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
479325	2006-08-25 03:03:00	Another of the minor aspects which occured to me after the editing cutoff wat that you'd have trouble working the infinitely thin light switch with your infinitely thin arm. Apart from the fact that your arm's mass would be infinite too, so you would need infinite energy to move it, the switch's mass would be infinte too, so it would need another infinite amount of energy to operate it. :D The energy from any breakfast, whatever the assertions of the food manufacturers, would be insufficient. Forr a story of life (2 dimensional, by necessity) in the "fast lane" where everyone travels at the speed of light, look at Flatland, a romance of many dimensions by Edwin A Abbott, 1884. Some libraries will have it; it's available for download in the Gutenberg project.	Graham L (2)
479326	2006-08-25 06:40:00	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 . You never know, we may discover a source of free energy in the debate :) It's one of the two postulates of the special theory that the laws of physics have to be the same in any frame of reference, so observers in each frame would see a beam of light shining from their own torches . What is more if they set up a 'speed of light' measurement experiment for their torch beams they would both get the same answer . (Phrases like 'as seen from' when talking about time, light or length in one frame relative to another, also causes confusion) However that opens up a whole new field only lightly touched on earlier on the physics of measurement, consistency in measuring standards and physics . In the 'olden days' they were fond of talking of measuring rods . These are physical artifacts . The metre bar in Paris was the primary standard . Once a primary standard has been defined then it ceases to be measurable, by definition . It was not a consistent standard, it's length could possibly change because of metal properties changing, or, if stood upright it would be fractionally smaller, or it could shrink due to evaporation etc etc . It is a useless and inconsistent standard for use in discussions on relativity . Such inconsistent measuring standards can lead to paradoxes in relativity . Nowadays the frequency of say a laser light source can be measured directly, and then the invariant value for the velocity of light is used to get the wavelength . Instead of using metre rods to measure distances, a light source is used, either using the doppler effect or time of flight . So, any so-called measurement of the speed of light turns out to be a measurement of distance, since the velocity of light is now a primary invariant standard . For this reason the famous astronomical measurements by Römer to measure the speed of light, can be considered in principle to be really a determination of the diameter of the Earths orbit, not a one way determination of the speed of light . It is open to debate . According to the Principle of Relativity, if one was in a frame of reference travelling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, (relative to another frame ) then since the laws of physics are the same in both frames, you wouldn't see or feel any change in your mass or thickness . :)	Terry Porritt (14)
479327	2006-08-26 12:10:00	More BS on original story: www.guardian.co.uk	zqwerty (97)
479328	2006-08-26 21:44:00	Obviously, science, and in particular physics, is no longer taught. We have to have 'open minds' just in case there is such a thing as perpetual motion. What a load of..... What has been said is..... That our universe is infinite in size, finite in age, and just one among many. Not only can I not prove it but I believe that these statements will prove to be unprovable in principle and we will eventually hold that principle to be self-evident.	Cicero (40)
479329	2006-08-27 00:13:00	"our universe is infinite in size" actually no, "Boundless but not infinite" was, I think how Einstein put it. Infinity, Zero, Magic, irresistible force, immoveable object, perpetual motion, eternity, everlasting, all-powerfull and dare I say it, god, have NO real world analogue, they only exist in our minds as a concept useful sometimes to get meaning across to others.	zqwerty (97)
479330	2006-08-27 00:34:00	"our universe is infinite in size" actually no, "Boundless but not infinite" was, I think how Einstein put it. Infinity, Zero, Magic, irresistible force, immoveable object, perpetual motion, eternity, everlasting, all-powerfull and dare I say it, god, have NO real world analogue, they only exist in our minds as a concept useful sometimes to get meaning across to others. I think at this point it would behove you to prove that the universe isn't infinite,never mind what that fellah said.	Cicero (40)
479331	2006-08-27 03:18:00	I don't have to, anything real cannot be infinite, that is "not finite". Or else "magic" is involved. For me, if things do not make sense then there is just not enough knowledge yet. This particular "Big Bang" is probably one of many in a continuing process that has always being happening and always will, because as has been pointed out in this thread, nothing can be created or destroyed, it can only change its form. I believe, if you could add up the sum total of everything in the Universe the answer would be "1" not "Zero". Crazy I know, but there it is. Here is some more of the latest info: www.theaustralian.news.com.au	zqwerty (97)
479332	2006-08-27 04:34:00	Einstein actually said "finite but unbounded" . There's a very clear explanation of what that (and lot of other things) means in E H Waddington's Gifford lectures at Edinburgh university in 1926 . They were published in 1927 as The nature of the physical world . Waddfington was one of the earliest to understand relativity . . . it has been said that he just "knew" it, because he had been thinking along similar lines .	Graham L (2)
479333	2006-08-27 05:46:00	I thought I had that phrase correct and I think it was Stephen Hawking who used the phrase you mention Graham: www.thekeyboard.org.uk www.everything2.com www.bu.edu The phrase I used is mentioned in the last link but not attributed to Einstein so I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I looked at this subject.	zqwerty (97)
479334	2006-08-27 05:56:00	If, as has been hypothesised, all of creation originated from a single point and eventually will collapse in upon itself to begin the cycle again, is this not perpetual motion? As energy is not lost, just altered, how can this apparent contradiction occour? Expansion must logically slow and eventually stop if the infinate argument is not true, then gravity will cause the universe to collapse in upon itself back toward singularity . How can this happen given that perpetual motion is not possible? Big bang provides a time line that can be measured . Expansion of the space between galaxies can likewise be measured, and the rate of accelleration . Either we will eventually return to a singularity and be subjected to another big bang which will support perpetual motion, or we won't reach singularity which would then make the big bang unique and raise some interesting questions in itself because each subsequent expansion would necessarily be lesser than the previous, but still subject to the same gravity, leading ultimately to what . . . quark soup? Either way, I don't expect to be around when we eventually find out .	RandomCarnage (9359)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9