Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Layman, Jul 2, 2014.
There is force. There is no work.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How much force is on a flywheel that is spinning at a constant 3,000 RPM in a vacuum?
Depends on its diameter, the weight of its rim and the weight distribution in the material that makes up its rim.
Well you tell me how much force with all the details, K? I'll wait.
The 2 details that are constants are that it is spinning a constant 3,000 RPM, and that it is doing no work in a vacuum. The rest is all yours for the taking.
OK. A 36kg 1 meter flywheel made up of a 36 spoked wheel, each spoke thus supporting a 1kg weight spinning at 3000rpm (radial velocity of 157 m/s). Each spoke must therefore support ~49,000 kilograms of force.
What's your point? The force I am talking about is part of the work equation. We are measuring how much work the flywheel does on a load, not how much load a rim is on a spoke.
There is no force on the flywheel, otherwise the flywheel would be changing rotational velocity, and not be at 3,000 RPM.
There isn't a chance in hell you can add a force to the flywheel and have it maintain 3,000 RPM. That would be perpetual motion. You don't get to step on the "throttle" when you add a force to keep the RPM at 3,000. The flywheel is in a vacuum, spinning. At a CONSTANT 3,000 RPM. Dat's it!
Looks like you have lost track of what you were talking about. Go back to post #28 and start reading again.
You're a Relativist I see! You get lost and then claim I'm lost? LOL
How about YOU go back and do some reading and get some understanding on what work is?
Same old Motordaddy.
Yup, correct as usual. But they just keep coming back for more.
I had to look it up to properly attribute the quote, It's Ginsberg's Theorem (a retelling of the 3 laws)
1) You can't win.
2) You can't tie.
3) You can't leave the game.
I just don't know if I should laugh or cry every time I encounter a perpetual motion...believer. The math is solid. If a perpetual motion/overunity device is ever found, it basically means all math is wrong.
And back on topic of volcanoes: volcanoes are (sometimes) classified as:
1) erupting (self explanatory)
2) active: at least one eruption in the last 10,000 years
3) dormant: hasn't erupted in the last 10,000 years but could still erupt
4) extinct: hasn't erupted in the last 10,000 years and isn't likely to in the next 10,000.
Volcanoes die just like stars and galaxies and everything else in the universe.
It has been my goal in life to disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because I personally hate it dearly. It doesn't allow for the universe to exist. Then I would think that me being here is experimental proof to the contrary.
The heat death of the universe would be caused by gravity overcoming dark energy, so everything collapses back on to each other. The heat from the "heat death" of the universe would come from the force of gravity.
The Earth has been around for approximately 4.5 billion years. If it was cooling in this time, it would have had plenty of time to be cold already.
Volcanoes are always active on the surface of the Earth. They erupt regularly in Hawaii. It wouldn't matter if one burns your house down. All that would really matter is that there would be one erupting somewhere on the planet, and that process wouldn't ever end even without any outside energy.
I really don't see any good reason why not.
The Earth is very, very large, and large things take longer to cool. Billions of years, even.
It will eventually end as:
1) the Earth cools by radiating away the heat involved in its formation
2) the Earth cools as radioactive decay declines
3) the Earth cools as the Moon slows its orbit and the Earth slows its rotation (and eventually tide-locks to the Moon)
You not knowing that inflation theory proposes that the force of gravity balances out the total energy of inflation sounds like more of a personal problem then. There are aspects of inflation theory that no one understands, because there are aspects of it completely missing that cannot be explained by current science. Then since gravity cannot be converted to any other form of useful energy, then it shouldn't be able to be converted from the energy of inflation either. If nothing can take energy from gravity, then gravity shouldn't be able to take energy from anything either. The only way the theory could ever be finished is if there was further development in how energy can be transferred from the force of gravity. I think it just has failed so far because they attempt to transfer it straight to kinetic energy, but something like a volcano uses it by what it generates from thermal energy. Then energy could be taken from it by then transferring that thermal energy to kinetic energy, instead of the other way around, like all previous attempts at perpetual motion.
It would be impossible for 50 k tons of rock to just stop making the core hot from all that pressure. You saying this, doesn't show anything to the contrary.
In steady state, if that rock is there for a long time, its temperature will become exactly the same as the surface temperature, barring other effects. If you then add MORE pressure and compress it, it will heat up again. But pressure alone does not generate heat. (If it did, you could heat your house by just using a very big hydraulic press to heat up a piece of iron until it was red-hot.)
That sounds very interesting, please cite a source that says that "gravity balances out the total energy of inflation".
Where did you come up with that? Here are 2 simple examples that expose that statement as completely incorrect.
1. A soap box derby.
2. A pile driver.
That is pretty much a meaningless statement.
Well that is sad. Why don't you make it your goal in life to flap your arms fast enough to fly? At least you would get some exercise so it would not be a complete waste of your time and effort.
How's that working out for you? Frankly, it sounds to me like entropy racism -- you hate it despite having only a skin-deep understanding of what it is. You'd be better off learning what it is/how it works before deciding to hate it.
And I'm sure you calculated that, right? You're not just guessing?
So you're anti-1st law of thermodynamics prejudiced too?
Alan Guth starts to mention this at the bottom of page 5 the last paragraph.
I already told you that was the reason why perpetual motion machines have been deemed impossible. In these two cases, there is a limited amount of energy that can be created. Eventually, both objects will just have potential energy until they reach the center of a mass. Then the amount of energy they could take from gravity would be limited by this even though the force of gravity would have a never ending downward pull. It is believed that it would take an outside force of energy to counteract the force of gravity in order to take energy from the gravitational field again. Then the net amount of energy that could be taken from the gravitational field would be limited in this way even though there is a constant tug on all other objects.
Because there are over 7 billion people on Earth wasting its resources everyday, and so that when I get to be your age the world isn't in as bad of a post-apocalyptic state. If free energy is possible, then it would be just because of our own arrogance that we didn't take measures to prevent it.
Thanks for supplying the link - it is interesting.
But that is not what we were discussing. You said:
Then since gravity cannot be converted to any other form of useful energy
I supplied 2 simple examples that showed that you are completely wrong.
Hopefully when you are my age your ignorance will abated to the point that you will stop tilting at windmills - I am not holding my breath.
Separate names with a comma.