JustinW

I think the answer to the topic question depends on the conversation. If someone is willing to listen and learn they should not be judged harshly for their ignorance. People have to talk about what they don't understand in order to understand. BUT, they also shouldn't represent something as fact if it is not. If they do so and are not willing to listen to reasonable arguement then I think it fair to jusge harshly.

Sounds logical to me. So we may never reach the level of perpetual. Our best hope might be coming close.

You may have come close to answering a topic question I just posted. But how can the particles that make up solid masses come from the unknown and unseen particles of space. Some say that space is the absence of mass. There would still have to be an action to cause the reaction we know as the big bang. And the make up of something with mass cannot just appear out of nothing. Something had to come from something. Whether it is a bunch of somethings put together or what, it was still a something. As far as the negatively charged balls are concerned. After they are repelled by the rubber sheet, could it not also be their own gravity pulling them together as well as away from the sheet, until the negative charge overcomes the force of their own gravity? Once they are together the negative charge repells them again, to be pulled back down by the gravity of the earth till the negatively charged sheet overcomes gravity and repells them again? I don't know I'm probably out on alimb here.

Resistance ma be the key. You always run into the problem of resistance. Providing enough energy to power the energy machine from the energy machine. Just in speculation, would it be correct to assume that if you could harness the energy from resistance of a force to get your power, it could be perpetual? I heard somebody use the force of gravity as an example once. Not to say that gravity would be the force. Just speculating that if we could contain the resistance of a force, since resistance is constant, it perpetual. Let me know how wrong I am.

I have a problem, or it's just never been explained in a way that I understand, with the idea that there was darkness and then bang. The thought that there was a reaction so big that came from nothing or something so small. I'm curious though...could the bang just as easily have come from two objects colliding with so much force and mass. I know the scatter measurements of universes might not coincide with this, but there might be another explanation for that(even though I don't have one). Thoughts anyone.

Oh I agree! Life shouldn't be taught through the T.V. My point was, that there is still just as much violence in literature and always has been. Most physical games deal with competition in an agressive way. And I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't edit what their children watch or do to fit the values you want to instill. The fact of the matter is that cartoons aren't more violent, there are just more cartoons. Now you could argue that the mindset of the violence has changed. Where it used to be about comedy it may be starting to lean more towards anger and malice. I could see where that might have a impacting affect on a young one on a subconcious level. Do you think subconcious thoughts affect behavior more or less than concious thought? I've only been through 1 psych class and I can't quite remember what was said about the learning process.

If you can put any kind of pressure to the water before you run it through your system there is an answer. Although you would probably have to build one yourself because of the small scale and amount your using at a time. I work at sand plant making frac sand for gas wells. We seperate sand from water using cyclones. High volume water/sand mixture enters a funnel that rotates the water counterclockwise. The funnel pushes the water through a discharge on top while dropping the solids through a discharge on the bottom. We usually only have about 10-20lbs of pressure so I don't think it will be too hard. You may just have to run your water through smaller pipe to increase pressure, then after solids are seperated return to normal. I'm not sure if the volume of water matters. There is a lot of push behind the water we run that being about 4000 gpm. Don't know if it'll help but I hope it works out.

Why don't you try heating the coin up or cooling the coin down then look at it with infra red camera. Surely the denser part of the coin will be a different temperature than the less dense part. Some cam corders have infra red settings. I'm just throwing out an idea of course. I'm not sure at all if it will work. You may need to magnify in some way to get enough detail to make out the picture. And I would be carefull when getting soft metals too hot.

I believe cartoons have always been violent. Old episodes of bugs bunny or foghorn leghorn, those characters were bludgeoned all the time. Before cartoons books were read to children. Do you think the literature before cartoons was so called "child friendly". Even the bible's children stories are filled with death, slavery, and torture. I wish lab_supplies would have expanded on the thought at the top of the page more. Don't get me wrong, I believe that bonding and playing games with your children is important, but there is no need to coddle. I believe an everyday, ordinary cartoon will build a more "well rounded" character. Or at least provide variety of imagination that a game of go fish could not.

Sounds depressing. I've had experience with a family members immobility and I can't see as the situation you describe would be any more comfortable unless you got rid of your conciousness too.

When you think of a possible catalyst for setting the universe back into motion please post it. You've got me interested.

Well spoken. I am not a well educated person and won't have any knowledgable insite to offer on the subject. I had a conversation once with a guy who did not believe in freewill. His argument was to ask what my favorite color was. When I answered he asked me why I chose that particular color instead of another. All I could answer was that I just like that color more than the rest. I didn't, and still don't, see how he thought his point was proved by stumping me on that single question. After giving it a few years thought I have to believe he was wrong. Now when I'm asked that question I say "It's the perfect shade of everything", hoping they won't ask why. Although I am nowhere close to being a mathematician the conversations I've had about perpetual motion(energy) always fall back to resistance as being the overriding force. Making perpetual motion impossible simply because, where there is motion there is friction no matter how small. Resistance being a constant will eventually wear down anything. Unless there is some sort of eternal power source.

I had an idea once that is probably as ignorant as it sounds. What if you had a fan that blew wind into some sort of impeller or prop that inturn operated a generator. The electrical current from the generator could then be routed back to power the fan motor. I disregarded the idea because of size and scope. To produce any significant amount of power the fan would have to be fairly large to produce the tork necessary to power the generator. Then you would have to worry about producing enough energy to even power the fan, as large as it would have to be, let alone come up with a (worth while) extra amount of energy. Just throwing it out there.

Dividing something that has mass will always have an end. Just like possibilities are limited to the situation. I don't think a duck can grow a rocket on its hind end no matter how long you give it.

Think of the speed of light as the bullet from a gun. If you traveled faster than the bullet could you move past the point at which it was fired. Or past the position it was when you started. It makes more sense to me to move forward instead of backward when going faster than the speed of light. But when you get there could you see it since the light hasn't yet met the oblect to cause the reflection for you to see.

Why wouldn't the opposite of love be the lack there of. In my way of thinking the opposite of 1 is -1, not 0. I also consider the same with hate or any other feeling that can't be measured on numerical scale.

Well spoken.

I am definitely not an educated person on the subject. Just a curious one. I think I remember something about a study showing that a light particle dies or sort of fizzles out. If this is correct, then how could something that has a shelf life have a constant or even relative speed?