Quake3World

hax103 wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:krakus, how do u think the water gets back to the top of the mountains?

FROM THE FUCKING SUN.

Julios, ur first post in this thread was great.

But the stonedness of Kracus finally got to u!

One more thing: most of the comments above are just theories - its not like anyone counted up the exact amount of energy in the entire universe and proved it was a fixed number!

I would agree conservation of energy is the most supported and agreed-upon theory, but on the other hand, who the hell knows what the universe is really like a trillion lightyears away??.

I just regard it as the "leading theory"

No one said the universe had a fixed amount of energy. One would think it does, but regardless, they said it has a finite amount of energy.

the universe is a perpetual machine

That's a guess, and I believe that current theories don't support it.

mrd wrote: No one said the universe had a fixed amount of energy. One would think it does, but regardless, they said it has a finite amount of energy.

mrd,

Please explain your thinking. I would have assumed that the "law of conservation of matter and energy" implies that energy may change form but is never created nor destroyed (via e=mc^2). i.e. "The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less." [from http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/ener ... atter.html]

So, I'm asserting that modern science supports that there is a fixed amount of energy/matter in the universe. It is not merely finite. It is a specific fixed amount which neither decreases nor increases?

Have I misinterpreted it?

Any physicists want to weigh in here?

R00k wrote:Don't magnets eventually lose their magnetism for that matter?

Is this not true?

R00k wrote:

R00k wrote:Don't magnets eventually lose their magnetism for that matter?

Is this not true?

Yes it's true. A magnet can also lose it's magnetic properties if you strike it hard enough too if I remember correctly.

Also, Kracus is an idiot.

hax103 wrote:

mrd wrote: No one said the universe had a fixed amount of energy. One would think it does, but regardless, they said it has a finite amount of energy.

mrd,

Please explain your thinking. I would have assumed that the "law of conservation of matter and energy" implies that energy may change form but is never created nor destroyed (via e=mc^2). i.e. "The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less." [from http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/ener ... atter.html]

So, I'm asserting that modern science supports that there is a fixed amount of energy/matter in the universe. It is not merely finite. It is a specific fixed amount which neither decreases nor increases?

Have I misinterpreted it?

Any physicists want to weigh in here?

You misunderstood me. When I said "one would think it does", it was not a conditional statement, like"one would think it does, if such and such existed." Bad wording on my part, all I meant was basically, yes, energy is fixed, but no, that's not what people were talking about.

Jackal wrote:

R00k wrote:

R00k wrote:Don't magnets eventually lose their magnetism for that matter?

Is this not true?

Yes it's true. A magnet can also lose it's magnetic properties if you strike it hard enough too if I remember correctly.

Correct. A material is magnetic because its magnetic domains are aligned, and they can be knocked out of alignment. This is also why Kracus' stupid fucking idea wouldn't work, contrary to an earlier explanation. Electron motion within an atom doesn't create a current and hence doesn't create a magnetic field.

Doesn't magnetism stem partially from electron spin?

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Iccy wrote:

riddla wrote:pm machines are not possible.

And the world is flat.

potheads unite.

Nothing like the challange of prying a closed mind open to possabilities that they cant understand to get your day going





So my friend explain to me the difference between the science we KNOW now and the science KNEW before.


Example.


The earth used to be flat.
The earth used to be the center of the universe and the planets traveled around us on crystal rails or whatever they called them.


There is no difference between the science we knew and the science we know. At any moment all of reality, all we know could be turned completly upside down. Try to realize that all you know today could be complete bullshit, just as it has been many many many many times over in the past.

Try to realize that albert einstien faced many men who told him just what you tell me know.


That said, explain to me in 100 percent factual terms how a PM machine will never in this planets existence through all time exist.


If you can ill never post here again.

Iccy wrote:

That said, explain to me in 100 percent factual terms how a PM machine will never in this planets existence through all time exist.


If you can ill never post here again.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?

Nightshade wrote:That's a guess, and I believe that current theories don't support it.

Actualy the latest theories lean to a expanding universe that eventualy collapses under its gravitational pull, inturn compressing itself to the point of explosion. This " big bang" starts off the universe again untill it cools and collapses under its own gravitational forces again.


Im with it too. Cause its what i thought was going on long before any else told me.

LOL @ The fucking morons.

"Perpetual motion machine proposals are often dismissed by scientists in a manner that appears to the layperson as hasty rejection using dogmatic assertions that such machines are prohibited from working by the "laws of thermodynamics". This does not satisfy the person who knows a little physics, but considers the laws of thermodynamics a bit mysterious. The very character of such laws is off-putting to the average person, because they have an air of finality and negativity."

Wizard .3 wrote:

Iccy wrote:

That said, explain to me in 100 percent factual terms how a PM machine will never in this planets existence through all time exist.


If you can ill never post here again.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?

Im sure not as well as you.

Why, you wanna take a stab at explaining why a PM machine cant exist? Ill try to keep up.

Foo wrote:LOL @ The fucking morons.

"Perpetual motion machine proposals are often dismissed by scientists in a manner that appears to the layperson as hasty rejection using dogmatic assertions that such machines are prohibited from working by the "laws of thermodynamics". This does not satisfy the person who knows a little physics, but considers the laws of thermodynamics a bit mysterious. The very character of such laws is off-putting to the average person, because they have an air of finality and negativity."

So your saying that to question " known science" is foolish and the " lay person" shouldnt question the smart people ?

BTW. Take notice of the hat change please.

Thnx.

Iccy wrote:

Foo wrote:LOL @ The fucking morons.

"Perpetual motion machine proposals are often dismissed by scientists in a manner that appears to the layperson as hasty rejection using dogmatic assertions that such machines are prohibited from working by the "laws of thermodynamics". This does not satisfy the person who knows a little physics, but considers the laws of thermodynamics a bit mysterious. The very character of such laws is off-putting to the average person, because they have an air of finality and negativity."

So your saying that to question " known science" is foolish and the " lay person" shouldnt question the smart people ?

So what you're saying is that someone who doesn't actually know much about a subject has equal status in speaking about the subject as someone who is well informed?

Foo wrote:

Iccy wrote:

Foo wrote:LOL @ The fucking morons.

"Perpetual motion machine proposals are often dismissed by scientists in a manner that appears to the layperson as hasty rejection using dogmatic assertions that such machines are prohibited from working by the "laws of thermodynamics". This does not satisfy the person who knows a little physics, but considers the laws of thermodynamics a bit mysterious. The very character of such laws is off-putting to the average person, because they have an air of finality and negativity."

So your saying that to question " known science" is foolish and the " lay person" shouldnt question the smart people ?

So what you're saying is that someone who doesn't actually know much about a subject has equal status in speaking about the subject as someone who is well informed?

Naa foo. The point im merely trying to express is that even the smartest of people that have graced us with their scientific findings, their theories that helped shape us and evolve us, they can be wrong. Im just trying to say that just because someone holds the title of super science guy, doesnt mean a ... oh i dont know, exaiminer at a patent office ( ya with me ? ) cant have something profound to say, that a nugget of true knoledge does fall off trees that grow outside the white ivory walls of our greatest scholors.

Not to mention the fact that life experience has taught me that anyone offering all the answers and claiming to know whats going on, doesnt know as much as they had hoped. I feel its very important, no matter how silly, to keep the door open.

Does that make more sense foo?

Iccy wrote:

Wizard .3 wrote:

Iccy wrote:

That said, explain to me in 100 percent factual terms how a PM machine will never in this planets existence through all time exist.


If you can ill never post here again.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?

Im sure not as well as you.

Why, you wanna take a stab at explaining why a PM machine cant exist? Ill try to keep up.

Someone might want to back me up here, but simply put: PMM break the first and second laws of thermodynamics. There will always be energy loss from the system, due to friction, heat, etc... Since no energy is going in, the system will eventually deplete itself and stop running. Secondly, entropy is continuously increasing in the system (an increase in the disorder of the system, for example heat is released and increases the energy of adjoining atoms). For a machine to continuously be in motion, it must return to its initial entropy state. This is impossible. The entropy of the universe is continiously increasing.

Hope I explained that properly. Now mind you, a PMM could be possible, but all evidence through experiments and so forth to this day have confirmed these laws of thermodynamics (which is why they are laws and not theories), which concludes that a PMM cannot be fabricated.

Wizard .3 wrote:

Iccy wrote:

Wizard .3 wrote:Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?

Im sure not as well as you.

Why, you wanna take a stab at explaining why a PM machine cant exist? Ill try to keep up.

Someone might want to back me up here, but simply put: PMM break the first and second laws of thermodynamics. There will always be energy loss from the system, due to friction, heat, etc... Since no energy is going in, the system will eventually deplete itself and stop running. Secondly, entropy is continuously increasing in the system (an increase in the disorder of the system, for example heat is released and increases the energy of adjoining atoms). For a machine to continuously be in motion, it must return to its initial entropy state. This is impossible. The entropy of the universe is continiously increasing.

Hope I explained that properly. Now mind you, a PMM could be possible, but all evidence through experiments and so forth to this day have confirmed these laws of thermodynamics (which is why they are laws and not theories), which concludes that a PMM cannot be fabricated.

Then we agree i think wiz. Basicly i conceed that with current knowledge, it cant not exist, but the main point im trying to make is that its not entirely impossible. That knowledge to come may open a door to allow it. I mean we all thought newton had gravity 100% figured out, right ?

That was what prompted my original reply to the " PM cant exist " comment. I just find it very hard in this weird universe to rule anything out, especialy when we have very little science that understands the relationship between our minds and will and the rest of the universe.

And yes, thank you for you explaination, i think i got it. A little wikipedia helps too i guess.

Iccy wrote:The point im merely trying to express is that even the smartest of people that have graced us with their scientific findings, their theories that helped shape us and evolve us, they can be wrong.

If this is really the point you're trying to make, my only response is 'well, duh'.

Im just trying to say that just because someone holds the title of super science guy, doesnt mean a ... oh i dont know, exaiminer at a patent office ( ya with me ? ) cant have something profound to say, that a nugget of true knoledge does fall off trees that grow outside the white ivory walls of our greatest scholors.

So you currently go around and listen to everything everyone in the world has to say, and evaluate every bit of that communication with equal depth and consider them all equally valid? You must never get anything done, and waste a lot of time on Kracus. Good luck with that.

Not to mention the fact that life experience has taught me that anyone offering all the answers and claiming to know whats going on, doesnt know as much as they had hoped. I feel its very important, no matter how silly, to keep the door open.

Does that make more sense foo?

Not really no. For starters, you've brought in a straw man "anyone offering all the answers and claiming to know whats going on".

Although I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even realise you were doing it.

Iccy wrote: That was what prompted my original reply to the " PM cant exist " comment. I just find it very hard in this weird universe to rule anything out, especialy when we have very little science that understands the relationship between our minds and will and the rest of the universe.

My point, however, is that PMM's are impossible. These laws of thermodynamics are concrete. If they weren't, the world wouldn't be where it is today. As an engineer, from a macroscopic point of view, everything works out mathematically... quantum scale, who knows?
The world being flat couldn't be justified using good math and science. This can.

@ Iccy and Foo:

The earth never was flat and never was the center of the universe. People just assumed it was, because it was "handy" and they didn't have any evidence proving otherwise.
Ofcourse there is a big difference in the science we knew and the science we know now, yet there is still an awful lot we don't know.

The thermodynamic laws have never been proven wrong. That is why they still stand and regarded as true. That is not to say that they are true, they just never been proven wrong.

Saying or even trying to prove a perpetual machine is possible would mean you have to debunk the thermodynamic laws. At the moment, it's "safer" to say it is not possible because you can not prove otherwise - this would mean the thermodynamic laws would be proven wrong, which they haven't.

In physics, many laws have been proven wrong after some time or have been adjusted to more precise laws. By knowledge. Without knowledge I think it's foolish to say that some law is not true just because the imagination is bigger.
Everything we know can't be complete BS because all laws we know are the truest "models" to reality yet. At least we have empirical proof that in daily life, things work according to these laws, so they can't be BS. In certain circumstances, they might cease to come up with reliable results but that's it.

Ofcourse people have to be/keep being open minded but all things start with knowledge and proof. If someone needs proof, there are lots of study books (does anyone read them anymore with all the knowledge on the net...) to learn from.

The proof doesn't have to come from those who "believe" the thermodynamic laws are correct, the proof has to come from those who think they are incorrect.

I hope this thread is not continued just by people who have (or think they have) the "appropriate amount" of knowledge regarding this subject. It could get lonely in here.