Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

[primemignonite]

eccentrically1:

You opined with "Uh oh, I sense an argument about aerodynamics."

Ha!

Without a doubt that makes TWO of us, at least.

Atb(s)!

James

[primemignonite]

* * * * *

When James Cox materialized his self winding clock in the mid 1700's he, like Bessler 50 years earlier, claimed his invention was a true perpetual motion. His 18th Century point of view allowed it. Did Cox have it both ways?

Ovyyus, this is a toughie! You are pressing me.

Did Cox have it both ways?

My guess is that Cox had it only the one way, which for the time was the best one; only later did we come to understand he had not, but rather, did the lesser of the two.

Atb(s)!

James

[Fletcher]

eccentrically1:

You opined with "Uh oh, I sense an argument about aerodynamics."

Ha!

Without a doubt that makes TWO of us, at least.

Atb(s)!

James

You are both mistaken, not from me at least - I've already released once that cumbersome hypothesis & research direction that was awkward & not particularly practical to put into a self turning wheel, though it had some useful principles ;7)

[primemignonite]

All right, Fletcher.

Fair enough.

On this one at least, we seem to have a majority of THREE!

Atb(s)!

James

[primemignonite]

CONCENSUS NOW ARRIVED-AT?

Have the depths of this subject been fully plumbed?

So far opinion seems most weighty in favor of the proposition that there will likely be big troubles brewing in PHYSICS PARADISE, given that lovely tangible conjuration of a gravity-only-impelled, work producing, ever-turning wheel.

(Due to an untoward inward impulse of mercy as given into, I left out a hyphen back there that should not have been. Is this confusing on account? Is this writer getting too soft?)

If there might be any more views to be added to the distinguished pile of them already amassed, then please, DO chime-in?

If possible, for our own local purposes here, I would like to end the topic (if only figuratively) with an opinion consensus.

All the best(s)!

James

[Grimer]

... there will likely be big troubles brewing in PHYSICS PARADISE, given that lovely tangible conjuration of a gravity-only-impelled, work producing, ever-turning wheel.

Thou hast said it.

[primemignonite]

Grimer,

Your sheerness of eloquence and brevity always impress - no doubt!

Thanks much for that lovely attached tail. A nice sight it was to see.

Now, if only our happy consensus reached here, could impact upon the
BW blog operating across the pond over there.

So far they are having much the same but, with confusion and stubborn
fuss ever-continuing and not resolving.

As ever, CHEERS! and All the best(s)!

James

[primemignonite]

For any that might be interested, a quite nice and accessible explanation of Noether and her theorems - and their applicability to conservation laws, may be found here:

http://www.science20.com/lattice_points ... ation_laws

Further on down, at the end of the comments, I have added my own little spice-bit. This was inspired by the Herr Doktor v. Hippel's "with some of the more extreme cranks" crack. How typical and expectable of our casually so-confident Scientism sort.

To any further commenting, the tiny-blown tempest seems to have chilled the air quite well. Just as well. The ensuing silence I shall take as a bloody nose given-and-deserved, 'though I await-still some fair rejoinder. For it, my blunderbuss is fully loaded. (Best believe it!)

By any means imaginable, reasonably, these arrogant latter-day researching peculiars are not our friends. (A few of us here would stoop to apply The Kiss of Fealty itself, to their cheeky asses! This, as one might suppose, in order to gain their "favour"?) As I made clear-as-crystal in my piece there, they have been on their errorous track of suppression and snottiness for all of three centuries, now. (TIME for a derailment!)

As well, we might keep in mind that our own Wright Brothers met with the same cussed sort of thing and for some time, after their public demonstration of powered, heavier-than-air flight, as so nicely done at Kitty Hawk.

Indeed!

It required the President of the United States himself - Theodor Roosevelt - to knock those 'physicists' of their day, right off their pedestals of prideful and conceited denying.

Such an identical pattern may be expected now, I believe, after Perpetual Motion has arrived finally as demonstrated reality.

Also, for an additional flash-finish, there would be this delicious ditty, for our gleeful, naughty consumption: "X-rays are a hoax!" - the Lord (foot-in-mouth) Kelvin.

How distinguished.

All the Best(s)!

James

PS Beforehand, I shall kiss a sweet goodbye to my invitation to demonstrate before The Royal Society, and leave it to the more posterior-gracers of us, should they prevail perversely.

Gershwin got it right: "Let 'em Eat Cake!"

[Grimer]

"Dear Herr Dr. v. Hippel:

I am one of those "more extreme cranks", as your like prefer to stereotype.

Not-to-worry though - THREE LONG CENTURIES of such defective, cheeky insolence, as indulged, DOES serve to create a perverse entitlement sense, does it not Herr Doktor? (Here, I think our answer is to be most likely a hearty "yes, it certainly does!".)

That necessity being done-with, I am free to say that I liked your article very much. It made clear to us lessers (and in plain, good English sans equations) what Noether contributed to physics, which seems to have been a very great deal. Bless her.

Now (as-if I did not before) I understand WHY perpetual motion (oh, please excuse me: "perpetual motion") MUST never be seen or . . . ? Yes, thereat The Unspeakable Horror itself does reside! (BUT, it would be a whole pile-o-fun, would it not? OH! Yes!)

(The vile incestuousness of that circular dependency upon which your Laws Of Paradigm positively depend, IS breath-taking!!! Following hard-on, a necessary sense of 'fragility' intrudes as well.)

As-to all of the above (and very, very much more), HOW might this following strike you, Dear Sir?

"any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."

of this we know but, then as-well it might be that

'. . . any differentiable asymmetry of the action of a physical system has no corresponding conservation law.'

and so a possible 'therefore' appears peskily

'There is no corresponding conservation law for the action of a physical system, having differentiable asymmetry.'

Might these two nasty heresies work for you to some purpose of amusement, at least?

(We have always been here to be of entertainment value to you masters of discovery and defining, but, the Day Of Reckoning fast approaches!)

CHEERS!

James (P.)"

Very good.

The only improvement I could make was to put an e on therefore.

[primemignonite]

Grimer!

Thank you and thanks also for proof-reading and detecting that needed correction.

Always, some darned bitty little thing gets away from one!

Well, that's alright really, for it just serves to prove we are not God. (Nor anywhere near.)

AtB(s)!

James

[cloud camper]

James, I really like your idea where you say "There is no corresponding conservation law for the action of a physical system, having differentiable asymmetry."

I said much the same thing in a post from Nov 11 responding to Frank:

"If we study Emmy Noether’s theorem (1st law of thermodynamics) we see that it is constructed around assumptions that all energy transformations in a closed system are homogeneous, continuous and mathematically defined.

Energy transformations must be differentiable, in other words a mathematical derivative of the function must always be defined. In our system we have switched fields that are off and then on, just like our permanent magnet electric motor. Thus we have large PE discontinuities that are occurring several times per wheel revolution. This immediately indicates an infinite slope to the derivative at the discontinuities.

Noether’s theorem cannot be applied mathematically where large energy discontinuities occur in the system. This does not automatically imply an open system where energy is pulled in from outside the system to restore equilibrium but neither is it prohibited. We see an example of this in the Keenie wheel when we first transfer a weight from one wheel to the other. This creates a large energy discontinuity in both wheels, instantly creating PE in both wheels where there was none before.

So in our weight powered systems when equilibrium is imminent, a new torque field is switched on, continuing the process. The system then depends on the conservative property of gravity to produce a continual nonconservative output. The first law of thermodynamics is not mathematically defined in a system with energy discontinuities that are being continually switched on and off. Before we dismiss this notion as total nonsense, let us recall that our present space-time continuum that we currently exist in was created by introducing a large energy discontinuity in the form of the big bang!

Emmy’s law applies in between the discontinuities but breaks down when the slope of the derivatives go to infinity. So can we postulate that we have an open system whenever slope derivatives go straight vertical? This is analogous to having a divide by zero error in an actual physical process. Not sure what happens then."


I am not a mathematician and have never played one on the internet but I believe it would be more appropriate to say that when a function is NOT
differentiable - in other words does not have a nice smooth unbroken slope to the function that we can then say there is no corresponding conservation law. At least one cannot be mathematically defined.

That is, if we say a function is differentiable, we are saying it has a nice smooth slope on a graph. This means for a small displacement in x we have a small displacement in y. This equates to the thousands of cart before the horse designs that JB cautioned us against. What we want is a step function - a large discontinuity in the slope where we get a large jump in output over an extremely small displacement in x.

This is thus not a mathematically differentiable function and essentially describes an open system at the steps where outside energy can be admitted. Emmy's law cannot be applied across the discontinuity and the system is thereby open at these locations. Emmy's law does apply in between discontinuities but ceases to be defined anywhere the slope function has a vertical step (infinite slope).

I believe such a system can be derived through active commutation and again for an example if we return to the Keenie wheel, we see that there are no torque fields initially, the system is at stasis and there is no PE. Then we transfer a weight from the inner low inertia wheel to the outer high inertia wheel. This act instantly causes nature to switch on a torque field in the outer wheel and an antitorque field on the inner. The outer wheel begins to accelerate CW, the inner starts to accelerate CCW. We have instantly created PE in both wheels even though we did no work on the weight. All we did was slide (actively commutate) the weight horizontally a very short distance. We instantly create PE out of nowhere in both wheels and pay exactly nothing for the privilege.

In this example, we have created a step function with an infinite slope to the derivative at the instant we slide the weight across. Emmy's law breaks down at the discontinuity, letting outside energy appear literally out of nowhere through the open boundary.

[Grimer]

Interesting, cc.
I'll have to give that one some thought.
Sounds a promising argument.

[f nepure]

Interesting topic, i like the idea of a re-jig in the mindset of modern science. To my mind the laws of science are often connected more directly to finance than they are to absolute truth.

If i am right to recall JC's book - Denis Papin was designing one of the first steam pumps to run the casade at Hessen Kassel some time before Bessler came under the employment of Karl von Hessen Kassel.

But it was Newcommen who perfected poor Papin's work and brought the whole mine draining technology into reality.

The dawn of the industrial age needed the power to drain mines and move heavy goods - if that energy had turned out to be FREE, what was in it for all the mine owners and industrialists??

Far better for all those with financial interests that coal would become the energy source that drove the revolution.

300 years later what has changed? we still derrive energy from the expanded gas principle, and we still pay for our fossil fuel.

And the mindset change required to move away from our current false textbook is massive, whole chapters need tearing out. And more importantly the spiritus mundi needs to realise that it won't ever progress to free energy unless it let's go of it's greed.

[daxwc]

cloud camper:

All we did was slide (actively commutate) the weight horizontally a very short distance. We instantly create PE out of nowhere in both wheels and pay exactly nothing for the privilege.

Even if it wasn’t a wash, where does the energy come from to move the mass horizontally?

[cloud camper]

Dax, please forgive me for not mentioning the minute amount of energy required to transfer the weight from one wheel to the other. You may subtract this off the total of energy produced if you like.

The point of the argument which it appears you missed (my bad for not explaining more clearly) is that Emmy's law does not and cannot predict the behavior of a system across an energy discontinuity and is thus undefined in such a situation.