Perpetual Motion Machine

[foodchain]

I always got confused with this part. In one sense it seems if you could make one you could solve all of everything’s energy problems with probably zero impact ecologically speaking, on the other hand physically most will say its simply impossible going on talking about thermodynamics and what not for instance. Now what I don’t understand is here on earth, I have a constant weight in regards to gravity, or gravity period seems to be a rather constant force. Being gravity has not reached some perfectly absolute level of understanding, I just tend to wonder does gravity and the fallacy that is the perpetual motion machine have anything in common? I mean what powers this constant gravity force? I mean I hear lots of descriptions of gravity that basically put it in my opinion as something of an magic almost, or quasi physical really, almost like descriptions of time. So then, does gravity require energy, or mass to exist? Or basically how does gravity exist as a constant, does it require energy in this process?

[theCPE]

mass curves space-time creating gravity

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain. The reason perpetual motion is impossible is because it requires the conjuring of energy out of nothing. To do work, energy is needed. If you tap energy from something to do work, then the amount of energy inside the thing you tapped gets less. If, for example, you have a perpetual motion machine which has moving parts that do work, then the work removes energy. Thus the machine has less energy and slows down.

 

We have almost perpetual motion, which is not the same thing, on an astronomical scale. The Earth orbits the sun, and its movement is (from the human perspective) almost perpetual. But we are not using that movement to do work. As soon as the movement is used to do work, the Earth will slow down in its orbit.

 

We see this in the spinning of the Earth, which is also almost perpetual. But not quite. The gravity link with the moon means that some of the energy of the Earth's spin is used as work to move the moon further from the Earth. With this eneryg removed, the Earth has less energy of spin and slows down. Physicists have measured the fact that the Earth is slowly spinning at a reduced rate.

 

Gravity itself is not energy. It is a force. Forces do not need energy. However, if you move something away from the source of gravity, that is work, and requires energy. If you lift an object to a higher level, you are doing work, and putting energy into that object. If it falls, then the energy is seen to come out as increasing movement.

[foodchain]

See this is where I get confused. Mass warps space-time, or mass/energy, or basically a physical body like a planet or a star warps space-time or something significant in some terms. Some nebula are massive, I mean they birth stars, but how do they bend space-time, I would expect not like a planet does per say? I mean I am trying to digest the physics into what I see on say the Hubble telescope site for example. Now it seems this curvature gets stronger the closer you are to say a body in space. But I know from geology, that gravity anomalies exist on earth for instance, so do specific bodies in the earth curve space in an un uniform pattern then the body in total?

 

I mean for instance looking at crystal defects, is that somewhat an analogy from gravity anomalies on the earth fro instance? I just mean physics has lots of unanswered questions on the QM level such as quantum gravity for instance. Plus in a "vacuum" such as space, what is the difference from an atom to atom interaction to an entire system of them in what appears to be natural kinds of phenomena such as planets?

 

I just get confused to the definition of time-space, at some point people say you cant physically interact with it, but obviously that cannot be true if for instance it causes gravity. For me to move in gravity would be a physical interaction with such. Then back to say the constant motion machine, and the unrealistic nature of it, I don’t see how gravity can be a constant and derive really from simply the presence of something operating on what exactly, something that cant be interacted with physically? I mean a lot fo times I think really I am looking at the universe with a perception that should really be stated as looking at a sheet of paper with numbers everywhere on it.

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain

 

Re the warping of space time.

 

You are correct. This is really complicated. Everything with mass warps space time to some degree. Your body warps space time. All those googols of objects warping space time to differing degrees means the pattern of warping overall is so complex as to be beyond human understanding.

 

If you were to follow the movement of an object through space, such as an asteroid, and if you were able to map its path in the most minute detail, you would discover an incredibly complex pattern. It would be moving in a straight line onlyto the naked eye. On a tiny tiny scale, its movement would be anything but straight, due to the influence of the distorsion of space time. If you were 100 metres away watching it, your own mass would distort space time enough to cause a tiny distorsion of its path off the theoretical straight line.

 

The amount of distorsion each object causes depends on its mass, and how far away it is. Very large or massy objects, such as out Earth, the sun, a black hole may distort space time enough to alter movement in space drastically. That's why things fall down.

 

And yes, you do physically interact with space time. By being influenced by these distorsions, such as falling over, and by adding your own tiny distorsion from the mass of your own body.

[foodchain]

To foodchain

 

Re the warping of space time.

 

You are correct. This is really complicated. Everything with mass warps space time to some degree. Your body warps space time. All those googols of objects warping space time to differing degrees means the pattern of warping overall is so complex as to be beyond human understanding.

 

If you were to follow the movement of an object through space, such as an asteroid, and if you were able to map its path in the most minute detail, you would discover an incredibly complex pattern. It would be moving in a straight line onlyto the naked eye. On a tiny tiny scale, its movement would be anything but straight, due to the influence of the distorsion of space time. If you were 100 metres away watching it, your own mass would distort space time enough to cause a tiny distorsion of its path off the theoretical straight line.

 

The amount of distorsion each object causes depends on its mass, and how far away it is. Very large or massy objects, such as out Earth, the sun, a black hole may distort space time enough to alter movement in space drastically. That's why things fall down.

 

And yes, you do physically interact with space time. By being influenced by these distorsions, such as falling over, and by adding your own tiny distorsion from the mass of your own body.

 

 

Yes, but if every particle was to generate its own curvature, I then think two things. First the universe should be frozen in place, unless gravity and its relationship to the electromagnetic was to allow for that to be broken. Second, how would a planet ever form, or any body for that matter in space. If the curvature was to be so strong as to form bodies in space, then eventually what that should mean is everything goes back into a singularity at some point. I say this because mass or energy in the vacuum of space as you put it follows this curvature like circuitry , which means such should dictate to a certain and regular degree almost forensically the movement of anything from a photon to an atom. Another aspect then is such is probably in my opinion what lead to the concept of string theory in some regards huh? I mean those paths or curves really would be something akin to strings really. What happens though when two curves meat each other, I mean can they curves themselves be moved?

 

I think the reason I have such a hard time with all of it, is because I don’t understand at what point someone can actually show the physical reality of it. I mean I know they say light bends due to gravity, but I don’t see exactly whey this has to be a product of space-time curvature as much as it could be light interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum. I mean they use magnets to move light in lasers after all, and I think giving the concept of N.M.R that most things with mass posses such right?

[SkepticLance]

foodchain said :

 

First the universe should be frozen in place

 

Do not forget the time part of space time. Something may be frozen in space, but its position in time gives it movement. After all, time is a measure of changes in space. An object may be fixed in space time, but that means movement in space over time.

 

The curvature in space time is necessarily 4 dimensional (3 of space and 1 of time). We are not able to visualise 4 dimensions, and that limits our understanding.

 

The strength of this curvature depends on mass. Thus a big object causes a big curvature, and while most objects in the universe cause curvature that is immeasurably small. Large masses cause the aggregation of planets and stars at their origin.

 

Going back to a singularity is only possible with extraordinarily large masses, since the collapse of matter together is opposed by other forces. Our Earth cannot collapse further due to the electro-magnetic forces of matter pushing atoms apart. Very large objects can collapse past this, but are stopped by nuclear forces. These form neutron stars. Only the very largest objects can collapse further and form black holes.

 

Can curves be moved? Well, they are constantly changing with the changes in the masses that cause the curves.

 

Why do we say light follows a curved path around objects with stron gravity, rather than some other force? The reason is because the pattern the light follows is exactly that which is predicted by the equations of curved space, rather than the pattern predicted by the equations for other forces. Do not ask me to elaborate on this. That is a post grad project!

[swansont]

I don’t understand at what point someone can actually show the physical reality of it. I mean I know they say light bends due to gravity

 

It's been observed to happen. 90 years ago (and subsequent to that)

 

I mean they use magnets to move light in lasers after all

 

They do?

[foodchain]

It's been observed to happen. 90 years ago (and subsequent to that)

 

 

 

They do?

 

Sorry, I get confused on the magnitude of things I have read at times.

 

"Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge. EM waves do not bend light, at least enough that we can measure. If radio waves, for example, bent light appreciably then a transmitting radio station would look blurry. But stations don’t go blurry.

 

Actually, electromagnetic waves can bend light through an indirect, quantum effect—but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. This quantum effect (called Delbrück scattering) "is a process where, for a short time, the photon disintegrates into an electron and positron pair," says Norbert Dragon, physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hanover, Germany. The charged pair interacts with an EM wave and then recombines into the photon with a changed direction. Thus, the EM wave bends the light."

 

http://www.wonderquest.com/extinctions-safetyglass-magnetslasers.htm

[foodchain]

Really I am but I think I found a way to really communicate what I am trying to say. Lets say for instance you could make a device, and put it at say the bottom of a pool. Now if this device had a simple turbine in it or other device that could generate electricity by being turned by running water for instance, purely conceptual here. Now you would have to have a vacuum of sorts of space around the turbine or something for the water to occupy and of course evacuate, which I am sure you would work out somehow, even if it meant using some energy. But the point like hydroelectric power in which I borrowed this from, gravity would bring the water into the vacuum, if it was large enough for instance, and as long as you keep that space open for the water to come into it would turn the turbine and generate some degree of power, but really all you would be using to power this device if I have things right is gravity. So if gravity is really just the product of place in space-time stuff or what not, and not a product of anything to do with QM, or mass/matter/energy period, then you could in complete hypothetical have perpetual energy then.

[Klaynos]

Really I am but I think I found a way to really communicate what I am trying to say. Lets say for instance you could make a device, and put it at say the bottom of a pool. Now if this device had a simple turbine in it or other device that could generate electricity by being turned by running water for instance, purely conceptual here. Now you would have to have a vacuum of sorts of space around the turbine or something for the water to occupy and of course evacuate, which I am sure you would work out somehow, even if it meant using some energy. But the point like hydroelectric power in which I borrowed this from, gravity would bring the water into the vacuum, if it was large enough for instance, and as long as you keep that space open for the water to come into it would turn the turbine and generate some degree of power, but really all you would be using to power this device if I have things right is gravity. So if gravity is really just the product of place in space-time stuff or what not, and not a product of anything to do with QM, or mass/matter/energy period, then you could in complete hypothetical have perpetual energy then.

 

Urmmmm well creating a "vacuum" is just a pressure gradient, which is how pumps work, so you're just pumping water through a turbine here, so it will lose energy not gain it. I also don't quite see how the nature of gravity is involved here?

[foodchain]

Urmmmm well creating a "vacuum" is just a pressure gradient, which is how pumps work, so you're just pumping water through a turbine here, so it will lose energy not gain it. I also don't quite see how the nature of gravity is involved here?

 

 

 

Ok, a waterfall then for instance, with a piece of material at the bottom that will turn and make static electricity as the water moves the object.

 

Such as waterwheel of boat paddles for instance, and in the center, it rubs a balloon on someone head. The paddles get turned by the water constantly hitting them, the water being pulled down, physically, by gravity.

 

In my other example I figure the amount of energy gained via the water moving into the system would probably be equal at best to remove it, I don’t know if you would maneuver pressure by itself to pick up any work, conservation laws seem to dominate really.

[someguy]

matter is energy that's where the energy comes from to make gravity. so technically it's not free. it comes from somewhere. You can use gravity to make energy without depleting the source of gravity in fact you could even do it by strengthening gravity like using a meteorite to power a "turbine" for instance since the meteorite did not start on earth and ends on earth you added to earth thus adding to gravity, and on it's way down you could slow it to a crawl and use all of that kinetic energy to power something. of course this would not be technically useful in practice since meteors are hard to come by and side effects may include destroying the planet.

 

If you use water for energy then eventually all your water would be in the lowest parts of the earth. really where the energy comes from that you use when using a waterfall is from getting the water back up the mountain. for this you need the sun to evaporate the water and carry it up the mountain. you could stick some water in a half clear box, clear on the bottom and shady on top, and have the water fall down the sides and trickle into a turbine and evaporate then it would fall again and continue the cycle. but this energy does not come from nowhere eventually the sun will burnout and you can't do this anymore, or if you had too large of a surface of the planet covered with such a device then the planet would be lacking sun. if you want to create an empty space inside a pool so that you would never need to carry water back up to anywhere and just create empty space for it to fall into which i think is what you are getting at, then rest assured you would find that you require at least just as much energy to make the void as you would get in return from your turbine. but really you wouldn't need to create a void, just flow. the moon makes the tide and we can use that for energy. you could possibly use magnets to create flows of ionized liquids or gases or flows of other magnets even?

 

To be honest i'm not really sure where the work that magnets can perform comes from or how it gets depleted i realize it is all to do with charges but... what's a charge? nobody knows really. All i know is that there's two kinds and they attract each other and repulse others like themselves. But still there must be some sort of explanation about magnetic forces and charges that explains why you can't use them for some sort of free energy. I just don't know exactly what it is.

 

 

 

as for your beef with space-time... the universe is that which exists, energy. space. mass bends this stuff. objects will follow the bends unless forced into another pattern. imagine if a heavy liquid something like mercury that merges together easily was poured randomly on a really flexible trampoline like fabric that is perfectly slippery and smooth causing no friction on the liquid and you did this all in a vacuum, eventually you would get dense spots and less dense spots and a random object rolling by would be influence by how the dense spots have bent the trampoline, you would also get i guess little mini orbits since nothing would be persuading the liquid to slow except for more liquid and/or the bends in the trampoline the liquid made. gravity is like this but only 3d which is really hard to visualize. space allows for objects to exist in 3d. Time is the 4th dimension it allows objects to move. if there's no time there's no motion, no motion no time. no time then objects just hang in suspended animation and don't interact with each other.. and so in a way kind of don't really exist.. and yet kind of would. we couldn't observe them that's for sure because our brains and bodies require time in order for their parts to move and function.

[foodchain]

 

as for your beef with space-time... the universe is that which exists, energy. space. mass bends this stuff. objects will follow the bends unless forced into another pattern. imagine if a heavy liquid something like mercury that merges together easily was poured randomly on a really flexible trampoline like fabric that is perfectly slippery and smooth causing no friction on the liquid and you did this all in a vacuum, eventually you would get dense spots and less dense spots and a random object rolling by would be influence by how the dense spots have bent the trampoline, you would also get i guess little mini orbits since nothing would be persuading the liquid to slow except for more liquid and/or the bends in the trampoline the liquid made. gravity is like this but only 3d which is really hard to visualize. space allows for objects to exist in 3d. Time is the 4th dimension it allows objects to move. if there's no time there's no motion, no motion no time. no time then objects just hang in suspended animation and don't interact with each other.. and so in a way kind of don't really exist.. and yet kind of would. we couldn't observe them that's for sure because our brains and bodies require time in order for their parts to move and function.

 

I don’t really have a beef with space-time I simply just don’t understand it as well as others. TO me I have heard various descriptions of it on this board that seem to be in confliction overall. Such as time, I mean it takes me time to write this write, so what exactly is the definition of it then, and does this definition allow me to poke it with a stick? Secondly, then you have space right, as far as I know if you don’t have matter/mass/energy then you really have nothing, but the idea behind gravity would seem to negate this, going on bending space-time, which leads me back to definitions and wanting to poke it with a stick.

 

Also as far as I know, you don’t have gravity in the absence of mass/matter/energy or what not, though that does not prove anything, I just think most physical phenomena is a product of something physical, but yet I cant poke something that gets bent with a stick, it just annoys me because its probably something simple I am sure that I just cant think of that would allow it to make sense to me.

 

I just hope QM gets more questions solved, along with the standard model soon, I think we need to learn more on the really tiny level to tackle issues on the larger level is all.

 

Such as the cat in the box idea put forward by the people behind QM. I don’t know about being in a state of super states, but all I know is I am scared of a human putting a box over there head, simply put I don’t want to exist in a super state, it sounds painful and I sure predatory square roots live there feeding on decimals or what not>

[someguy]

I meant beef as in the battle to grasp the concept. Sorry, it's just the way i speak. but as for the definition well the definition is as much as we can know about it. but you would like to conceptualize these things as your senses perceive. or in terms that your senses understand rather. Is that right?

 

you can't really poke air with a stick when it is calm and back in the day they thought that if a box was empty then it was filled with a void rather than air. I wonder if you think about it if you would struggle also with understanding air. you cannot smell it or really feel it unless it is windy. but we know that it is made up of tiny little atoms maybe that's what cleans up the definition. the universe is made of energy all that which exists is energy, you will not find a void of energy unless you have discovered nothing but you won't ever discover nothing because nothing doesn't exist that's why it is nothing. If nothing existed then it would be something, and therefore not nothing.

 

If you look at space it seems like a void.. and it is a vacuum, but there's tons of other stuff there, gravitational fields, neutrinos, magnetic fields, debris. It is all that which is. sometimes clumped together in a concentrated mass, sometimes spread very thin, it is motion. it is the fabric of the universe. I don't know what it feels like all the time, sometimes it feels like water sometimes it feels like a burn, sometimes it feels like my keyboard, sometimes an electric shock. i don't know what an atom feels like. and there is no real answer either because what something feels like depends on human sense. it depends on the size relationship between me and the object. something can feel smooth but if i were shrunk would be rough. or the earth seems flat to me but if i were super gigantic it might hurt my foot if i stepped on it. There's some stuff that's just too complicated for our sense and we can never understand like we understand tree or rock, but then again some of what we think we understand about these things is in fact just an illusion.

 

our senses are devious and are too limited to encompass the complexity of the universe, and even if they could, it would be sort of mistranslated, not the absolute way the universe is. for example, color is not a property of light nor the universe. It is the translation our mind makes of light within certain wavelengths. color exists only in our minds.

 

perhaps really what you're actually looking for is for your mind to be tricked. ;-)

[Genecks]

I figure it's possible, but because of our current environment, there is going to be a limiting agent. Therefore, you'll need to have something that is unlimited. This, as some understand, is why knowing if the universe infinitely expands is important. Now, I was just thinking the other day that using space as the agent to help perpetual motion would be the key. I mean, afterall, if space is what's infinitely expanding, could a person use space's vaccuum to power the device? You need something and a lot of it to power the device.

 

My idea is like this:

 

Imagine we made a really strong straw. We brought it from a cup of water all the way up to and beyond Earth's atmosphere into space. Isn't space going to suck up the water and bring it into space?

 

If so, then why can't we use space as the powering agent for perpetual motion devices on Earth?

[SkepticLance]

Genecks.

 

You 'long straw' really should win the prize for the very best 'silly bugger' idea of the year.

 

Gravity holds water down next to the surface of the Earth. Air sits above it, also held by gravity. Water and air inside the straw sits in pace in exactly the same way as water and air outside the straw, held next to the Earth by gravity. Wrapping a straw around a small bit of water and air does not change that.

[someguy]

actually the vacuum of space technically never sucks anything. it's just a low pressure zone. if you have a bottle of air out in the vacuum of space and you open it the air would get sucked out.. or rather blown out because pressure likes to be equalized. Gravity would prevent your trick from happening because the force of gravity pulling the air down would be greater than the propensity to equalize. your idea is similar to believing that putting a straw in a glass of water would cause the water to jump out of the straw because the air is lower pressure than in the water. but that doesn't make sense just from observation and that's because gravity is holding it down, and since water is denser than air it stays at the bottom. water is a little different than air though because it sort of sticks together into balls so i don't think it would equalize the same way as air would. but if there was no gravity and what kept our atmosphere attached to the earth was some sort of membrane wrapped around our planet then your straw, poking out the membrane, would work.