untrue.

Your statement, "Dark energy and dark matter have absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics", led me to believe otherwise.

Your point has been made now that you have clarified and I agree.  I had made a typo and corrected it with a later post.
 

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does dark matter really exist?

« on: 24/07/2013 20:26:42 »

However, the statement that dark matter and dark energy were hypothesized to address problems with quantum physics is entirely false.

I must concede to you on the point that dark matter and dark energy were not hypothesized to address problems with Quantum Physics. It was simply a typo.
 
I correct my statement... Dark matter and dark energy were hypothesized by astronomers to explain discrepancies in there findings.
 

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does dark matter really exist?

« on: 24/07/2013 19:34:50 »

Dark energy and dark matter have absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics.

"The most widely accepted explanation for these phenomena is that dark matter exists and that it is most probably composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that interact only through gravity and the weak force. Alternative explanations have been proposed, and there is not yet sufficient experimental evidence to determine which is correct. Many experiments to detect proposed dark matter particles through non-gravitational means are under way."

"Candidates for nonbaryonic dark matter are hypothetical particles such as axions, or supersymmetric particles"

"The theory of supersymmetry predicts new families of particles interacting very weakly with ordinary matter. The lightest supersymmetric particle could well be the elusive dark matter particle."

"Particle physics models suggest that dark matter is either axions (hypothetical new particles associated with QCD), or WIMPs (hypothetical new particles with weak interactions and TeV-scale masses, natural by-products of theories of supersymmetry or extra dimensions)."

Obviously, Quantum Physics has something to do with dark matter.

I must add one more quote...

"Searches for candidate dark matter particles are underway at present-day colliders. If these particles have masses at the TeV scale, they will surely be discovered at the LHC."

I hope I don't need to point out to you the fact that astronomers do not use particle colliders in their field.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do we know exactly what time is?

« on: 24/07/2013 19:27:35 »

I will use a Human holding a clock in my example...

As the velocity of the Human with a clock increases, the inertia of every atom in the Human's body and every atom in the clock increases.  This results in more and more energy being needed to move those atoms in such a way as for the Human's bodily functions and the clock's functions to continue with the result that both the Human's biological functions, and the clocks functions, slow down.  Another result is that the Human's rate of aging slows down.

Likewise, as the gravity increases, the weight of the atoms increases and require more and more energy to move them.


As the velocity of the Human with a clock decreases, the inertia of every atom in the Human's body and every atom in the clock decreases.  This results in less and less energy being needed to move those atoms in such a way as for the Human's bodily functions and the clock's functions to continue with the result that both the Human's biological functions, and the clocks functions, speed up.  Another result is that the Human's aging speeds up.

Likewise, as the gravity decreases, the weight of the atoms decreases and require less and less energy to move them.


Time is simply the measurement of this speeding up or slowing down due to increased or decreased inertia and/or weight brought about by increased or decreased velocity and/or gravitational force.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does dark matter really exist?

« on: 24/07/2013 18:02:16 »

Dark matter, dark energy, etc are things made up by Quantum physicists who are attempting to explain away the discrepancies which repeatedly show up in the equations and experiments of their unfoundable theories.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does a scientist define nothing?

« on: 24/07/2013 17:14:16 »

Nothing may just be something we are unable to perceive with our senses or detect with our instruments.
 
Here is a thought experiment for everyone...
 
Your dog can speak English (or whatever your native language is).  Dogs can hear sounds Humans cannot.  Your dog hears a sound which is beyond the range of Human hearing and asks, "Did you hear that?"  You reply, "I heard nothing."
 
The sound is real to your dog so it is something to him. The sound is not real to you so it is nothing to you.  Therefore, you will decide there was no sound when, in fact, there was a sound.
 
This is true with all the senses.
 
A long time ago, atoms were nothing (we didn't know they existed because we couldn't detect them) but now they are something (we know they exist because we can detect them).
 
The nothing which some state the Universe came from may just be something we cannot perceive or detect as yet. Therefore, we currently believe it is, and call it, nothingness.
 

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would gravity behave inside a hollow planet?

« on: 24/07/2013 16:55:36 »

Spacetectonics,
 
Such a statement as, "gravity inside a hollowed out planet is zero", is scientifically unsound.
 
The truth is that gravity "pulls" toward mass regardless of the mass' orientation or configuration.  Thus, there would also be gravity inside the hollow "pulling" toward the inner surface.  At the exact center point, the gravity would be "pulling" in every direction equally.
 
Assume, for example, the earth was a perfect hollow sphere and the ball perfectly spherical.  If you placed the ball perfectly at the center point (with the ball's center point colocated with the hollow sphere's), the ball would "feel" equal gravitational pull in all directions and would not move (tho if weakly enough constructed it would be pulled apart with the result that the pieces would then be "pulled" to the inner surface in various directions).
 
If however, the ball was placed just slightly off center (or completely off center), it would be "pulled" (in the direction it is off) and toward a specific point on the inner surface.
 
So for future reference, gravity does not only "pull" in an inward direction toward a center point, it "pulls" toward mass regardless of the mass' orientation or configuration.  This is scientific fact.