Perpetual Motion

Jakob wrote:
­


On the picture this looks to me as a fine peace of art with an educational potential:




It also looks like it wants to spin by itself. Have you figured out why it doesn't.?

Maybe I have a simple explanation, and if you realize it you will laugh and save a lot of time on other attempts.

Do you want it.?

­

James_ wrote:
Your friend Swan, aka AB Hammer already gave it to me.

James_ wrote:
I have a really stupid question for you, if you need surgery your not allowed to have, what would you do?

James_ wrote:
Swan aka AB Hammer advocates suicide. What do you think? That's the simple answer. And if I commit suicide then your friend Swan can post my work as his. That's his goal/objective. Why he attacks me.

Jakob wrote:
­


James

The answers you have got from the two other guys are actually more competent than I had expected.

So why don't they help.?

Maybe when you are trying to break the laws of physics it won't help to tell you about the laws of physics.
Or at least it has to be in a very simple way that involves common sense to a degree where you end up laughing at it yourself.

Or maybe you've been bullied so much that you've become stubborn.
I see only a few reasons to get mad at the job, and it's not because you're trying to break the laws of physics.
Nor is it because you are wasting time on something impossible.
It's only if you try to trick people by giving them false hopes.
You're not the only one who does, and these false hopes can help delay progress in other areas that actually work.
It can get really ugly when they keep an invention secret and look for investors. But fortunately you are not that type, so I still see hope for you.
It seems to me that you are so honest that it will fall into place for you when you get further on with your work, but to minimize both your own and other people's disappointment, I would probably recommend that you change your approach a bit here and there.
And with a change you might be able to find success on other fields you didn't expect.
­

Jakob wrote:
­


James


1)

In theory, it is possible to create a perpetual motion defined as a motion that can go on forever.
According to Newtons 1. law you just have to start the motion and after that never subject it to a resultant force.

If you want a wheel to come close to that you just need to reduce friction as much as possible.

I guess a magnetic bearing is a way to go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmTk2Hfqick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRvn3iM9OJY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZZrw3zsmaM

And then you put the wheel into an airless space to avoid air resistance.

I believe this principle is used in some units to store wind energy for a shorter time.



2)

Creating an eternity machine defined as a machine that can produce energy out of nothing is according to the theories not possible.



So there is a huge difference between 1 and 2


Does that help clarifying anything.?


­

Into the Night wrote:
Hilarious. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics, claiming that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow warm the Earth by it's mere presence, yet berate James for building a wheel that does the same thing as your own argument!

You are locked in paradox now, Jakob. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.

Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.

Jakob wrote:
­

Into the Night wrote:
Hilarious. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics, claiming that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow warm the Earth by it's mere presence, yet berate James for building a wheel that does the same thing as your own argument!

You are locked in paradox now, Jakob. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.

No, it is just you not being as clever, as I wanted to believe.

Jakob wrote:
­Try sleeping without a blanket tonight. Maybe that will help you understand the difference.

Jakob wrote:
­On the other hand if you are on this level, there might not be any hope for you ever to understand:

Jakob wrote:
­

Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not energy.

And about 2) I think I owe James to say that it is correctly against the laws of physics.
However as far as I know it is one of those laws that has only been proven through experiments.

Into the Night wrote:
The Parrot Killer

Jakob wrote:
­­

Into the Night wrote:
The Parrot Killer

You have a parrot in your own profile.

Jakob wrote:
A parrot can sound clever and garner recognition when, in the right context, it can recite one of the laws of physics.

Jakob wrote:
However when the parrot then later repeats the same teaching in all possible misplaced contexts,

Jakob wrote:
then you suddenly understand that it is only a stupid noisy parrot, which cannot develop anything, but only acts as a disturbance to any reasonable understanding.

Jakob wrote:
And things go all wrong for the parrot when it has learned to say something that is never true.

You can often see the same in people who lack a logical sense of physics, but still want to, and therefore try to learn by heart.
­

Jakob wrote:
­

James

I'm curious to see the wheel running to understand the idea, even if you have to give it a helping hand.


­

Into the Night wrote:

There is no 'context' necessary.

Jakob wrote:
­

James

When you are done I have another also impossible but I think much better challenge for you.

­

James_ wrote:
I think what some people will like is when I use the inverse square law similar to how Keppler used it when he made his observations. That's what Newton used for understanding gravity and gravitational attraction. And with each quadrant I'll be able to create 3 points based on f(x) = Δy/Δx
And what I'll need to do is to subtract the Sun's velocity. This is where synchronizing 3 or 4 equations will simplify everything as to what force(s) are being considered. And at the end of the day this is just like doing Soduku which I'm not very good at.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
I think what some people will like is when I use the inverse square law similar to how Keppler used it when he made his observations. That's what Newton used for understanding gravity and gravitational attraction. And with each quadrant I'll be able to create 3 points based on f(x) = Δy/Δx
And what I'll need to do is to subtract the Sun's velocity. This is where synchronizing 3 or 4 equations will simplify everything as to what force(s) are being considered. And at the end of the day this is just like doing Soduku which I'm not very good at.

Kepler didn't use the inverse square law in his equations or his observations.
Newton did, treating each mass as a point center of gravity.
What speed of the Sun are you using? Relative to what?

Random statements are not simplifying anything.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
I think what some people will like is when I use the inverse square law similar to how Keppler used it when he made his observations. That's what Newton used for understanding gravity and gravitational attraction. And with each quadrant I'll be able to create 3 points based on f(x) = Δy/Δx
And what I'll need to do is to subtract the Sun's velocity. This is where synchronizing 3 or 4 equations will simplify everything as to what force(s) are being considered. And at the end of the day this is just like doing Soduku which I'm not very good at.

Kepler didn't use the inverse square law in his equations or his observations.
Newton did, treating each mass as a point center of gravity.
What speed of the Sun are you using? Relative to what?
Random statements are not simplifying anything.

The Sun's velocity is about 251 km/s.

James_ wrote:
They can use the position of distant stars.

James_ wrote:
This is where the parallax view allows for trigonometry to determine 2 angles of a right sided triangle. This allows the Sun's positioned to be plotted as it moves within the Milky Way galaxy.

James_ wrote:
Kepler did.

James_ wrote:
I think he actually used to it to show time and distance.

James_ wrote:
Does the math agree with the motion?

James_ wrote:
This gets into Newton's work. Why discussing science should be allowed.

James_ wrote:
With what I have to say about science, considering gravity has energy will change physics.

James_ wrote:
Then how does that energy affect both the Van Allen radiation belts and the tropopause?

James_ wrote:
p.s., I'll probably start doing a math review while doing more calculus.

James_ wrote:
This way it'll be easier for me to work on equations for making models from. And I do plan on making spreadsheets so the copy and paste function will save me both time and work.

James_ wrote:
Most of the work will have certain set values so how to account for them?

James_ wrote:
And this does get into Natural Climate Variance.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Does the math agree with the motion?

Kepler never observed the motion of the galaxy or the Sun.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Does the math agree with the motion?

Kepler never observed the motion of the galaxy or the Sun.

That is an interesting point because Newton also did not observe the motion
of the solar system in the Milky Way galaxy (our galaxy).

James_ wrote:
This allows for gravitational assist to be considered when considering the orbits of the planets.
https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/primer/

James_ wrote:
If the Sun is not moving in a straight line then gravitational assist becomes a possibility.

James_ wrote:
The Earth (as an example) is accelerated by the Sun moving away from it.

James_ wrote:
Then when the Earth passes in "front" of the Sun, then the Earth's velocity is maintained because the orbital velocity around the Sun increases when a celestial mass/body is closer to it.

James_ wrote:
I think it's things like this that could make "earth sciences" more interesting.

James_ wrote:
p.s., Why I think the Sun's motion through the Milky Way galaxy is not in a straight line is because I think the Earth's orbit would be even more elliptical.

James_ wrote:
There'd only be speeding up and slowing down like this orbit of Pluto. While it's a dwarf planet, why is its orbit so uniquely different?

James_ wrote:
Is it possible that the field that is the Milky Way galaxy influencing Pluto's orbit around the Sun because it is is the smallest, lightest mass that we can readily observe orbiting the Sun?