Zelaron Gaming Forum - God's Set plan for Me

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Zelaron Gaming Forum (http://zelaron.com/forum/index.php)

- The Lounge (http://zelaron.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=183)

- - God's Set plan for Me (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20881)

D3V	2009-11-06 10:55 AM

That bitch is ugly.

Demosthenes

2009-11-06 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683854)

Even though the scientific laws we have now won't allow perpetual motion, doesn't mean it can't be achieved. Laws can always be rewritten

Bull. The laws of the universe don't change on a whim, and can't be rewritten. You can argue that our understanding of those laws is incomplete, and you would certainly be correct in some cases. However, there are things that we have apodictic evidence for. Our understanding of those aren't going to be simply overturned.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics prevent a perpetual motion machine from being feasible. These laws specifically show that perpetual motion can not be achieved. If you think you know better, please publish it and win the Nobel.

D3V	2009-11-06 01:17 PM

So, without any explanation and any actual proof you automatically write it off because the laws say it is impossible? Or are you saying that laws cannot be rewritten? You saying either one is suprising given your extensive knowledge on it, but your imagination may be lacking.

I will present you this question: How would you go about operating outside of those laws?

Demosthenes

2009-11-06 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683911)

So, without any explanation and any actual proof you automatically write it off because the laws say it is impossible?

Do you think those laws were based off the maniacal ejaculations of some buffoon? There is nearly 200 years of research backing those findings. If I laid out all of the evidence that has ever been gathered in support of those findings you would probably not be able to read it in the course of your natural life.

Quote:

I will present you this question: How would you go about operating outside of those laws?

You can't.

D3V	2009-11-06 01:25 PM

Quote:

Obviously not. You would not be able to lay out all of the evidence that has been ever been gathered in your lifetime, so clearly that hypothetical situation would never even happen.

Quote:

You can't.

That is not true, use some imagination and try again. Where would the laws of thermodynamics not be applied?

Demosthenes

2009-11-06 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683913)

Obviously not. You would not be able to lay out all of the evidence that has been ever been gathered in your lifetime, so clearly that hypothetical situation would never even happen.

You missed the point of my post entirely, and responded with a nit-pick.

But in response to your nitpick, I could lay out enough evidence that you would not be able to read it through the course of your life. In fact, I would only have to go up three flights of steps for this to be done.

Quote:

That is not true

Based on what?

Quote:

use some imagination and try again. Where would the laws of thermodynamics not be applied?

Nowhere in the universe. Perhaps in the land of fairies and gods you can have your perpetual motion machine.

D3V	2009-11-06 01:46 PM

Quote:

Based on what?

Based on not being able to prove a negative. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it won't, or can't.

You are relying too much on the definition of what thermodynamics says cannot be done. You do not have to achieve 100% efficiency to have a machine that could possibly outlive our entire human race. This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in. It would only need to create enough efficiency to create more energy than is put in, not to become 100% effective and efficient.

Demosthenes

2009-11-06 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683915)

Based on not being able to prove a negative.

You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.

Quote:

You are relying too much on the definition of what thermodynamics says cannot be done.

Right. I have a tendency to side with sound science.

Quote:

You do not have to achieve 100% efficiency to have a machine that could possibly outlive our entire human race.

You're conflating two unrelated ideas. Are we talking about a perpetual motion machine or a machine that can outlive the human race? They are not the same.

Quote:

This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in.

This is impossible.

Quote:

It would only need to create enough efficiency to create more energy than is put in, not to become 100% effective and efficient.

You're asking it to be more than 100% efficient. You can't create energy. Again, this is impossible.

Skurai

2009-11-06 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demosthenes (Post 683917)

You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.

Right. I have a tendency to side with sound science.

You're conflating two unrelated ideas. Are we talking about a perpetual motion machine or a machine that can outlive the human race? They are not the same.

This is impossible.

You're asking it to be more than 100% efficient. You can't create energy. Again, this is impossible.

Sounds like the usual responses to D3V's ideas.

Grav	2009-11-07 08:32 AM

Some Mormons gave me a card last night. Awkward...

Skurai

2009-11-07 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demosthenes (Post 683917)

You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.

I disagree.
I've been doing it since I was born. Infact, I'll do it right now.

D3V	2009-11-09 02:11 PM

You are worthless, MJ. Without imagination your life is going to remain boring. Newton's law wasn't even correct the first time around, it had to be corrected by Einstein.

What good would it do to create an energy source that outlives the universe? Nothing, we need small-term, short term solutions as of right now, and creating a machine that would create more energy than is used. What you are trying to say that if this hypothetic machine doesn't outlive the universe then it isn't perpetual. You know as well as anybody that the Universe itself isn't going to last forever, it could all be gone instantly. So why do you bother dampering thought processes of this nature and creative ideas for the sole fact of being able to say you are right?

Instead of saying: "Energy cannot be created" why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?

Demosthenes

2009-11-09 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 684015)

You're going to resort to ad hominem because I keep proving e-bitch-slapping your horrific logic? Nice.

If you're going to talk about perpetual motion and "free energy" pick up a fucking book and learn some terminology. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a subject you clearly know nothing about.

D3V	2009-11-09 03:26 PM

Nice dodge of the question, why are you so mad? I thought Indians were supposed to be nice people, or are the dots different than the feathers? I'm not even arguing the possibility of a device that could sustain maintainability forever, I know at our point in time in history that is impossible. What you are saying is that it will never be possible, where I am saying it is completely still possible.

Quote:

If you're going to talk about perpetual motion and "free energy" pick up a fucking book and learn some terminology. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Can you give me a better word than perpetual that would better suit a machine that could run beyond the existance of our own human race? I never even said energy could be created. I said 'free energy' back in 2003, which was about the first time that I had ever even heard the term.

My whole original purpose was saying a machine could be created that would produce more energy than is used. The arguments you are making are out of the context of the actual idea based in this thread.

Demosthenes

2009-11-09 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 684017)

Nice dodge of the question, why are you so mad? I thought Indians were supposed to be nice people, or are the dots different than the feathers?

I see the racism still courses through your veins. Unfortunately, people don't change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V

I'm not even arguing the possibility of a device that could sustain maintainability forever, I know at our point in time in history that is impossible. What you are saying is that it will never be possible, where I am saying it is completely still possible.

And what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V

Can you give me a better word than perpetual that would better suit a machine that could run beyond the existance of our own human race?

I don't know of a word. But a machine that can outlive the human race is not what a perpetual motion machine is. And perpetual motion is what you were originally talking about. If you don't know of a simple term to describe your idea, then describe your idea, don't simply substitute a completely different term for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V

I never even said energy could be created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V

This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V

My whole original purpose was saying a machine could be created that would produce more energy than is used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V

why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?

Self-ownage for the win. Or are you too incompetent to realize that you've contradicted yourself multiple times?

Now, you want me to answer the question why I'm not saying "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet?" But in fact, I have answered it. Multiple times. But I'll do it yet again. It's because anyone who knows the first thing about physics knows that this is impossible. Not technologically impossible, based on what we have today. But impossible because universe does not permit it.

God, I love knowing that I get at you, D3V. It's fun watching you squirm. Pissing out school-girl insults while neg-repping me. Watching you change the entire subject of your thread just to defend your ill-conceived position. You're a tool. And I'm not talking about the kind of tool girls go crazy about. That would be too good for you. You're the annoying, loud, grating tool used for menial jobs at 8 AM in the morning. But actually, even they serve a purpose, so maybe I'm being too nice.

Anyway, I've said all that was there to be said. I'll come back next time I feel like banging my head against a ridiculously dense wall. I'm out.

!King_Amazon!

2009-11-09 05:14 PM

D3v, you're wrong. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. Whatever you put into a system, you'll get back out, minus whatever you lose to friction and other unavoidable inefficiencies. You will never get out more than you put in, and it's currently not possible to retrieve ALL of the energy put into a system. There's always some loss, and even if you did find a way to create a "perfect" machine that had NO loss, you still wouldn't be creating energy or getting "free energy".

jamer123

2009-11-09 05:56 PM

i think i know how to make a near perfect source for energy

Skurai

2009-11-09 06:04 PM

There is one word that will fix all of D3V's arguements.
Paradox.
Create an energy Paradox, and you're fine.

D3V	2009-11-10 09:26 AM

If you create a machine that generates electricity more-so than it uses, would that not create 'free energy'?

D3V	2009-11-10 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demosthenes (Post 684023)

I see the racism still courses through your veins. Unfortunately, people don't change.

And what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.

I don't know of a word. But a machine that can outlive the human race is not what a perpetual motion machine is. And perpetual motion is what you were originally talking about. If you don't know of a simple term to describe your idea, then describe your idea, don't simply substitute a completely different term for it.

Self-ownage for the win. Or are you too incompetent to realize that you've contradicted yourself multiple times?

Now, you want me to answer the question why I'm not saying "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet?" But in fact, I have answered it. Multiple times. But I'll do it yet again. It's because anyone who knows the first thing about physics knows that this is impossible. Not technologically impossible, based on what we have today. But impossible because universe does not permit it.

God, I love knowing that I get at you, D3V. It's fun watching you squirm. Pissing out school-girl insults while neg-repping me. Watching you change the entire subject of your thread just to defend your ill-conceived position. You're a tool. And I'm not talking about the kind of tool girls go crazy about. That would be too good for you. You're the annoying, loud, grating tool used for menial jobs at 8 AM in the morning. But actually, even they serve a purpose, so maybe I'm being too nice.

Anyway, I've said all that was there to be said. I'll come back next time I feel like banging my head against a ridiculously dense wall. I'm out.

Getting to me? I'm just throwing out ideas in a bullshit thread and you're writing a volume about how you've owned me. If I don't care, you don't own? Fun watching me squirm? You must be really bored, MJordan2nd. Why did you leave Zelaron again? Paranoid?

jamer123

2009-11-10 09:54 AM

with my design it would involve the airless vacuum called space. .... a ring of coiled copper wire and a magnet with boosters to get the magnet going around the ring
/
the inside of the ring would look like this //---\\
.................................................. ...|-(0)-|
.................................................. ...\\---//

the magnet will be guided be magnetic rails inside the ring
(take note that the . are not apart of the design

D3V	2009-11-10 10:01 AM

I don't think anything currently being discussed would be possible, but still does not mean the possibility is not out there.

jamer123

2009-11-10 10:02 AM

with this design there wouldnt be any wasted energy but electrical emergey gained

D3V	2009-11-10 10:21 AM

I hate to say it, but my thinking is similar to yours Jamer. I don't know why I think the way that I do, I don't even know why i'm so hard pressed to believe that anything like this could even work. I've honestly figured you could eliminate factors that would make it impossible such as friction and find a way to generate a small amount of electricity. Atleast with Magnets you aren't using energy, you are just using magnetical push and pull on the frame of a motor, while convertion the motion into electricity through the generator, which could then be placed wherever. The factors that could not be eliminated would only mean the machine would run at x% (75-80% due to drag) efficiency, and not 100% efficiency.

!King_Amazon!

2009-11-10 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 684080)

If you create a machine that generates electricity more-so than it uses, would that not create 'free energy'?

Yes. But like I stated, you can't create a machine that puts out more power than it takes in. It is by definition impossible, as energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The energy has to come from somewhere.

D3V	2009-11-10 01:08 PM

As long as you tell me that, I am still going to believe for the rest of my life that there is a loophole somewhere, and I can't explain why. I am aware that it sounds ignorant, but it's just what is stuck inside of my head.

!King_Amazon!

2009-11-10 01:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Read that. If you find a way around it, you've found your loophole. Good luck.

D3V	2009-11-10 02:04 PM

Thank's for the advice.

Skurai

2009-11-10 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamer123 (Post 684084)

the inside of the ring would look like this //---\\
.................................................. ...|-(0)-|
.................................................. ...\\---//

Dude, that's called a cylinder. :weird:

D3V	2009-11-11 08:41 AM

I am confident that somebody already has, or will eventually design a machine using magnets in some form that will overpower it's resistance, hence churning a motor/gear setup with an electric generator that could eventually become a platform to build more complex, more elaborate machines that can generate tons of more power. That's the whole idea of this thread is not to contemplate something to power a house or vehicle, but just a small machine, a prototype model of this motor that would be able to transfer the motion from the magnets pulling the motor, and turn it into electricity.

I'm thinking electromagnetics is where it's at, just how is it done? AC.

I'll scan some of my designs sometime and put them on here, even if I get laughed out of here. My thinking is that if using a gear system on the generator, similar to a bicycle gearing system, could have movement generated from nothing at the highest gear (easiest to move, lowest resistance) once at a certain speed, and a current is generated a second set of magnets could turn on and gears would swap, hence creating more churn for the generator, which results in more electricity generated. No I do not know enough about this type of technology and no I cannot inform anybody in great detail, but my thought process figures a flywheel type setup could make this possible. And if not? Whatever, it's still fun to ponder.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:34 AM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page