A Conservative Force Law from Nothing (A Bit of Fun)
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Jenny wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
> > [...] The "-" sign makes no
> > difference to the "numerology".
>
> Not true. The minus sign is ESSENTIAL. Otherwise there would be a force pushing
> an object to a higher energy state, and all sorts of fundamental physical laws
> would be violated. For example, with such a "force" it would be dead easy to
> build a perpetual motion machine that generated arbitrary amounts of free energy.
Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion machine that generates an unlimited
amount of energy out of nothing is a direct corollary of Einstein's
1905 false light postulate. The very long rod trapped inside a very
short container would exert such a force on the doors of the container
that Einsteinians, by harnessing this force, would be able to solve
all energy problems of humankind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/5fd35b8b38f2a49d?
EINSTEINIANA AS PERPETUUM MOBILE
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Michael Gordge
>
> Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion........
Hey dopey, perpetual motion destroys the meaning of motion, i.e self
contradicting, it aint gonna happen.
MG
M Purcell
I'm vaugly curious as to why you belive perpetual motion is impossible.
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion machine that generates an unlimited
> > amount of energy out of nothing is a direct corollary of Einstein's
> > 1905 false light postulate.
>
> many ways. You need to learn what these theories ACTUALLY imply, and not just
> make unfounded GUESSES.
>
> Tom Roberts
Honest Roberts, no GUESSES at all, let alone unfounded, on my part in
this case. According to your superior brothers Einsteinians, Divine
Albert's Divine Special Relativity ACTUALLY implies that "the rod will
be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn", and since you are
extremely honest, you should say something about the (ENORMOUS?) force
the compressed rod exerts on the doors of the barn (can in principle
this force be harnessed to produce work for Einsteiniana?):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Bret Cahill
>
> > Hey dopey, perpetual motion destroys the meaning of motion, i.e self
> > contradicting, it aint gonna happen.
>
> I'm vaugly curious as to why you belive perpetual motion is impossible.
It's not like a Randroid could pass even a high school physics course.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
>
> I'm vaugly curious as to why you belive perpetual motion is impossible.
What I believe doesn't change the fact that 'perpetual motion' is an
oxymoron, all you have to do is learn HOW to think. A is A
MG
BradGuth
Or, simply use a wee bit of vacuum if you wanted to move something
like Earth or that of our moon(Selene).
~ BG
BradGuth
That's simply way too much compressed energy for any barn to contain.
As you say, it would be nearly infinite clean energy.
Too bad the velocity induced contraction doesn't actually take place.
Perhaps Einstein was on drugs or beating his wife at the time of
creating that silly conjecture.
~ BG
Jesse F. Hughes
Very informative. A is, indeed, A.
Now, I know that Ayn Rand had this mystical ability to convince others
that glorious things followed from this, but you seem to be lacking
it. So, how does "'perpetual motion' is an oxymoron" follow from "A
is A" (or from anything at all)?
Extra points if you can discuss this without claiming that the whole
notion of perpetual motion comes from Kant.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Besides, discoverers are too proud to kiss butt. Indiana Jones would
never kiss some academic's ass to get published, and neither will I."
--James Harris
M Purcell
How does an adjective such as 'perpetual' contradict 'motion'?