The last part of that sentence is grammatically incorrect. Can you please rephrase it?
I meant that the supposed amount of energy being used for the perpetual motion device may be as much as the whole of the energy known and unknown in the universe, or as little as kinetic energy at the lowest temperature close to zero Kelvin technologically possible at the time of the experiment.
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.
Isn’t the expansion of the universe into nothing theoretical. Wouldn’t this be discredited with a theory such as infinite dimension connecting our universe to a hypothetical, infinite amount of other universes? Are you stating that our universe is the only one or that any theory tied to what is outside our universe is bound by a law that everything is expanding and could not be “flying” out into something, or something’s?
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.
I agree it is improbable that these BH’s would come back together, but I was speculating it could be a possibility by using what’s known in the second law of thermodynamics. Particularly that the universe has not reached equilibrium and leaves these BH’s coming back together a possibility.
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?
You stated that Black Holes do “ slowly evaporate”. It is unknown what caused the Big Bang’s explosion, but are there known physics making all or one black hole from very quickly evaporating, at say the same rate as the Big Bang, scaled to the mass of said black hole, impossible?
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.
I can and I did. science is relative to the people’s visible scope of what’s observable and what is known at a specific time. This is why science is in a constant state of change.
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.
Yes, an edge. Line was a poor choice to use as I did state the path the objects moved along would be finite. Although, they could be three lines intersecting at a three points, but I won’t argue that.
What second mass? Is there another mass waiting at that angle, that you forgot to mention earlier?
Yes, the first mass would stop at the point of angle that the first edge and second edge meet. Also I said there were two masses on the second edge. I should have specified two separate masses from the first. Dido with the third edge having three separate masses from the first three mentioned on the first and second edges.
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.
The hypothetical triangle is moving in a rotation. I stated this. Would this suffice as a necessary energy?
And every time, you either have to input more energy into the system, or the masses slow down further.
I’ll get back to you on this one.
Just so you know, it's covered by most high-school physics courses. Look up "elastic collision".
I will.
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.
Mass decaying by giving off radiation.
Why would the (energy?) density of the innermost ring go up? If it's radiating away heat, it would go down!
Yes and regain it in the process of expansion and contraction.
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.
I Cannot argue that nor will I try.
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.
Indeed.
How do you propose to construct your triangle with masses in the real world? Remember that friction is a thing.
Hypotheticaly,as of now. Adjustments will be made with the accumulation of knowledge. Bluntly put, ill use science.
This would make the units of perpetual motion: energy to the power infinity. That makes no sense.
I should of specified that I meant energy to the power of what energy exist or the amount being used. In the case of the triangle it would cease at energy to the power of 3.
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?
Energy is the bit being scaled. The energy is being scaled by the amount used from the energy that exist. I.e. energy to the power of 3.
This is incorrect; you have done the multiplication wrong. The mass-term also squares, and cubes.
Whoops.
Well, yeah. It only takes high-school physics knowledge to point out the issues with it.
And I appreciate all issues pointed out.
So, that "real world experiment" you were talking about, it doesn't exist? Then why did you bring that up?
Because, hypothetically.
It has entertained me, slightly. Thanks!
You’re welcome.
No problem; I hope you can make progress with what I've just written.
I will try, and thanks again.
