Infinite Energy Model, where's the error?
gu...@hotmail.com
figure out the error in the energy producing model below here?
#1. Pretend there's no Sun
#2. Two tiny balls each equipped with an alternator to produce energy
and both alternators linked together by a belt (or whatever).
#3. Both tiny balls have a velocity = 0 but one ball is FURTHER than
the other.
#4. A huge ball with v=x hits the 1st tiny ball.
#5. After collision the 1st tiny ball's v=2x
#6. Due to the alternator (and belt linkage) on the 2nd tiny ball
whose v=0, the 1st tiny ball also again reaches v=0 as it charges the
2nd tiny ball's alternator.
#7 Once the 1st tiny ball's v=0, it distance is further than the 2nd
tiny ball and this distance is similar to Step #3.
#8. Step 3 to 7 keeps going on until the huge ball's velocity also = 0
and meantime a huge amount of free electricity has been produced....
A) Is there an error in the model above?
B) Due to Galilean relativity and if there's no 3rd party like a
Sun....can we always re-accelerate the balls so that they both speed
at v= -x towards the Huge ball and FOREVER make free electricity
(seems impossible)? So where's the assumption error?
(Galilean relativity: Both tiny balls' v=0 and huge ball's v=x; is the
same as both tiny balls' v=-x (from huge ball's perspective) and huge
ball's v=0.....)
David Brownstain
1) Google poster
2) Hotmail address
Inertial
news:2a2cc3e5-fe87-4bee...@a12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>Since it's impossible to get infinite energy, therefore I cannot
>figure out the error in the energy producing model below here?
Are you really that stupid that you can't see the error? Go back to school
and learn about kinetic energy.
Edward Green
We just had a very nice series of posts from a new Google poster.
I don't know about the hotmail address, though.
It's a complete coincidence that I happen to be a Google poster, but
not have a hotmail address.
Any relation between you and the owners of the Brown Trout publishing
company?
guskz
> wrote in messagenews:2a2cc3e5-fe87-4bee...@a12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Learn yourself, I presume in ineptitude needs to be hand-fed to figure
out below is correct:
guskz
Well the 1st mistake is the law of inertia, the alternator will not
turn since both tiny balls have the same mass....therefore a 3rd ball
(or more) spaced even further away would have to be introduced, but
the same concept would still apply.
Inertial
news:9ee2be11-ed30-4e14...@ei5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Jul 23, 10:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:2a2cc3e5-fe87-4bee...@a12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Since it's impossible to get infinite energy, therefore I cannot
>> >figure out the error in the energy producing model below here?
>>
>> Are you really that stupid that you can't see the error? Go back to
>> school
>> and learn about kinetic energy.
>
>Learn yourself,
I already have. I"m not the one making such stupid suggestions like yours
that could be avoided by just a little thought or understanding on your
part.
> I presume in ineptitude needs to be hand-fed to figure
> out below is correct:
>
> #5. After collision the 1st tiny ball's v=2x
Doesn't matter.
Do you want to be told where the error is .. or do you want to think about
it a bit more and see if you can avoid the embarrassment.
Inertial
news:0a70b091-b292-4d7a...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Your mistake is far deeper and far more obvious than that. Do you REALLY
think you have got a machine for free infinite energy there? Do you want a
hint?
guskz
I already wrote: A) Is there an error in the model above?
But I doubt very much it has to do with what you
are babbling about, I bet you'll be the one
embarrassed. Go ahead inertial Newtion.
guskz
Yes you are gradually changing the velocity of the larger mass by
repetitively throwing the same small
mass at it, until both masses have the same velocity.
This change in velocity of the larger mass can be
stored in an alternator, this is done on Earth through wind and water
turbines.
The end result for gaining energy/electricity is that the wind and
water have their velocities changed in the process.
guskz
Oh must I state everything for the little people, no one wants to read
large texts. There are other hurdles like #1. the Sun which I already
stated.
But for the little minds like INERTIAL, for now and to resolve one
hurdle at a time:
2. Pretend there's no gravity between masses.
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Zero point energy predicted by quantum conjugate attributes of
Energy and Time
Time goes to an instant and energy goes infinite by this math of zero
point
At everypoint in space at every instant there is infinite energy.
I question that.
gu...@hotmail.com
And regardless of #2, satellites meaning space probes have already
overcome this barrier.
And increase their velocity by v=2x where x is the planet's velocity.
gu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
As have I, yet no one has been able to elaborate in reference to the
model provided.
Inertial
news:6a6a9f7f-9081-43d2...@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> I already wrote: A) Is there an error in the model above?
Yes .. there is. Can't you see it? If you COULD see it, you wouldn't have
posted.
>But I doubt very much it has to do with what you
>are babbling about, I bet you'll be the one
>embarrassed. Go ahead inertial Newtion.
Why should *I* be embarrassed because *you* think you have found a source of
infinite energy and can't see the error?
Do you actually want to know what your error is?
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretend you're not pretending.
Inertial
news:be27c969-2474-4c79...@q11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 12:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> Your mistake is far deeper and far more obvious than that. Do you REALLY
>> think you have got a machine for free infinite energy there? Do you want
>> a
>> hint?
>
>Yes
Oh dear. You really need to think a bit more about your scenario.
>you are gradually changing the velocity of the larger mass by
>repetitively throwing the same small
>mass at it, until both masses have the same velocity.
>
>This change in velocity of the larger mass can be
>stored in an alternator, this is done on Earth through wind and water
>turbines.
You can't store a change in velocity.
You can convert the kinetic energy into another form. But only as much
kinetic energy as was already in the system. And once it is converted, it
is gone. That is not infinite.
> The end result for gaining energy/electricity is that the wind and
> water have their velocities changed in the process.
What wind and water?
guskz
You still did not explain what was the mistake.
Repeat after me, to charge a battery or turbine, you are gaining
something known as electricity and energy.
This gain in energy (kinetic or potential) must require a loss in
energy from the donor. Since the mass is not lost where Ek=1/2mv^2
then Sherlock it must mean the velocity of the object turning the
alternator or turbine is lost (or less) after it exists the turbine or
alternator's motor.
You still haven't explained where the mistake is, and thus likewise
you are the embarrassed mistaken party.
guskz
>
> news:be27c969-2474-4c79...@q11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 24, 12:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> Your mistake is far deeper and far more obvious than that. Do you REALLY
> >> think you have got a machine for free infinite energy there? Do you want
> >> a
> >> hint?
>
> >Yes
>
> Oh dear. You really need to think a bit more about your scenario.
>
> >you are gradually changing the velocity of the larger mass by
> >repetitively throwing the same small
> >mass at it, until both masses have the same velocity.
>
> >This change in velocity of the larger mass can be
> >stored in an alternator, this is done on Earth through wind and water
> >turbines.
>
> You can't store a change in velocity.
>
> You can convert the kinetic energy into another form. But only as much
> kinetic energy as was already in the system. And once it is converted, it
> is gone. That is not infinite.
So that was the mistake, you mean infinite energy....forget about
infinite for now.
Do you then disagree that the model can produce a large amount of
energy??
If your answer to the above is yes, then & only then can I show you
how this model can be reproduced over and over again.
guskz
I'm going to answer the above to which you would agree the model can
produce energy but not infinite energy.
#1 A true scientist or mathematician like me and not you, uses the
hyperbola word of near-infinite and infinite interchangeably.
Thus when you have a huge ball with a huge mass and huge velocity, the
kinetic energy that it holds and that can be retrieved from it from a
space probe's (or tiny ball's)point of view is IMMENSE if not near-
infinite or as others would say infinite.
Do you still disagree with the above Sherlock?
-----------------------------------
PART 2 (separate from PART 1 above)
And yet there still can be an error in my imagination but I can also
possibly show how it can be TRULY infinite...and of course there would
be an error but I cannot see this error yet?
And this part you can disagree with, but this part is different than
part 1 above.
Inertial
news:f1dd6587-abb4-4300...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
WTF are you talking about?
> But for the little minds like INERTIAL
Fuck off. You want to remain ignorant and unable to think things thru?
Fine. Don't expect me to point out your errors for you .. You're not worth
my time.
gu...@hotmail.com
Just as I thought.
Inertial
news:d321d94b-b3ba-40aa...@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> Fuck off. You want to remain ignorant and unable to think things thru?
>> Fine. Don't expect me to point out your errors for you .. You're not
>> worth
>> my time.
>
>Just as I thought.
So you thought you weren't worth the time as well? Why bother posting then?
Why not spend the time finding the *very* obvious problem with your supposed
infinite free energy. I've given you hints .. so that you might safe face
by realising your mistake. But you just can't. Sad. Come back and post
again when you've learn to use your physics understanding more effectively.
guskz
> wrote in messagenews:d321d94b-b3ba-40aa...@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Come back when you can back-up your evidence instead of hiding....like
a COWARD from your mistakes.
Inertial
news:0c6fb25c-8dfb-4ff7...@z17g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>Come back when you can back-up your evidence instead of hiding....like
>a COWARD from your mistakes.
And what mistake would that be? I haven't made any mistakes. And evidence
for what? I have nothing to hide from, and I'm not hiding. You're just
making unjustified insults like the other crackpots here do when they fear
they are caught out. I'm not the one who can't see the flaw in his
supposed infinite free energy.
I gave you a chance to see your mistake .. even gave you some clues .. and
asked if you wanted me to tell you what your error was .. and you simply
insulted me.
If you ask nicely I may tell you. Or you can continue to look like a fool.
Up to you.
Edward Green
> #1 A true scientist or mathematician like me and not you, uses the
> hyperbola word of near-infinite and infinite interchangeably.
Perhaps you meant "unbounded" and "infinite". The two concepts are
often confused. "Near-infinite" however is a Sunday newspaper word, of
no real meaning. How can something be "nearly" infinite?
BTW, schemes which violate the first law of thermodynamics are
generally regarded as impossible without needing any steenking proof.
That's why the quality of engagement is not what you might wish.
eric gisse
8432-9eb...@ea4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
We'd all be better off if you stopped talking to him.
mpc755
> [snip]
eric gisse wrote:
>
> "There isn't a single observation that cannot be explained by a non-
> aether theory."
>
I must have missed your post where you explain how the Milky Way disk
and halo formed in a non-aether theory.
The halo is the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This forced the matter closer together which resulted in
the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the
disk and halo formed.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
guskz
> Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in news:f62d45c2-e48a-4ba8-
> 8432-9ebe6e9f9...@ea4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 26, 10:50 pm, guskz <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> #1 A true scientist or mathematician like me and not you, uses the
> >> hyperbola word of near-infinite and infinite interchangeably.
>
> > Perhaps you meant "unbounded" and "infinite". The two concepts are
> > often confused. "Near-infinite" however is a Sunday newspaper word, of
> > no real meaning. How can something be "nearly" infinite?
>
> > BTW, schemes which violate the first law of thermodynamics are
> > generally regarded as impossible without needing any steenking proof.
> > That's why the quality of engagement is not what you might wish.
>
> We'd all be better off if you stopped talking to him.
Yes talk to Gisse instead, he never has anything to say. His replies
are always no that's not it.
Very interesting person.