Why bother posting?

[rlortie]

Hello Tarsier,

I am not disregarding the truth, my meaning is meant to imply that the theorist will jump on my statement "gravity doing work"

Never have I implied that it was perpetual motion nor do I ignore the word "Entropy". I can appreciate that the changing of the tides does not come without cost.

Dunes claims that the answer must be found in nature, here it is, all wrapped up in a cockle shell.

As for the environment regarding a gravity source mechanism, some "Tree hugger" has already coined the phrase; "Motion Pollution"

When a leaf falls from a tree and lands in a creek, which becomes a river, passes through a hydro-electric dam finding its way to the ocean, only to have the water sucked up by the sun and sent back to where it begin. Is this not all part of an open loop entropic system? Was gravity employed in the falling leaf, the water seeking the ocean producing power on its way?

Ralph

[triplock]

From a theoretical stand point, perpetual motion cannot exist in the physical world at any level.

By definition, for something to exist there has to be boundaries that define it's being ; there has to be a start, middle and an end. Life and being in any form is finite.

The Sun is dying. The moon is moving away from the Earth.

Our Solar systems PE tank is emptying every second of every day, and one day, maybe 1.5 billion years from now, it will all be gone.

And finally, In terms of our research, we should drop the 'perpetual' part and re-brand as Extended Motion.

Chris

[rlortie]

Man was taking advantage of gravity long before the scholarly came into being and decided that it should be called "conservative".

Find below an excerpt from Wiki, something that jim_mich should read. I believe that I fit best into the paragraph explaining "empirical"

EDITED FOR BREVITY:

The Scholarly method or scholarship is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. It is the methods that systemically advance the teaching, research, and practice of a given scholarly or academic field of study through rigorous inquiry. Scholarship is noted by its significance to its particular profession, is creative, can be documented, can be replicated or elaborated, and can be and is peer-reviewed through various methods.

Originally started to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology, scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology in itself but a tool and method for learning which places emphasis on dialectical reasoning. The primary purpose of scholasticism is to find the answer to a question or to resolve a contradiction. It was once well known for its application in medieval theology, but was eventually applied to classical philosophy and many other fields of study.

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. The question of the nature, and indeed the possibility, of sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history, as a question of epistemology. History guidelines commonly used by historians in their work, require external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis.

The empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a hypothesis or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with other methods. The empirical method is not sharply defined and is often contrasted with the precision of experiments, where data is derived from the systematic manipulation of variables. The experimental method investigates causal relationships among variables. An experiment is a cornerstone of the empirical approach to acquiring data about the world and is used in both natural sciences and social sciences. An experiment can be used to help solve practical problems and to support or negate theoretical assumptions.

The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

EDIT: Does this help answering the question; "Why bother posting"???

Ralph

[triplock]

My brain is saying ' can not compute, can not compute ' as I try to get my head around the logic of Jim posting whilst saying 'why bother posting ?'.

There's probably something in this topic that clarifies matters but I can't be arsed to look :-D

Chris

PS I miss Armcortex . He made me look positively civilized in comparison .

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Ralph, you can't disregard the truth just by saying the words "armchair theorist"

Trillions of years ago, the moon was closer to the earth (actually, it was also closer yesterday), and it probably spun at some point. The earths rotation is also slowing. Yes Ralph, the tides are at the cost of the kinetic energy of the earth/moon system, they are not perpetual motion. The sun is not perpetual, and the movement of the planets and their orbits will change eventually based on losses of energy, also not perpetual. physicists (armchair theorists who base their views on experiments past and present) calls it "Entropy".

Hi Kaine, Just a thought, if the moon has moved away from the Earth then its kinetic energy and the work done by gravity has increased, because the moon now has to travel a greater distance to keep in its orbit of the Earth. So is everything slowing down or just traveling a greater distance? Edit, The Universe Expansion.

Edit, Also given the known CF and Angular Motion experiments and the theory of the Earths expansion, there maybe loses blamed on the tides when the blame should rest with CF and Angular Motion. Edit, when the weight of spinning Mass is moved outward it slows the spinning down. There is no evidence that the Earth Moon and Tides relationship are responsible for the slow down when there forces of Gravity's have remain near the same over time, however the Sun's Gravity Pull is getting weaker as it burns Mass as fuel. Does any of these Theory's get put together to see how they would effect each other, "I think Not." People just take a Theory to suit there argument without doing a overlap to see the whole picture.

[preoccupied]

From a theoretical stand point, perpetual motion cannot exist in the physical world at any level.

By definition, for something to exist there has to be boundaries that define it's being ; there has to be a start, middle and an end. Life and being in any form is finite.

The Sun is dying. The moon is moving away from the Earth.

Our Solar systems PE tank is emptying every second of every day, and one day, maybe 1.5 billion years from now, it will all be gone.

And finally, In terms of our research, we should drop the 'perpetual' part and re-brand as Extended Motion.

Chris

I don't think that the solar systems are emptying their energy. I believe heat energy is recycled and never goes away. I think heat energy is attracted to gravity and thus the sun itself might be being collecting large amounts of heat for being a large gravitational force.

Also, I think if gravity were used such as with a machine that could redirect some weights over and over again, such that gravity is producing physical work for a machine, that the gravitational issues would become a problem. One such problem that I think would happen rather quickly is the Earth rotation slowing down. I think the Earth might flip on its side or throw the moon into the planet or away from the planet or worse. Whatever we are doing the planet by having an active relationship with gravity right now will accelerate greatly if we start using gravity for fuel. However, if we practice life normally and allow gravity to manage itself, I think that maybe if heat is recycled that that heat energy could refuel the rotation of our planet somehow if we can set it up to do that or if it is already set up to naturally keep a cycle, by the creator.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Pre,

IMO, There would be no problem using gravity as fuel on earth because the mass of the earth would remain the same and so would the force of gravity, Gravity is a sustainable force that does work all the time on the solar systems.

However, Sun's are different, they burn large amounts of fuel (mass) thus their mass and gravity is being reduce and transformed to Heat (to keep it short). If our Sun becomes a dead star then there is no reason for the orbiting planets to stop, the Force input (work) of gravity would remain in the system accelerating and slowing the orbiting planet to suit.

[preoccupied]

Trevor Lyn Whatford,

You say that gravity provided by mass but I am not sure that is true. Can somebody clarify? I do not think the factor in which you believe supports gravitational energies infinite resource is accurately described as the mass of the object in which is distributing that gravity. The motion of the object is also a factor, perhaps maybe the only real factor you should be considering when thinking about using its gravitational energy, if I'm right. I think that mass gains gravity by moving faster.

I think that the motion of the Earth gives it its gravitational pull or at least its upright position and stable position in the life zone of the galaxy. So if using gravity for energy changes the Earth's motion and if mass that moves faster gains more gravity then it would also change it's gravitational pull and position and the way it rotates around the sun. Can someone clarify?

You also said that the sun is burning out its fuel but I think you should consider my hypothesis about it. It might be true that heat is recycled in which case, maybe there is no fuel in the sun. Maybe the sun is just a big rock that has attracted heat and is recycling it. That is not main stream idea, and I'm just making it up, but it's a damn good hypothesis worth testing.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Pre,

Gravity is thought to be a Element of Atoms, the more Atoms (Mass) there are in a cluster the Greater the force of gravity in the said cluster.

[Dunesbury]

Hello Tarsier,

I am not disregarding the truth, my meaning is meant to imply that the theorist will jump on my statement "gravity doing work"

Never have I implied that it was perpetual motion nor do I ignore the word "Entropy". I can appreciate that the changing of the tides does not come without cost.

Dunes claims that the answer must be found in nature, here it is, all wrapped up in a cockle shell.

As for the environment regarding a gravity source mechanism, some "Tree hugger" has already coined the phrase; "Motion Pollution"

When a leaf falls from a tree and lands in a creek, which becomes a river, passes through a hydro-electric dam finding its way to the ocean, only to have the water sucked up by the sun and sent back to where it begin. Is this not all part of an open loop entropic system? Was gravity employed in the falling leaf, the water seeking the ocean producing power on its way?

Ralph

Ralph, gravity fields store work done by energy source separating masses, in form of pe. When masses are released and rejoin together, work done earlier by energy source is converted by fields to ke.
Gravity fields don't do work, they store work done.
Same thing for any natural example, imo.

[preoccupied]

Hi Pre,

Gravity is thought to be a Element of Atoms, the more Atoms (Mass) there are in a cluster the Greater the force of gravity in the said cluster.

Okay doctor whatford. I am sure you're some kind of physics genius now! Don't limit yourself by thinking I'm wrong...

You might have the weight of many opinions supporting your assumption but my kinetic energy hypothesis or question/opinion says that motion and structure are like attributes. If you know that the Earth is in motion, if you change that motion you will have a change in gravity. I am 90% sure that faster moving objects have more gravity by having more structural kinetic energy according to my kinetic energy hypothesis. YOU ARE WRONG!! it's just my opinion. My kinetic energy hypothesis can be tested and if it's right then you should not use gravity to get energy because it will destroy all life on Earth...

[Ed]

Preoccupied, haven't you fallen off the edge of the Earth yet?

You're always some percentage of right in your mind, but apparently never willing or able to do the experiments needed to overturn the facts that have been established over centuries of experimentation, then you should ask yourself the same question Jim did in this thread.

Why bother posting?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Pre,

One mans Theory is as good as the next mans, I do not restrict my thinking, to any one theory, Physics is very much in its infancy, experiments are the key.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Edit name, Hi Dune,

Ralph, gravity fields store work done by energy source separating masses, in form of pe. When masses are released and rejoin together, work done earlier by energy source is converted by fields to ke.

What about the work done? work done is work done on orbiting planets how do you poor the energy back, at no point in the cycle is the planet back at the same point of time and space, so work done is work done, and new work is required to start the new cycle, in short when does gravity stop doing work on any part of the cycle.

[preoccupied]

at 24:10 in this video by michio kaku apparently Einstein already explained what I meant about gravity.
The Universe in a nutshell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk

There you heard it directly from Dr Michio Kaki in reference to Albert Einstein. So Trevor Lyn Whatford when the Earth is in motion it is also heavier. You are wrong Trevor. It's not the mass, instead it's the mass and its motion. If the motion is disturbed by use of a gravity harnessing wheel perpetual motion machine, perhaps it would also manipulate or change its weight or gravity. I believe a perpetual motion machine such as my swastika wheel that uses gravity and shifts weights using motion without external force on the swastika arms/levers, that that would be equivalent to asteroids repeatedly smashing into the planet or objects leaving the planet in large quantities. Both of these would change the Earth's rotation. If that is true, then my swastika perpetual motion machine, if it works as intended, should not really be used to power anything because it would destroy life on Earth.

Now I'm not sure about your question you asked to rlortie... I am not sure but I think you might be thinking that work is something special. Do you think that a permanent magnet that sits on a refrigerator has infinite energy?