Perpetual motion proposal for criticism

[Electrodynamic]

I would disagree and see the conservation of energy as an absolute which cannot be violated.

Conservation of energy has only been verified on the local scale that we inhabit. If we compare our local scale with scale of the universe as a whole, it is rather similar to comparing the macroscopic scale to the quantum scale we can observe locally, where our world might be at a "quantum" scale relative to the universe.

So we cannot be certain that our local experience is the same at the scale of the universe. How do we know, for example, that there isn't a place "outside" the universe that can exchange energy into and out of the universe?

Now were on a slippery slope aren't we?. In my view the multiverse theory is just another flavor of overunity or something from nothing. It's an energy accounting problem where we are compelled to decide the lesser of multiple evils not in line with the science we know. I would ask, how is a supposed universe outside ours causing stuff to pop in and out of existence any different than overunity when the result would be identical?. I don't buy it and on a scale of probabilities it's much more likely any ambiguous energy transformations is beyond our ability to accurately measure it. As I eluded, energy is constantly changing it's form as it translates from one thing to another.

For example, suppose there were oscillations in matter or EM fields millions of times faster than anything we could detect?. The smaller the wavelength the greater the reduction in scale, time period and ability to carry energy. Like bumps on a road, the faster we travel the more uniform the bumps become until they are undetectable. Only in this case it is the road which is traveling beneath us on some smaller scale.

I don't buy it, it's magnitudes more likely that our perspective is flawed rather than nature and the science we know coming unglued.

[IanB]

You have to appreciate that we don't know. We only assume.

We see conservation of mass/energy. But we don't know, for example, that it might not in fact be conservation of mass/energy/something else that we haven't discovered yet. And if the "something else" was converted to energy, then energy might seem to appear out of nowhere.

We have to accept that we know what we see, and we assume what we see extends beyond our vision, but we are only making that assumption on the balance of probabilities. Cosmologists have all sorts of mysteries they are still trying to figure out.

Also, there is no "multiverse theory". Using that phrase as if it exists is not correct. Nobody has any evidence for multiverses.

[SteveThackery]

Another apparent contradiction is the big bang theory. If we actually believe in the conservation of energy then we must also believe the universe was compressed prior to expansion/big bang and operates cyclically. Otherwise were talking about creation and something from nothing like overunity. One would think anything defined as "cannot be created or destroyed only transformed" must be perpetual.

It is at least possible that the laws of physics were different before, at, or just after the Big Bang. Perhaps matter and energy were both created in the Big Bang, thus something from nothing, and yet - once created - followed the conservation of energy law we have observed. There is an exception to that law: we can create more energy by nuclear reactions converting matter into energy. I expect nuclear reactions were part of the Big Bang aftermath.

So when we talk about "conservation of energy" we are talking about what we see in everyday life. The rule might not have applied during the Big Bang, and nuclear reactions appear to circumvent the rule unless we include the energy equivalent of mass in our "conservation" rule.

[IanB]

So when we talk about "conservation of energy" we are talking about what we see in everyday life. The rule might not have applied during the Big Bang, and nuclear reactions appear to circumvent the rule unless we include the energy equivalent of mass in our "conservation" rule.

This is the case. The true rule is "conservation of mass-energy", where mass and energy have an equivalence.

[TimFox]

E² = p²c² + m₀²c⁴
p is momentum and m₀ is rest mass

[Electrodynamic]

So when we talk about "conservation of energy" we are talking about what we see in everyday life. The rule might not have applied during the Big Bang, and nuclear reactions appear to circumvent the rule unless we include the energy equivalent of mass in our "conservation" rule.

This is the case. The true rule is "conservation of mass-energy", where mass and energy have an equivalence.

True and mass-energy makes more sense when we realize there is no such thing as "mass" and what we measure is inertia which relates directly to kinetic energy or velocity. In effect some of the kinetic energy within what makes up the mass as inertia can be transferred to other stuff when we change the mass internal structure. Like hitting a rotating flywheel with a hammer and some of the stuff already in motion flies off carrying some of the energy with it. However at the end of the day the mass-energy must be conserved imo.

So nuclear reactions do not circumvent any rules and it's similar to chemistry on a much deeper level. Rearrange so atoms and we call it chemistry, rearrange the internal parts of some atoms and we call it a nuclear reaction. The important stuff is the electrostatic bonds binding stuff together and the conversion of energy when the bonds rearrange with other stuff.

[paul cotter]

Inertia is a property of mass. It is not correct to state that mass is inertia.

[SteveThackery]

He's at it again.

[Electrodynamic]

Inertia is a property of mass. It is not correct to state that mass is inertia.

It's debatable and AI seems to get it.
"Saying "this object has a lot of inertia" is conceptually the same as saying "this object has a lot of mass." The only minor catch is that "mass" can also refer to how an object interacts with gravity (gravitational mass). But because those two ideas always give the exact same value, calling mass "inertia" is an excellent and accurate way to understand it."

Technically mass and inertia are considered different aspects of the same thing but we could ask are they different?. Many physicists are now claiming matter/mass has no substance and are just field oscillations.
We are then left with the notion of field oscillations moving in space through other fields from everything else which occupy the same space. As Einstein eluded, we cannot tell the difference between the pull of gravity and the push of inertia.

I suspect that when we eventually understand how stuff works on the quantum level as field interactions we could probably move past the notion of mass. I'm not sure how because the complexity seems mind numbing but it is a possibility imo.

[IanB]

As Einstein eluded

To elude: to evade or escape from someone or something, typically in a skillful, cunning, or slippery way. It can also mean for a concept, memory, or achievement to escape your understanding or grasp.

I don't think these things apply to Einstein...

[Andy Chee]

As Einstein eluded, we cannot tell the difference between the pull of gravity and the push of inertia.

The correct word is alluded, not eluded.

[TimFox]

An important axiom from Einstein is that inertial mass (as in F=ma) is the same as gravitational mass (as in F=Gm₁m₂/r₁₂²), independent of substance.

[paul cotter]

Tim, our Canadian colleague does not accept SR and I presume the same goes for GR. Just for the record, I accept both.

[TimFox]

I was just reminding others of the non-mystical meaning of inertia.

[Electrodynamic]

An important axiom from Einstein is that inertial mass (as in F=ma) is the same as gravitational mass (as in F=Gm₁m₂/r₁₂²), independent of substance.

This is a little misleading imo, inertial mass and gravitational mass tend to act the same however we do not know whether they are the same because we have no idea what inertia or gravity are in reality. It's a bit like groping in the dark when we can feel something present but have no idea what it is.

Unless, of course, you know something the other millions of researchers and physicists trying to determine what gravity is don't know. Perhaps you could enlighten us?.

[TimFox]

An important axiom from Einstein is that inertial mass (as in F=ma) is the same as gravitational mass (as in F=Gm₁m₂/r₁₂²), independent of substance.

This is a little misleading imo, inertial mass and gravitational mass tend to act the same however we do not know whether they are the same because we have no idea what inertia or gravity are in reality. It's a bit like groping in the dark when we can feel something present but have no idea what it is.

Unless, of course, you know something the other millions of researchers and physicists trying to determine what gravity is don't know. Perhaps you could enlighten us?.

Physical theories (such as relativity) predict what will happen.
Scholastic theology (in the Middle Ages) tried to explain why things happen by hypotheses involving angels.

[Electrodynamic]

An important axiom from Einstein is that inertial mass (as in F=ma) is the same as gravitational mass (as in F=Gm₁m₂/r₁₂²), independent of substance.

This is a little misleading imo, inertial mass and gravitational mass tend to act the same however we do not know whether they are the same because we have no idea what inertia or gravity are in reality. It's a bit like groping in the dark when we can feel something present but have no idea what it is.

Unless, of course, you know something the other millions of researchers and physicists trying to determine what gravity is don't know. Perhaps you could enlighten us?.

Physical theories (such as relativity) predict what will happen.
Scholastic theology (in the Middle Ages) tried to explain why things happen by hypotheses involving angels.

You claimed inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass which is misleading because nobody knows if they are the same only that they tend to act the same.

I like this response, "Physical theories (such as relativity) predict what will happen" key words theory and prediction. Yet many people talk as if they have everything figured out when it's obvious nobody does. So again we come back to the analogy of groping in the dark and feeling/measuring something without knowing what it is very similar to the middle ages.

It's interesting to note some of the brightest minds on the cutting edge of physics are usually the first to acknowledge we don't know what the primary fields E,B,G and inertia are only how they tend to interact with stuff. They are the ones actively searching for answers not pretending it doesn't matter.

My "theory" is that once we understand what something is in reality were much more likely to be able to use it to our advantage.

[IanB]

inertial mass and gravitational mass tend to act the same

No, they do not "tend to act the same". They are the same in every experiment that anyone yet has been able to devise.

If two things are the same by every test imaginable, then they are the same.

however we do not know whether they are the same because we have no idea what inertia or gravity are in reality

This is a philosophical statement that has no bearing on the science.

It's a bit like groping in the dark when we can feel something present but have no idea what it is.

No idea? Really?

Unless, of course, you know something the other millions of researchers and physicists trying to determine what gravity is don't know. Perhaps you could enlighten us?.

I know what gravity is to the same extent that I know what the cup of tea is that is sitting in front of me. And I know very well what a cup of tea is. So I feel enlightened, even if you do not.

[SteveThackery]

Yet many people talk as if they have everything figured out when it's obvious nobody does.

This is such a familiar refrain from people like you, with no formal scientific education.

No scientifically educated person ever claims "everything [is] figured out". That is not what science is or how it works. Science offers us the best explanation at any moment of how the physical world works. That is always and automatically subject to change in the light of new objective evidence and/or theories. We know from centuries of experience that there is no better way than science for learning about the universe and everything in it.

For some reason, people without the relevant education often find comfort by telling themselves that educated people are in a rut, brainwashed against critical thinking. Thus they feel better about themselves: they are enlightened free-thinkers who think it is smart to question everything. Being without the relevant education, they fail to see the nuances: there is a level of confidence associated with all scientific knowledge. For example, the science of thermodynamics was pretty much nailed down solid by the end of the 19th century. (If you find a text book from that era it will be almost identical to a modern one apart from the use of obscure imperial symbols.) On the other hand, the science of dark matter and dark energy is far less solid. So although both areas are provisional, we have much more confidence in thermodynamics than we do in cosmology.

This is well understood and not controversial. So who are these "many people" who claim they have "everything figured out"? Because they certainly aren't people with a scientific education.

[TimFox]

A detail about the history of thermodynamics:
"Thermodynamics", starting with Carnot and Clausius, was pretty-well fleshed out during the 19th century, and named "the queen of the physical sciences", predicting the relationship between temperature and mechanical energy.
"Statistical mechanics", starting with Boltzman and Maxwell, used random molecular motion to explain the observations of thermodynamics, including a microscopic understanding of "entropy" that had already been found macroscopically in thermodynamics.
After Planck, "quantum statistical mechanics" discussed how quantum descriptions of molecules and atoms affected the macroscopic observables.
In all of this evolution, the theories were accepted based on experimental verification, while earlier theories were rejected due to new experimental evidence.

[IanB]

No discussion of thermodynamics is complete without mention of JW Gibbs (1839 - 1903).

Not only did he shape our modern description of thermodynamics as found in all current textbooks, but he also introduced concepts in vector analysis such as the dot product and cross product that remain in use today and greatly simplify vector algebra.

He used these algebra tools with Maxwell's equations to show that the electromagnetic theory could describe all the properties of light, and thus he predicted that light would be found to be electromagnetic in nature before that had been experimentally confirmed.

[TimFox]

Don't confuse "Gibbs' Free Energy" in thermodynamics for overunity!
Also, in the theory of Fourier series, the "Gibbs Phenomenon" gives the spike at the transitions of a square wave being synthesized as a sum of sine waves,  which gets taller and taller as the number of harmonics increases, but smaller (in area).

[paul cotter]

Or Helmholtz free energy for that matter! Gibbs was without doubt a giant of science but I believe Heaviside independently came up with the same advances in vector analysis.

[RoGeorge]

Out of them all, Heaviside was the most badass! 

This is Heaviside:


Doh, sorry, that was Wolverine.  This is Heaviside:


They are the same picture. 

[Electrodynamic]

Yet many people talk as if they have everything figured out when it's obvious nobody does.

This is such a familiar refrain from people like you, with no formal scientific education.

No scientifically educated person ever claims "everything [is] figured out". That is not what science is or how it works. Science offers us the best explanation at any moment of how the physical world works. That is always and automatically subject to change in the light of new objective evidence and/or theories. We know from centuries of experience that there is no better way than science for learning about the universe and everything in it.

For some reason, people without the relevant education often find comfort by telling themselves that educated people are in a rut, brainwashed against critical thinking. Thus they feel better about themselves: they are enlightened free-thinkers who think it is smart to question everything. Being without the relevant education, they fail to see the nuances: there is a level of confidence associated with all scientific knowledge. For example, the science of thermodynamics was pretty much nailed down solid by the end of the 19th century. (If you find a text book from that era it will be almost identical to a modern one apart from the use of obscure imperial symbols.) On the other hand, the science of dark matter and dark energy is far less solid. So although both areas are provisional, we have much more confidence in thermodynamics than we do in cosmology.

This is well understood and not controversial. So who are these "many people" who claim they have "everything figured out"? Because they certainly aren't people with a scientific education.

Of course, nobody is claiming to have everything figured out and certainly not people with a scientific education. Oh wait... basically everyone claimed they had the down wind faster than the wind technology all figured out and claimed it must be a hoax. Not only a hoax but a violation of the COE and a perpetual motion machine thus anyone who believed it must be dense. One very well educated physics professor with decades of experience went so far at to wager $10,000 he had it all figured out. Here were not talking about thermodynamics, dark matter/energy but a wind machine with only three moving parts.

I consider new science and technology like the DWFTTW fiasco a litmus test of sorts. We can pretend were open minded and open to new ideas however when over 90% of people have a complete melt down whenever something new happens I have reservations. The old, saying one thing yet doing another seems relevant imo. I just find it weird that most claim to be moderate and reserved in their judgment then "something unexpected happens" and they come completely unglued. I agree with Paul Cotter and find most posts amusing.