Hypothetical formula for perpetual motion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Colt, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. Colt Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    to begin I am a high school graduate with little college training. I’m not even close to being included into any academic society’s. That being said I am not immensely literate in physics or philosophy, so my “stab” at this hypothesis will be incredibly ignorant of scientific facts. That being said, here goes.
    Perpetual motion to me is infinite motion using energy available in the known/unknown universe scaled to its finite amount to its minimal amount. As energy is mass times C squared, I know C is the speed of light. In my understanding Einstein uses the speed of light since it is a constant. So I’ll say energy is mass times constant squared. Now constant squared could be also stated as velocity. So now I’m at energy is mass times velocity. So in our universe I hypothesize the simplest example of perpetual motion is the universe itself. To explain the hypothesis I would say the universe as we know it today was started by the Big Bang theory. Now this Big Bang sent all known matter and energy in an outward trajectory. Over our measurement of time to the present day we know there are “black holes”. Dense stars imploded in on themselves with a unmeasurable density with today’s tools. Now these “black holes” density create great gravitational pulls on the surrounding mass and energy, thus increasing their density. Add that there are many of the black holes in the universe and the universe is till expanding, I deduce that at some point these black holes will swallow all of the matter and energy around them and eventually each other. If this is true then at some point all matter and energy will be trapped in the culminations of these black holes making one extremely dense object. Once the object has consumed all of the known universe, it would in my opinion regurgitate this matter and energy forth into another universe. No matter or energy lost or created and this “motion” would be infinite, hence perpetual motion. Now stating this hypothetical fluctuation of the universe I can delve into my hypothetical formula. Now this fluctuation of the universe is sporadic and random. If I try to put this randomness into order I come to the hypothesis that the energy being flung to and fro can be contained to a scale led down version of a measurable mass at a measureable velocity. Say on a triangle in a vacuum moving in a circle. Triangle given credit to Tesla and seemed a fitting geometry. So say this triangle has a mass on one side that is 3lbs. And can move freely from one side of that line to the other without friction until reaching the other side in which it strikes the angle of the next line setting the triangle in a circular motion at a speed of three miles per hour. Now this sets two masses in motion 3lbs each to the next angle at 6 mph increasing speed from the increased weight. The next line has 3 masses 3lbs each moving at a speed of 9 mph, and etc..... so those is scaled version and the maths needed to figure the lengths of the lines is beyond me. Now say there is another bigger triangle outside the first with the same concept but half masses and velocity. These masses would release heat (energy) to the next ring until reaching a point that the inner most rings density created enough gravitational pull to yank back that heat (energy) and continue this process infinitely. Basically this is my best logical example of my formula being used in real world experiment. Now for the formula. PM being perpetual motion and E being energy, I believe PM = E x (E x E) x ( E x E x E) ..... etc.... to the scaled amount of energy being used of the finite amount of energy and matter. Also this can be showed as PM = (m x v) x (Mass squared x Velocity squared) x ( Mass cubed x Velocity cubed) and so on.
    This probably is pretty elementary and not physically possible but thought it would be fun to share. Thanks for reading and all criticism welcomed, good or bad.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    You got right that the Universe MIGHT be a perpetual machine (expanding / contracting) but the idea is not new

    My take is IF the Universe is a perpetual machine it is such because it (all of it) is a closed system

    Nothing lost nothing gained

    Problem with building a perpetual motion machine within the closed Universe system - such a system is open

    Energy (frequently heat) from such a system will transfer from the system into the big bad Universe

    And add to that such a system (as all systems do) wear out

    No way to replace such worn out parts without cancelling out its perpetual motion status

    Welcome aboard

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    hi
    there is a bit of literature on this type of subject.
    it is fairly fringe kinda stuff and mostly all theories by people who know the ins & outs of physics.

    the CERN Hadron collider has some experiments to do with black holes.
    you may wish to have a read of them.

    there is some opinion that they all decay potentialy unles they are constantly attracting energy... though this seems a little vague.

    There was considerable discussion prior to the Large Hadron Collider being turned on & subsequently turned up.
    you may wish to have a read of those discusions.

    https://www.livescience.com/32204-will-the-large-hadron-collider-destroy-earth.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    The last part of that sentence is grammatically incorrect. Can you please rephrase it?

    The speed of light is indeed a constant, in vacuum.

    This is wrong. C is a velocity, so C squared is a velocity squared.

    This thus is wrong too: energy is mass times velocity squared.

    Indeed; depending on your definition of perpetual motion, either nothing satisfies it, or only the universe itself. Since your definition was grammatically incorrect, I can't judge which one, but saying the universe itself exhibits perpetual motion is indeed the only option (next to "nothing exhibits perpetual motion").

    No, it did not. The expansion of space is not the same as stuff flying outward.

    Take a balloon, and draw dots on it. Now, inflate the balloon. Which dot is at the center of expansion; from which dot do all other dots appear to be moving outwards? Answer: from all dots. The dots aren't moving, it's space (i.e. the skin of the balloon) that's expanding, "dragging" the dots with it.

    Black holes also (slowly) evaporate, and there are other options of what will happen, but the one you give is one of the more common ones, yes. It's called the "heat death" scenario.

    No; it's very likely that by that time the black holes will have drifted too far apart to all merge with each other. Also, as I said, black holes evaporate, so they probably would evaporate away before they can all merge anyway.

    Why? There is no known physics that allows for this. This appears to be pure speculation. And why would only this there-can-be-only-one black hole do that, but today's black holes not?

    Matter can most certainly be lost or created, and most likely is in a violent scenario such as you are describing.

    Look up the "big bounce" hypothesis. It's basically what you are describing.

    Ah, you are using the incorrect equality you derived earlier...

    That's not how science works. You can't just pick shapes because they are nice to you; you have to motivate your choice with scientific argumentation.

    What line? Do you mean an edge? In that case, how is that mass "on one side"? Or did you mean edge there too? I'll assume that you did.

    What second mass? Is there another mass waiting at that angle, that you forgot to mention earlier?

    There will be an energy input necessary to have the first mass "turn the corner". Also, if energy is conserved, the two masses will now be travelling at a lower speed, because the kinetic energy has to be spread between more mass.

    And every time, you either have to input more energy into the system, or the masses slow down further.

    Just so you know, it's covered by most high-school physics courses. Look up "elastic collision".

    Why? Why are the masses radiating heat? You said the masses can move freely, so no friction. You haven't specified the mechanism through which heat can be transferred.

    Why would the (energy?) density of the innermost ring go up? If it's radiating away heat, it would go down!

    See? You said "yank back"; even you know the (energy?) density of the innermost ring goes down, because it is loosing heat. You are contradicting yourself.

    What about all the heat that gets radiated into infinite (i.e. is not absorbed by any other rings)? The system you described constantly looses energy, and thus will not go on infinitely.

    How do you propose to construct your triangle with masses in the real world? Remember that friction is a thing.

    This would make the units of perpetual motion: energy to the power infinity. That makes no sense.

    You really need to rephrase this as well. The "to the scaled amount of energy"-bit makes no sense... Scaled how? What is being scaled, and on what scale?

    This is incorrect; you have done the multiplication wrong. The mass-term also squares, and cubes.

    Well, yeah. It only takes high-school physics knowledge to point out the issues with it.

    So, that "real world experiment" you were talking about, it doesn't exist? Then why did you bring that up?

    It has entertained me, slightly. Thanks!

    No problem; I hope you can make progress with what I've just written.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    ie a singularity

    I tend to go in the other direction

    Expansion will continue until the matter of the Universe is so thin that atoms are torn apart

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    (Also, this thread probably better fits in the "Physics & Math"-section, because you are not describing a machine.)
     
  10. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    As with the balloon analogy, the way it was described to me is a loaf of bread with raisins in it, heated. The raisins themselves do not expand, but the space between them does. Thus there will not be a black-hole armageddon.
     
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    ?
    is that a thing ?
    are atoms expanding ?
    are atoms held together by the collective fields of gravity of the universe ?
    i get all confused about what is strong & what is weak bonds when the subject of dark matter holding the galaxys together and stuff is kinda rolled out.
    surely space has atoms wizzing around ?
    lets say in a gajillion terabytastical years times worth when the known universe is more spread out than a steam roller rolled pizza...
    will atoms still be wizzing about doing their thing ?

    what is the current opinion of the movers & shakers(professors/Doctors/and the likes in astro physics) about atom integrity in conjunction with universal expansion ?
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Atoms not expanding

    However the opinion of those who believe the expansion of the will continue and not be reversed by gravity (I seem to recall that gravity is becoming weaker since due the expansion of the Universe it has more region to cover)

    However back to atoms. As I understand you can blast atoms apart (think atom bomb)
    OR
    if atoms are in a environment so low in density the bonding forces of the atom are not strong enough to hold the atom together

    Can't say I understand the process in so much the energy (definition of energy - the ability to do work - ie it is a measurement NOT a THING)

    The THING it is doing well the atom is keeping it together

    If it is not doing that???? where has it vanished to???? and where are the bits of the atom gone????

    Is there anything sort of solid left???

    Does the Universe finish up being "energy looking for something to do with itself?"

    Anyway there are many experts out there with numerous ideas

    I like my version (which has some backing)

    Again welcome aboard and one day you might find Alice, door mouse and the rest of the gang

    Trust me if you stick to reality your story will outshine hers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    I believe it's a potential. Space is expanding, but without beings to travel INTO that space, it remains empty and meaningless. ☺
     
  14. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    A couple of points. A black hole does not increase its gravitational pull when it forms. A newly formed black hole will not have any more mass than the star it was formed from (In fact it will be less, as the super nova event that preceded the blck hole formation will blow off a good deal of the star's mass.) The strong gravity near a black hole results from the fact that the strength of gravity increases as you get closer to the source, and black holes, being very compact, allow you to get very close. The upshot is that an object that was a given distance away from the star before the black hole formed will not experience any increase in gravity after the black hole formed, even if all of that star's mass had collapsed into the Black hole.
    This also means that even if every star in the universe were turned into a black hole, it would not increase the overall gravity of the Universe.
    Recent studies show that not only is the universe expanding, but that the rate of this expansion is increasing*. This means that the expansion of the universe overcomes its own mutual gravitational attraction. Gravity is trying to pull everything together, but the expansion wins out. Any two galaxies far enough away from each other are not expected to come together under the pull of gravity, even if both of their entire masses were converted into black holes.

    As already noted by NotEinstein, black holes can also evaporate, through a process known as Hawking radiation. This is a Quantum Mechanics process that occurs at the edge of the blackhole's event horizon. If the loss due to Hawking radiation exceeds what the black hole gains through other means, the Black hole will shrink in size. The rate of this evaporation depends on the mass of the black hole, and the larger the BH, the less Hawking radiation generated. For black holes formed from stars, their masses are large enough, that even if they have swept their local region clear of matter, they still gain mass by virtue of the energy absorbed from radiation falling in on them. Even if such a black hole was removed to some point of the galaxy far removed from the light of other stars, the present background radiation of the universe would be enough to sustain it.

    As the universe ages, more and more stars will use up their fuel and there will be fewer and fewer new stars born to take their place. And as the Universe continues to expand, even the cosmic background radiation could decrease to the point that the smaller stellar black holes will begin to evaporate. Then as the universe continues to cool, larger and larger black holes will start to evaporate. This would be the "heat death" scenario for the Universe. The basic idea is that doing any type of useful work requires moving energy from a higher state to a lower state, and as the universe approaches a uniform temperature all over, the amount of energy available to do work diminishes. So even though the total energy of the Universe remains constant, that part that can be used to do anything with decreases.

    This is just one possible outcome for the universe. Another is called the "Big Rip", this involves the acceleration of the expansion continuing to increase until the universe is quite literally torn apart. At present, small compact objects hold together against the general expansion of the universe. Atoms, molecules, you, me, the Solar system and anything up to the size of groups of galaxies can resist universal expansion by virtue of the forces holding them together. In the Big Rip scenario the universal expansion becomes so strong that it overcomes these forces all the way to tearing sub-atomic particle apart.

    There is also the "Big Crunch". This is where the universe stops expanding and begins to fall back in on itself. This would require the present acceleration of the expansion to stop and reverse itself.

    * Or at least, as far as our present understanding goes. Further observations or discoveries may modify this view.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    No.
     
  16. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    Michael345, that would split atoms causing nuclear blasts.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    True but only one atom at a time

    Not a cascading effect where one atom splits apart flying into another atoms causing them to split apart leading to the release of lots of atoms energy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Care to expand please?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,491
    You must be still jet lagged. The forces that keep an atom together are nothing to do with the environment it is in. The electrons are attracted to the nucleus by electrostatic forces. The nucleons are attracted together by the strong nuclear force.

    So it takes energy input to pull these parts of the atom apart, doing work against these forces.
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    As I understand the situation, somewhat like leaking black holes, the forces (energy) keeping atoms together will wind down until not enough left to keep it together

    Or are you saying (under the conditions I put forward) individuals atoms will become their own singular perpetual motion things?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Lone atoms in a rarefied region of space don't fall apart. Their nuclear bonds and their electron shells don't weaken with time.
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    "high school graduate" is an americanism
    " i finnished high school" is a fairly normal thing.
    focussing on those who have not finnished high school is an american bigotry of classist racial predjudice.

    "college training" is an americanism
    it is a subversion of the process of authority and truth to being a graduate of university.
    that also is a bit of a cultural issue.

    the obsessive focus on authority & authoratarian power instead of knowlede is the underlying theme.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Reported as a wildly off-topic rant. Suggest it be moved to Politics or somewhere.
     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    So they do become a single self substaining perpetual unit?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.

Share This Page