Page 5 of 5
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:49 pm
by Foo
I.... don't quite understand how that was a response to me.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:50 pm
by Nightshade
Wizard .3 wrote:Doesn't magnetism stem partially from electron spin?
It might to an extent. I'm no expert on subatomic particle physics, but I've never learned anything about magnetism that would say that yes, a material's magnetic properties are due to its electron spin characteristics.
I do know that every time someone's tried to violate the laws of thermodynamics they've failed. But, I suppose at some point in time there may be a revolution in physics on the scale of the Newtonian to Einsteinian shift. At that point we'll all say what a primitive discussion this was.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:55 pm
by Iccy
Foo wrote:
So you currently go around and listen to everything everyone in the world has to say, and evaluate every bit of that communication with equal depth and consider them all equally valid? You must never get anything done, and waste a lot of time on Kracus. Good luck with that
Yea i do waste a lot of time with it Foo and it gets frustration sifting through all this information. But in a quest for absolute truth, how can one not consider every possabilty. I mean is this not at the heart of quantum theory ? Is not quantum theory one of the leading scientific fields of research right now ? I atleast think it is.
You talk about kracus like he is completely invalid. But even if he is incoherent as you say, can not words of wisdom still slip out once in a while ? Shouldnt you listen to him, even if passivly, on that fact alone?
Forgive the metaphor. Im not trying to get into a kracus is this or that debate, i was just trying to use symbols you are familar with.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:58 pm
by Wizard .3
Iccy wrote:But in a quest for absolute truth, how can one not consider every possabilty.
You don't think people have been trying for HUNDREDS of years to make perpetual motion machines? Leading scientific figures have tried to come up with them.
Sometimes I dream of making gold out of lead, but that doesn't make it so.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:59 pm
by Iccy
Foo wrote:Iccy wrote:The point im merely trying to express is that even the smartest of people that have graced us with their scientific findings, their theories that helped shape us and evolve us, they can be wrong.
If this is really the point you're trying to make, my only response is 'well, duh'.
Well ofcourse " duh". Tell that this thought.
riddla wrote:pm machines are not possible.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm
by Foo
Iccy wrote:Yea i do waste a lot of time with it Foo and it gets frustration sifting through all this information. But in a quest for absolute truth, how can one not consider every possabilty. I mean is this not at the heart of quantum theory ? Is not quantum theory one of the leading scientific fields of research right now ? I atleast think it is.
I suggest that a better use of your time might be to start by persuing the widely respected literature on the subjects you're interested in, then subsequently branching out into more specialised sources of information if you THEN deem them worthy.
What you're describing is analogous to trying to make a sniper shot with a shotgun.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:01 pm
by spookmineer
Foo wrote:I.... don't quite understand how that was a response to me.
Heh... I got a bit carried away with my response to Iccy...
Only the last bit was directed to you becuase of your former post in quotes. This is still a discussion thread and although it's tiring to get through someone's mind (I remember a thread in another forum about timetravel...) it's not reserved to people who have enough knowledge. Who decides who has enough knowledge, what is the amount of knowledge needed, I don't want to go into that
I just like people to post some ideas and maybe (...hardly ever) something comes up. But I like keeping my mind open at the same time and try to think about stuff, not just apply the laws of physics to things.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:04 pm
by Iccy
Wizard .3 wrote:Iccy wrote:But in a quest for absolute truth, how can one not consider every possabilty.
You don't think people have been trying for HUNDREDS of years to make perpetual motion machines? Leading scientific figures have tried to come up with them.
Sometimes I dream of making gold out of lead, but that doesn't make it so.
I agree fully wiz. All im saying is this.......
To say " never " is foolish.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:09 pm
by Iccy
Well i think its basicly like this.
There are people that deal in facts and knowledge and structure and there are people that exist outside of that and try to find new things or hidden ideas to bring back us all.
I know who i am and i hope im not offending anyone by saying i know who you guys are. Its not meant as a insult.
Im just going to agree to disagree here cause i respect the intellect's displayed. Id rather not taint that respect.
Peace.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:10 pm
by Foo
Iccy wrote:You talk about kracus like he is completely invalid. But even if he is incoherent as you say, can not words of wisdom still slip out once in a while ? Shouldnt you listen to him, even if passivly, on that fact alone?
No more than I would stick around and listen to my washing machine, lest it utter something profound.
Kracus has repeatedly uttered nonsense and attempted to pass it off as sound, despite usually being refutable using the most basic of logic.
Why give him more time than one would devote to lint? Perhaps an absence of attention would drive him to actually further his knowledge. This would seem the most constructive thing to do.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:13 pm
by Iccy
Foo wrote:Iccy wrote:You talk about kracus like he is completely invalid. But even if he is incoherent as you say, can not words of wisdom still slip out once in a while ? Shouldnt you listen to him, even if passivly, on that fact alone?
No more than I would stick around and listen to my washing machine, lest it utter something profound.
Kracus has repeatedly uttered nonsense and attempted to pass it off as sound, despite usually being refutable using the most basic of logic.
Why give him more time than one would devote to lint? Perhaps an absence of attention would drive him to actually further his knowledge. This would seem the most constructive thing to do.
I understand your point Foo. Its valid.
But ofcourse we arent talking about something as easy to define as a person and their comments on a forum. We are talking about understanding of something much bigger and much more complex.
But like i said, thnx for the intelligent and unraving replies. I think, im just going to pick up this interaction on a better topic.
Peace man.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:23 pm
by spookmineer
People get ideas from the weirdest things. People saying something incoherent can trigger something that makes sense to someone else in the end. Usually this is because people start to think why the other person is wrong, which forces them deeper in the subject, they start to think about what some law really means - or doesn't mean. Or it just triggers another synaptic nerve and the "routine" or what we know to be true is not so eagerly/easily accepted.
Without debate or ideas we don't gain knowledge. It is where thinking starts to kick in and I love it.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:33 pm
by MKJ
R00k wrote:R00k wrote:Don't magnets eventually lose their magnetism for that matter?
Is this not true?
it is. dont have the actual paragraph right now (its at work) but yea thats true
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:39 am
by mrd
Anyone got any clues about the fuckin post I made back on page three you asshats?
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:45 am
by [xeno]Julios
sounds like bs mrd - (the two balls)
i can totally buy the idea of a system that perpetually moves without losing energy - like a ball bouncing up and down forever and ever with zero loss of energy, etc.
but that is NOT a perpetual motion machine.
even if u have a magnet which never loses its magnetism, you won't have a perpetual motion machine.
All you have is a perfectly efficient machine.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:49 am
by mrd
[xeno]Julios wrote:sounds like bs mrd - (the two balls)
i can totally buy the idea of a system that perpetually moves without losing energy - like a ball bouncing up and down forever and ever with zero loss of energy, etc.
but that is NOT a perpetual motion machine.
even if u have a magnet which never loses its magnetism, you won't have a perpetual motion machine.
All you have is a perfectly efficient machine.
Ok so in order for it to be a true PM, it has to not only be 100% efficient, but it has to also be able to produce more energy that it took in originally to start it that we can harness, is that the case?
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:42 am
by [xeno]Julios
mrd wrote:
Ok so in order for it to be a true PM, it has to not only be 100% efficient, but it has to also be able to produce more energy that it took in originally to start it that we can harness, is that the case?
yes exactly - see my post on page 1:
[xeno]Julios wrote:while there is nothing logically impossible about perpetual motion, a perpetual motion machine is understood to be a device which actually yields energy while remaining in perpetual motion.
As far as we understand, nature does not allow this.
Even if u had a wheel spinning in space forever, once u started to harness that energy it would cause the wheel to slow down unless u had a 3rd party source of energy feeding the wheel.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:03 am
by Foo
[xeno]Julios wrote:mrd wrote:
Ok so in order for it to be a true PM, it has to not only be 100% efficient, but it has to also be able to produce more energy that it took in originally to start it that we can harness, is that the case?
yes exactly - see my post on page 1:
[xeno]Julios wrote:while there is nothing logically impossible about perpetual motion, a perpetual motion machine is understood to be a device which actually yields energy while remaining in perpetual motion.
As far as we understand, nature does not allow this.
Even if u had a wheel spinning in space forever, once u started to harness that energy it would cause the wheel to slow down unless u had a 3rd party source of energy feeding the wheel.
I can't find a source to corroborate your definition of perpetual motion.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:39 am
by [xeno]Julios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine
there's a diff between perpetual motion and a perpetual motion machine, at least with one understanding of the latter term.
Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without the expenditure of any limited internal or external source of energy.
For example, electrons in an atom or quarks in a nucleus are in a state of perpetual motion.
It is customary to classify perpetual motion machines as follows:
A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, thus violating the law of conservation of energy.
A machine that produces (in still-usable form) exactly as much energy as it uses is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which continues running forever (not necessarily doing any usable work) by converting its waste heat back into mechanical work. This need not violate the law of conservation of energy, but does violate the less fundamental second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). More generally, any device that converts heat into work without loss can be considered a perpetual motion of the second kind, since it could be used to make something that moves perpetually.
the sort of machine krakus had in mind was the former.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:40 am
by Foo
I'm with you, thanks.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:39 pm
by Jackal
Sucrak is a perpetually stupid machine
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:33 pm
by MKJ
Jackal wrote:Sucrak is a perpetually stupid machine
nightshade was already ahead of you
