![]() |
That bitch is ugly.
|
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Some Mormons gave me a card last night. Awkward...
|
Quote:
I've been doing it since I was born. Infact, I'll do it right now. |
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"? |
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. |
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:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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".
|
i think i know how to make a near perfect source for energy
|
There is one word that will fix all of D3V's arguements.
Paradox. Create an energy Paradox, and you're fine. |
If you create a machine that generates electricity more-so than it uses, would that not create 'free energy'?
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.