Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 71834	2006-08-18 23:31:00	Free Energy?	Renmoo (66)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
479315	2006-08-23 00:18:00	Steorn, an Irish technology development company, has today issued a challenge to the global scientific community to test Steorn’s free energy technology and publish the findings. www.steorn.net www.steorn.net	Safari (3993)
479316	2006-08-23 02:24:00	:) It's all the German I've been reading. The stringing together of words is rather nice, don't you find 'Überlichtgeschwindigkeiten' a beautiful word ? :cool: To be honest,no. Never liked the guttural sounds.	Cicero (40)
479317	2006-08-23 02:40:00	. . . aha! . . . . . . . . . . . all this banter about E=mc2 and speed of light being terminal . . . . Youse guys forget that Uncle Albert was speaking conventionally (and writing) about acceleration in a straight line . . . . . in a curved space, there is NO terminal velocity and one can conceivebly arrive at their destination at the same time as they originally left their departure point . . . . . . NEVER before . . . as that would alter the time-space continuim . The moment of departure is constant, and the arrival cannot preceed it . . . but the interim velocities can, indeed exceed the speed of light . There are many clues to this condition as being existant in curved space: A) Space/time are not singular in direction or dimension . . . many folds upon folds exist in both, and even there are many more dimensions in time that we currently do not understand . . . but they are existant and are just now being "peeked into" by science and the tool of science . . . the massive super-cruncher computers . B) Theoretical physicists are alluding to a divinity/concept about communication and the speed of energy travel over vast ranges and yet arriving instantly at their destination . . . . they allude to the prayer and answer almost before the prayer is sent . Don't "dis" this thought . . . . . more will come later . C) Recently, an experiment that generated a great big "ho-hum" in the science-space set was the launching of a satellite with the four (4) gold, hollow balls that measured precession and axial destabilization caused by the velocities of light traveling AROUND a large star, from a significantly distant and predictable/measurable source of energy . As the star occluded the straight beam transmissions and forced them to travel around itself, the velocities actually increased and the transmission arrived at a measureable time that was faster than normal . . . . giving evidence that indeed, Einstein's Special Relativity was true and that, yes, energy could travel at greater-than-straight-line velocities . The "ho-hum" part was the rather insignificant prologue to the experiment . . . if the speed had NOT increased, then THAT would be news . As it was, Einstein was proven true . . . again!	SurferJoe46 (51)
479318	2006-08-23 03:24:00	Scientists will eventually stop flailing around with solar power and focus their efforts on harnessing the only truly unlimited source of energy on the planet: stupidity. ... we will discover more wind--the flapping of people's mouths. (p56 Dilbert FutureThriving on stupidity in the 21st Century) It's a brilliant book. He's being funny, but much of what he presents seems to appear as government policies, and his predictions come true. :( In p 161 he predicts exactly what has happened with the electricity "deregulation" fiasco in NZ (and the US).	Graham L (2)
479319	2006-08-23 21:19:00	No response yet from Bats . Science is about debate, and cut and thrust, but shouldn't get too personal, though I admit I'm not above a snide remark :) Who cares if one is proved wrong, all part of the fun . Mixing metaphors, it's always a good idea to drip feed shots from lockers :) I skipped over the first part of Einsteins 1905 paper, the Kinematic Part, the part that deals with the motion of rigid bodies and his somewhat cough cough dubious derivation of the Lorentz Transformation . This part he later claimed to be the heart of his Special Relativity Theory . He makes the postulate of the velocity of light being independendent of the velocity of the source, and defines the ideas of clock synchronisation á la Poincare . But interestingly it is in this part that he makes a statement that could not be more removed from "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" as could possibly be imagined . It is where he is describes a sphere in motion and how as the velocity increases, as measured by a 'stationary' observer, shrinks in size in the direction of motion until it eventual becomes a plain figure . Now this is what he said: "For v = c all moving objects-viewed from the “stationary” system-shrivel up into plain figures . For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity . " (My emphasis) I personally think this is the most interesting statement . Did he mean that he did indeed think that bodies could travel faster than the velocity of light, or was he just acknowledging that he was just manipulating algebra? When I say a dubious derivation of the Lorentz Transformation, he forced the derivation by assigning velocities c-v, c+v to rays of light quite contrary to his postulate that the velocity of light was independent of the motion of the source . G . Burniston Brown, What is wrong with relativity,Bulletin of the Institute of Physics, March 1967 . What this means is that you shouldn't "believe" all you read in books, particularly text books :)	Terry Porritt (14)
479320	2006-08-24 04:23:00	So .. if you were travelling in a car at the speed of light and turned the headlights on what would happen ? An the originator of the thread overlooked Archimedes' third law of hydrodynamics ...... Whenever a body is imersed in water ..... the telephone rings!!	GrahamT (291)
479321	2006-08-24 06:34:00	According to the theory, you would have a flat battery (assuming you are ecological and using an electric car) and the lights would not work, because you needed an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed. There are a few other minor problems: the car (and you) would have zero length in the direction of travel; the speed cameras would still have been able to capture your number plate; with survivable acceleration, you would have run out of road fairly soon, so the car would need to be amphibian; ... Let us know when you get back. You might be a bit younger than your identical twin when you do.	Graham L (2)
479322	2006-08-24 11:20:00	Mv=Mo/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 This equation says as a body made of atoms approaches the speed of light its mass increases and the closer it gets to light speed the more its mass increases in a exponential way. Therefore as v tends to c, Mv tends to infinity, this is impossible ie Mo can never travel at the speed of light. In fact as atoms approach the speed of light all the energy which would normally go into accelerating them goes into increasing their mass and eventually they become a burst of energy. If you assume that the speed (v) is say, 2c and is possible, then the square root of minus 1 comes into the result inferring an alternate tachyon universe. The precursor to the big bang.	zqwerty (97)
479323	2006-08-24 11:35:00	So . . if you were travelling in a car at the speed of light and turned the headlights on what would happen ? Let us see what Einstein has to say, and let us travel ahead in time from 1905 to 1920 when he published his book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory . Instead of cars or rockets, he talks about railway trains travelling along an embankment, with the air conveniently evacuated above it so that light rays travelling parallel with the rail tracks is in a vacuum . He doesn't say how a man on the train can survive in such conditions ! . bartleby . com/173/" target="_blank">www . bartleby . com He discuses the apparent incompatibility of the propagation of light with the relativity principle here: . bartleby . com/173/7 . html" target="_blank">www . bartleby . com So whilst one would expect light from the headlamps to travel at c+c relative to the stationary observer, according to relativity it will be just c . Of course as Graham has already said, the battery will appear to have gone flat, as relativity says it will have shrunk to a flat plane, so there wont be any light emitted anyway . :) . bartleby . com/173/12 . html" target="_blank">www . bartleby . com Now we are getting nearer to what Battleneter thought Einstein said, as indeed do many books also say . "The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod . For the velocity v = c we should have (there is a misprint at this point, it says v=0 which is obviously wrong) √(1-v²/c²)=0 and for still greater velocities the square-root becomes imaginary . From this we conclude that in the theory of relativity the velocity c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body . " So, Graham and Einstein agree, it would not be possible for a car to travel at the speed of light . :) It must not be ever forgotten that the shortening comes about because the moving rod which is in one frame of reference is being observed and measured from another stationary frame of reference . It is a consequence of measurement . In this book Einstein gives a more acceptable derivation of the Lorenz transformations than in his 1905 paper .	Terry Porritt (14)
479324	2006-08-25 02:45:00	Interesting discussion chaps although we seem to have strayed from the topic of free energy . :D I thought that the theoretical lightspeed traveller with his torch would himself observe a light beam move away from him at c . However the stationary observer, watching him travel past, wouldn't see any light emerge from the torch . I feely confess that I read about this stuff with great enjoyment but the maths eludes me .	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9