Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by md65536

  1. Evaporation typically involves an energy input. Exactly! This is the key to understanding your device! How can any system perpetually cycle through the same states without requiring any new energy, and while losing (a tiny amount of) energy due to friction? Conservation of energy is what you need to research. If you can extract a certain amount of energy going from state A to B, it will take at least that much energy to go from state B (through any states C etc) back to state A. Some additional points: - A system can cycle for a very long time if it is very efficient. A pendulum
  2. md65536


    I am not an expert, but... It is simply a measurement, exactly like distance is. It's not a "thing" with substance. "Distance" is real but it's not a physical thing. You can say distances exist, but you intuitively think of them as properties of a system, or as aspects of other things in a system, ie as measurements. They are not "stuff". Similarly, space-time is not "stuff", like an aether. Space-time doesn't exist independently of other things. In the sense that it's a measurement, it's a measurement between other things. It can also be a measurement between imaginary location
  3. I disagree with that advice. I'd recommend researching a bit more so that you understand why these machines don't work, instead of trying multiple times to build them. I think that it is very unlikely that you can break a law of science without first understanding it enough to know where (and only IF) it can be broken. You requested and listed possible explanations for why your machine doesn't work, but you've skipped the suggestions given to you. Here is your flaw: You are starting your machine in one state (capillaries empty; relatively high amount of potential energy) and the
  4. md65536


    In that case, our memories and experience would likely be part of the "state of the universe." If we returned to a "2010 state", we wouldn't have a memory of 2011, but instead restore a memory of the past up to 2010. So if as you conjecture it's possible to return to such a state, then imagine that time is, right now, running in reverse. As you suggest, time isn't something that "flows" but rather the experience of a changing state of the universe. As we go back in time and proceed from one state to a previous state, we restore previous memories of time moving forward. If we experience th
  5. I've said before on these forums that "Why does mass curve spacetime?" was the last puzzle piece for myself having even the vaguest understanding of how gravity works. Finally I have an idea. So I retire from science. Assumptions: 1. Time and distance are perceptually defined. They appear different depending on how they are observed. At the speed of light, they are unobservable... they essentially disappear. I assumed that it's possible to describe a viewpoint or model in which they don't exist at all. I conjecture that they are not fundamental aspects of the universe, but only observ
  6. What is it that you are speculating? Do you have some theory involving aliens or a government coverup? Please note that all posts that are not baseless in scientific fact or not outside of mainstream physics should not be in the Speculations forum. Readers come here looking for absurd opinions and ridiculous conjecture, and don't expect to be confused by facts. Reminder: The rules of the Speculations forum: No maths. Incomprehensible. You must contradict accepted science. No evidence. Obvious errors. It's not science. Okay this post is in jest, but the serious p
  7. As an example let us consider an event involving 2 particles A and B, moving away from a point or planet P, perhaps after an explosion. Let us consider it from the perspective of A moving relative to P, from which we observe that B is also moving away from P. The notion of “universal time” suggests the idea that if time were to be “reversed”, then every process involving time would be reversed. A would move back toward P, as would B, and they would do so consistently along a single “time line”. However, we know that universal time is not real, and that time is in fact relative. The asp
  8. I'm no expert on relativity but I have spent a lot of time thinking about ideas that sounded eerily similar to your questions, starting about 7 months ago. Yes there are alternative interpretations that work. I'm trying to write a paper on it, and it's too complicated to try to explain here, and anyway it would belong in the speculations forum. I wrote about it here -- http://www.sciencefo...nce-relativity/ -- but what I wrote is old and too vague and mostly incorrect. In the traveler's frame (which isn't really a possible one), the universe is flat, and every point on his journey is th
  9. I'm going to take what you wrote about time, and write something similar about distance. For some reason, most people reason about distance differently than they do about time. Alright at that point you lost me a bit but hopefully that's enough to get my point across, where my point is to offer an analogy so you can reconsider your questions using something that is somehow "easier" to conceive. Note that whether you consider one frame moving relative to another, or vice versa, doesn't matter; each perspective is equally valid. This is the principle of relativity, that there ar
  10. Personally, one of the biggest challenges I've had with relativity involves keeping all the different frames of reference straight. You're using time from one frame (50 years have passed according to the moving traveler's clocks) and distance from another frame of reference (rest distance from basically anyone's point of view while at rest). Think of it this way: You can either determine the traveler's velocity using a rest frame, or using the traveler's moving frame. In the former, just over 100 years have passed, and 100 light years have been traveled, and v is near c. In the
  11. No, I think that your interpretation is different from the one described by "Relativity of simultaneity" according to SR. Specifically I think you are suggesting that events separated by "light-like intervals" be treated as simultaneous to an observer who sees the 2 events appearing to be simultaneous (IE someone colinear to the 2 events and closer to the 2nd event), while SR treats 2 such events as separated by a time equal to d/c, where d is the spatial distance between the 2 events. So, SR would still say that the Earth observes the sun disappearing 8 minutes after it ceased to exis
  12. I would put it this way (though I may be wrong): An empty capillary has a certain potential (energy) for lifting a liquid. A saturated capillary has no additional potential. That potential might be for example "enough liquid to saturate the capillary, plus 20 drops". So 20 drops might drip from the capillary in what appears to be free energy, but it has used the potential energy of the empty capillary. I don't know exactly why a capillary can become over-saturated and allow drips in the first place. When it drips, you have gravity (or magnets) overcoming the force of the capillary action.
  13. Over and over on these forums I'm seeing something I will call "Proof by 'I don't understand it'", which is that some theory doesn't make sense to me and therefore it must be wrong. Relativity, crop circles, 9/11... it all "can't be a certain way cause it's unimaginable." This is the same type of evidence used to support creationism. I would advise balance. It's not ideal to either accept something you don't understand and move past it while questioning nothing, or to reject something you don't understand and remain blocked by it. If you learn about all these things, you'll see why they're
  14. I'm assuming this isn't a perpetual motion machine, but the question is "why isn't it?" I would guess either it would reach a state of equilibrium, or it would be using some small external energy input to remain perpetual (like evaporation or something). According to your diagram, it appears that everything "flows downhill" thus not requiring violation of the laws of thermodynamics, except for the capillary action part. A simpler "machine" using the same concept might involve a cloth hanging over the edge of a pot filled with water. Water "climbs" up the cloth and can saturate the
  15. I'm speaking only of the singularity. Other masses would attract the rest of the black hole due to gravity, but the singularity would be "free" from the influence of even the rest of the black hole. In a sense, the black hole as a whole would have to go where the singularity goes. The singularity can "pull along" the rest of the BH's matter, but the rest of the BH can't change the velocity of the singularity. Except by modifying geodesics, as you also mention later in your post... When I speak of "size" i'm speaking of particles I guess, or more to the point I'm speaking of object
  16. After reading some of these posts and related information on several of the internets, I think I have a comprehensive explanation of 9/11. 1. It was a training exercise. This much of it was planned and coordinated by multiple levels of government. Repeatedly, there are descriptions of different terrorist attack training exercises planned at the pentagon, in new york, etc. These are always treated as "coincidence", and something that lead to the confusion of the day, as various people were unsure about whether or not it was "real-world" or an exercise. A training exercise would necessar
  17. Yes, that sounds right. A geodesic appears straight from any point on the geodesic, and can appear curved from other locations. For example, if you were on a rocket heading toward a galaxy whose light is gravitationally lensed on its path to Earth, some remote observer might see that you appear to be curving. You would observe that you traveled in a straight line the entire trip. The destination galaxy would always appear directly in front of you (you'd never have to turn), and Earth would always appear directly straight behind you. An observer on Earth who is also on the same geodesic
  18. Yes, there's a problem with my reasoning but I'm not sure where. The relativeness of motion would suggest that if a black hole singularity can't move relative to us, then we can't move relative to it. Doesn't make sense. Let me try to rephrase my question. Light cannot escape a black hole because space around it is so severely warped that "straight lines" (geodesics) appear to external observers to curve back toward the black hole. My conjecture is that black hole singularities would not be affected (accelerated toward) external gravitational masses. If a singularity does not acceler
  19. Citations: Destruction of evidence: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html Stifling of investigation, destruction of evidence, and coverup: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Government_deception
  20. Yes, of course it was suspicious, and it was by definition a conspiracy (it wasn't individuals acting alone). However: 1. The explanations given for what happened that day (the tower "pancaking" collapses, the vanishing of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, etc) are extremely dubious. 2. The US government stifled objective investigation of 9/11. They destroyed evidence and kept findings classified. So yes, there was also a government coverup. This doesn't prove there was government involvement of the planning of the attacks, or if the coverup was done to protect their interests (or e
  21. I have a bunch of questions and ideas... please point out any statements that are false. Since reading of the concept in GR that gravitational attraction is a kind of inertia more than a force, I've been trying to build a conceivable understanding of it. Since then I've tried to "correct" anyone who speaks of light following a curved geodesic as if the light is being affected by gravity, as if gravity is "pulling on the light". I recently read in wikipedia that photons have mass, so does that mean they are affected by gravity? So I'm wrong??? But then I read here http://everyt
  22. I agree. Another aspect is that often when individuals share their ideas with others, they feel that others don't "get" their ideas. Individuals outside of the mainstream are often unable to express their ideas clearly and understandably. Ideally an individual would work with others to educate their self on how to express the idea scientifically, while also sharing smaller parts of their idea to get help validating or developing the theory (rather than trying to convince others that the entire thing is correct). Instead what happens is the individual feels that their idea is more important tha
  23. "Forever" is entirely misleading, because it suggests a span of time, when the sum of time it takes to meet the infinite "requirements" is finite. It would be like saying that it would take an infinite amount of time to describe this part of the problem, when really you described it in a single sentence. But that's just semantics. The real answer to your question is... That's where the argument breaks down. Of course it's possible. There's not even a justification for why it might be considered impossible. With any movement, no matter how small, you would pass through an infinite nu
  24. This cartoon sums up my response: http://xkcd.com/638/ Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- Carl Sagan Personally, I don't think that humans are anywhere near the maximum on the scale of possible intelligence. But that also isn't evidence of anything. I essentially agree with you, that "until proven otherwise", there's no compelling reason to believe intelligent aliens exist -- or for that matter that they don't. I'd be surprised to find out either way, but I'd be disappointed to hear that we're the best and only representative of intelligent thought in the universe.
  25. I would suggest researching different forms of meditation, especially the more physical ones. I'm too lazy to research it myself, but some ideas include Qi Gong, which has to do with mentally channeling energy through yourself in different ways; there's also those monks or whatever who meditate on body heat and as a test melt blocks of ice with their body heat; there's "energy healing" and the idea of energy points in the body that one can perceive, and stuff like that... A word of caution though... the mind is a powerful thing, and it can play tricks on us, and there are a lot of people w
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.