Impact is the Key

[Jim Williams]

smotgroup - By static I meant between stars made up of neutrons and stars made up of hydrogen fusing are areas of space where the elements and molecules are fairly stable with no immediate threat of fusing or becoming nothing but neutrons.

I'm glad to hear about red shift no longer being the measure of size alone. I read about those 10,000 and more galaxies being found. Good news.

Unfortunately I am making this up as I go along and can't answer simple questions like if one galaxy is moving away from Earth at 3/4th the speed of light and another galaxy is moving at 3/4th the speed of light exactly in the opposite direction, how can these two galaxies exist with each other in the same universe? I was very unclear that my entire post is speculation and was just exploring the thought of the universe as a singularity. I apologise for stating questions as facts instead. I usually Google my thoughts first.

[greendoor]

greendoor - The arguement that convinced me goes something like this: You attach a rock to a motor and the motor will run until the rock reaches the ground, but then you have to lift the rock back up again. I'm sure you've heard many arguements the same as that. So, true, wind, water and electrons CAN move in only one direction, but gravity DOES move in only one direction. The rock must be lifted with energy other than gravity's acceleration or the motor wouldn't keep running. I don't know what to say. I just don't see it any other way. And these arguements go on forever.

Hi Jim - I see you have played the "well DUH!" card ... so at the risk of stating the obvious, I raise you these comments:

A constant supply of Force in just one direction is all you need to extract energy - just like a constant supply of force in one direction that is exerted by wind, water, solar radiation, whatever. Our general inability to use gravity at this point in time may well be considered similar to our ancestors inability to be able to sail into the wind, but they eventually found a way.

A mass can go up, and then come down again. In your simple example of a rock powered motor, you are being too greedy and making a very basic assumption. The assumption is that in ALL cases, the energy required to return the rock to the starting elevation is equal or greater than the energy gained as the rock falls to the bottom. I have to agree that in most cases, this is perfectly true. But it is a huge assumption to make, and I believe I have the proof (working on the experiement) that we can engineer an exception to this assumed rule. And it does not violate Newtonian physics in any way (just as Bessler said).

Most motors/generators have some form of dead-weight to carry. Electric motors have back EMF to overcome. Piston engines have to compress a gas before the power stroke, and then exhaust the spent gas.

A Savonius Rotor (Vertical Axis Turbine) is a good example. The rotor that catches the energy from the wind has to be pushed back into the wind at great cost.

The concept that we have to raise the mass back up again is not lost on us. So my objection to your objection is your basic assumption.

I think those of us who can see that gravity can be a source of energy are not so naive as to have not understood your basic objection.

[jim_mich]

A constant supply of Force in just one direction is all you need to extract energy - just like a constant supply of force in one direction that is exerted by wind, water, solar radiation, whatever.

No, that is not true! There is always a second factor needed to extract energy. Besides a constant force you also need some means of varying the force, redirecting the force, or turning the force on and off. The main problem with a gravity wheel is the force is constant and thus the same energy provided by a falling weight is ALWAYS required to lift the weight back up. This is a well known and proven fact.

If you can come up with a way whereby the strength of gravity is stronger on one side and weaker on the other side of a wheel then gravity could do continuous work. If you can turn gravity on and off then gravity could do continuous work. Gravity being constant is the main reasons that people think GRAVITY POWERED perpetual motion is impossible. Some force other than gravity MUST be involved. The only candidate that I can find is inertia, and its second cousin centrifugal force,

[Grimer]

@ Jim

But what if the force is opposed on one side of the axle by a counter-force during the lifting and unopposed on the other side of the axle during the free-fall. Surely that must provide an asymmetry and the potential for abstracting work from the gravity wind.

[erick]

Heat is a form of energy. Energy exists whether or not there is matter for it to act on...

How do you detect and measure heat without mass?

Energy doesn't become heat (a form of energy) unless there is matter for it to act on. Energy still exists though whether or not it is acting on matter.

[erick]

The universe is the singularity of a black hole. There are degrees of black hole, dependent on the degree of gravity. Some places matter collapses, some places matter is static as a rule such as on Earth. The event horizon of this large black hole is where point a. is moving faster away from point b. than the speed of light. It takes forever for light to travel from a. to b. We perceive these massive red shifts at the edges as the limits as to how far the universe can be perceived. Those outside our potential perception just perceive us as another black hole with light not escaping. The whole thing is collapsing.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin...

[jim_mich]

Grimer, if you add a force during part of the cycle and not during another part of the cycle then it is the added force that does the work, NOT gravity.

Gravity force is single direction and constant. It only acts by causing objects to move towards the Earth's center. The amount of energy needed to lift a weight away from the Earth is always exactly equal to the energy gained by the weight moving towards the Earth.

It is the wind's momentum that causes wind to turn a windmill. Gravity has no mass and no momentum. It must use existing mass to bring about work. If you had an endless supply of existing mass able to fall then gravity could be used perpetually. The problem is that after any weight falls it must be lifted back up. This ALWAYS requires an equal amount of energy.

[Jim Williams]

My universe is still the singularity argument was pure speculation and I should have labelled it as such. The only argument I have to support it is to note that it's still a single universe after the expansion. I still have trouble with this infinite singularity with no dimensions and still think infinite singularity with degrees of compression inside makes more sense, but I have no proof at all. I don't think losing red shift measurements as a standard, as smotgroup pointed out, hurts my cause.

Heat does take matter by the definition of what heat is alone. I think Oyvvus nailed both of us.

[Jim Williams]

sorry, I meant Ovyyus

[erick]

I personally believe that the "Big Bang" wasn't much of a big bang at all. Instead, I've been thinking that it was maybe another dimension leaking into what is now ours (It is more likely than not that there are other dimensions outside of our realm of perception/existence). This could have been the result of an object accelerating past whatever the cosmic speed limit was in that alternate dimension, resulting in a massive black hole that re-defined space time to the point that is was no longer on the same plane of reality where it had originally existed. The newly defined (via. special relativity) dimension is what we see today. Perhaps... A lot of this is based loosely on the concept of string theory in its various forms.

As for heat: Heat is a form of energy. Energy exists with or without matter. Heat as a form of energy comes about as energy interacts with matter. The two are not mutually exclusive though.

[Jim Williams]

greendoor - I once thought I had a gravity motor. The greedy assumption I had to make was that I had succeeded inventing it where 2500 years of scientists and engineers had failed. I'm going to stick with my assumption that every time that rock rests on the ground it has to be lifted up. Best of luck in your pursuit of gravity.

[Michael]

Heat is a form of energy. Energy exists whether or not there is matter for it to act on...

How do you detect and measure heat without mass?

Energy doesn't become heat (a form of energy) unless there is matter for it to act on. Energy still exists though whether or not it is acting on matter.

E=MC2

Take away the M from the equation, no energy.

[erick]

I think you've got it wrong. E=MC2 means the energy contained in object A (AKA the Mass in question) is equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. What that means is that all objects that have mass contain enormous amounts of energy. Hence the atom bomb. Energy needs to be applied to an object to create velocity. No? That's why it's called the theory of relativity, because although a rock might look like it's not moving at all it is in fact correening through space at literally millions of miles per hour. To you and me it looks like it's just lying there, because we too are moving at the same rate of speed through space. It's all relative...

[Michael]

Not wrong. I know why this equation was created and no where is there a stipulation or subtext that is suppose to be pinned to this equation that states, energy under certain circumstances. To make this simple;
If you doubt please show an example of energy where there is no mass.

[erick]

Light.