These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

I'm a Particle Astrophysicist, ask me anything
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Whitehound
#401 - 2012-03-25 23:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Alpheias wrote:
I think Selinate just told you to come up with proof that perpetual motion does not exist, that the theory is wrong rather than dribble a little and splutter out that perpetual motion is wrong.

No.

Edit:

To put some life into this discussion think about the following... For all we currently know about the universe is it expanding and it does so at an accelerating rate. If we apply Newton's Law to it then there must be a force, which is driving all apart.

We do not know what this force is, how we can interact with it or what is causing it. All we know is that it exists. As a consequence of its existence can we not have perpetual motion.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Meklon
Minmatar United Freedom Front
#402 - 2012-03-26 07:28:21 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
I think Selinate just told you to come up with proof that perpetual motion does not exist, that the theory is wrong rather than dribble a little and splutter out that perpetual motion is wrong.

No.

Edit:

To put some life into this discussion think about the following... For all we currently know about the universe is it expanding and it does so at an accelerating rate. If we apply Newton's Law to it then there must be a force, which is driving all apart.

We do not know what this force is, how we can interact with it or what is causing it. All we know is that it exists. As a consequence of its existence can we not have perpetual motion.


That is, of course, working on the principal that our understanding of physics is a universal constant.
Whitehound
#403 - 2012-03-26 09:04:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Meklon wrote:
That is, of course, working on the principal that our understanding of physics is a universal constant.

No. Our understanding of physics has changed and improved a lot over the past and as such is certainly not a constant. Physics only describes nature, it does not tell it what to do. Newton was simply one of the first great describers of nature. He was rather absolute in his descriptions. Newton assumed that time is a constant. Einstein then changed it and described nature in a more relative way. He allowed for time to change. However, both assumed that the universe is always present and in the same state. Schroedinger with his cat then changed it again and allowed for nature to be whatever it wants to be until we look at it.

These were never radical changes, because everything still had to make sense in the world we are living in. Some found the ideas provoking and they started calling them radical and what not, but they really are just small changes, which have improved our understanding of nature.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#404 - 2012-04-03 16:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsadkiel
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
These are very basic, (edit, and possibly filled with logical fallacies, especially that 2nd one) so let's pretend I'm not asking them.

My beer would like to ask the following questions:

-Does the impossibility of perpetual motion negate the possibility of an eternal universe?

-How can we reconcile the impossibility of perpetual motion with the knowledge that in a closed system, gross matter/energy always remains constant (never truly created or destroyed)

I like to think the universe pops, expands, contracts and pops again over and over and each time it happens I get a little higher top score on Ms. Pacman.

I just want to make sure science isn't going to rain on my theory.
Thank you in advance.


sorry for the super late response! as was stated earlier, perpetual motion is NOT impossible. photons are a great example of this and will just keep going and going as long as all of their interactions preserve the energy of the system (so a photon gas in a perfectly insulated reflective box). perpetual motion MACHINES (devices which provide "free" energy through perpetual motion) however, are disallowed by the second law of thermodynamics. this is because such a device is considered to be an OPEN system, which means it is allowed to interact with its environment (be it through the exchange of energy, information, matter, etc...). so the big question is "is the universe open or closed"? which when you get right down to it is a matter of definition. given this, i think the answer to your first question is no.

and i suppose that the above answers your second question heheh.

and it's nice that you like to think that ^^
Whitehound
#405 - 2012-04-03 16:35:10 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
sorry for the super late response! as was stated earlier, perpetual motion DOES exist. photons are a great example of this and will just keep going and going as long as all of their interactions preserve the energy of the system (so a photon gas in a perfectly insulated reflective box).

No, you have no proof of it. It is only an assumption made in theory, but to have practical proof of it would mean that you can follow the motion through all eternity. How are you going to do this?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#406 - 2012-04-03 17:05:28 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
sorry for the super late response! as was stated earlier, perpetual motion DOES exist. photons are a great example of this and will just keep going and going as long as all of their interactions preserve the energy of the system (so a photon gas in a perfectly insulated reflective box).

No, you have no proof of it. It is only an assumption made in theory, but to have practical proof of it would mean that you can follow the motion through all eternity. How are you going to do this?


indeed, i cannot claim that perpetual motion exists as i cannot claim to have evidence that spans eternity :P but it isn't an assumption.

i can only state that it is not disallowed by current scientific theories, and all evidence we have observed supports such theories (the cosmic microwave background being the "oldest" light in the universe). i can also say that there is EVIDENCE that shows that the statement "perpetual motion doesn't exist" is outright FALSE (if light was not perpetually self propagating, the universe would have a dispersion relation, and we have evidence that shows this isn't the case). this means that at best i can only claim that the statement "Perpetual motion exists" is NOT FALSE.

i have edited my previous statement in light of this. hopefully this will help you understand what i was trying to say ^^
Whitehound
#407 - 2012-04-03 17:15:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Tsadkiel wrote:
i have edited my previous statement in light of this. hopefully this will help you understand what i was trying to say ^^

This is much better. Thanks.

I would only call it a motion, and just motion, when things are moving. Only when one needs to be more specific as to how to describe a motion should one use an adjective.

A good example would be to call it a continues motion when it appears to be moving continuously and does not get interrupted (the Planck's Constant may not allow this though or it needs to be ignored). When it accelerates can you call it an accelerating motion, or just acceleration.

A perpetual motion can turn out to be a tautology, like a "dead corpse" or a "round ball". And just like people then think of the possibility of "living corpses" might it not be impossible to have perpetual and non-perpetual motion. What exactly would a physicist then be trying to say with this?

We already know that the universe had a starting point and that all motion must therefore originate from it. How does this fit the idea of a perpetual motion?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2012-04-03 18:08:11 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
i have edited my previous statement in light of this. hopefully this will help you understand what i was trying to say ^^

This is much better. Thanks.

I would only call it a motion, and just motion, when things are moving. Only when one needs to be more specific as to how to describe a motion should one use an adjective.

A good example would be to call it a continues motion when it appears to be moving continuously and does not get interrupted (the Planck's Constant may not allow this though or it needs to be ignored). When it accelerates can you call it an accelerating motion, or just acceleration.

A perpetual motion can turn out to be a tautology, like a "dead corpse" or a "round ball". And just like people then think of the possibility of "living corpses" might it not be impossible to have perpetual and non-perpetual motion. What exactly would a physicist then be trying to say with this?

We already know that the universe had a starting point and that all motion must therefore originate from it. How does this fit the idea of a perpetual motion?


well, perpetual is actually defined as unENDING or unCHANGING. perpetual motion can have a beginning, but not an end. also the term perpetual is not associate with motion. i could call something a perpetual rock and that just means it's ALWAYS a rock no matter what.
Whitehound
#409 - 2012-04-03 18:28:20 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
well, perpetual is actually defined as unENDING or unCHANGING. perpetual motion can have a beginning, but not an end. also the term perpetual is not associate with motion. i could call something a perpetual rock and that just means it's ALWAYS a rock no matter what.

Why can perpetual motion have a beginning but not an ending? Would it not be better to say that perpetual motion has no beginning and no ending, and only semi-perpetual motion does?

See? You get into a bit of trouble now. Smile

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#410 - 2012-04-03 18:43:15 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
well, perpetual is actually defined as unENDING or unCHANGING. perpetual motion can have a beginning, but not an end. also the term perpetual is not associate with motion. i could call something a perpetual rock and that just means it's ALWAYS a rock no matter what.

Why can perpetual motion have a beginning but not an ending? Would it not be better to say that perpetual motion has no beginning and no ending, and only semi-perpetual motion does?

See? You get into a bit of trouble now. Smile


because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means...
Whitehound
#411 - 2012-04-03 20:13:09 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means...

The problem is that you have no definition. Something that is unchanging may have no beginning and no ending, but simply exists, but something that is unending may only not have an ending.

As soon as your description of a motion includes how it will end will it always raise the question of how it came into existence. It is easy to accept an idea like something having no beginning and no ending, and we understand it as an abstract. It is easy to accept an idea of something having a beginning as well as an ending. This is however not the case of something having an ending but no beginning and something having a beginning but no ending, and therefore we reject it. Your physics, or your "description of nature as a science" if you will, turns into dreams and nightmares for our human comprehension and it is not what we want. You will not be able to explain nature by saying that something simply "popped" into existence or that it disappeared without leaving a trace of where it went. People will reject physics like this and instead continue looking for better answers.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#412 - 2012-04-04 17:06:10 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means...

The problem is that you have no definition. Something that is unchanging may have no beginning and no ending, but simply exists, but something that is unending may only not have an ending.

As soon as your description of a motion includes how it will end will it always raise the question of how it came into existence. It is easy to accept an idea like something having no beginning and no ending, and we understand it as an abstract. It is easy to accept an idea of something having a beginning as well as an ending. This is however not the case of something having an ending but no beginning and something having a beginning but no ending, and therefore we reject it. Your physics, or your "description of nature as a science" if you will, turns into dreams and nightmares for our human comprehension and it is not what we want. You will not be able to explain nature by saying that something simply "popped" into existence or that it disappeared without leaving a trace of where it went. People will reject physics like this and instead continue looking for better answers.


i just TOLD you the definition. what i told you is the definition of perpetual motion. motion that continues unending / unchanging. that is what the word perpetual means.

you are going way WAY off topic here. you have also started referring to yourself as we...
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#413 - 2012-04-04 18:07:49 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means...

The problem is that you have no definition. Something that is unchanging may have no beginning and no ending, but simply exists, but something that is unending may only not have an ending.

As soon as your description of a motion includes how it will end will it always raise the question of how it came into existence. It is easy to accept an idea like something having no beginning and no ending, and we understand it as an abstract. It is easy to accept an idea of something having a beginning as well as an ending. This is however not the case of something having an ending but no beginning and something having a beginning but no ending, and therefore we reject it. Your physics, or your "description of nature as a science" if you will, turns into dreams and nightmares for our human comprehension and it is not what we want. You will not be able to explain nature by saying that something simply "popped" into existence or that it disappeared without leaving a trace of where it went. People will reject physics like this and instead continue looking for better answers.


i just TOLD you the definition. what i told you is the definition of perpetual motion. motion that continues unending / unchanging. that is what the word perpetual means.

you are going way WAY off topic here. you have also started referring to yourself as we...


Tsadkiel, Whitehound has been lurking on the forums for years now and he is the top poster of ad absurdum.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2012-04-04 18:09:29 UTC
ooooohhhhhhh ok, it all makes sense now ^^
Whitehound
#415 - 2012-04-05 09:11:36 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
i just TOLD you the definition. what i told you is the definition of perpetual motion. motion that continues unending / unchanging. that is what the word perpetual means.

you are going way WAY off topic here. you have also started referring to yourself as we...

Again, no. You have no definition when you use two words to describe it. Which is it, is it unending or is it unchanging? If you cannot give a clear answer then stop.

I also use the word "we" because I know that I am not alone. If you cannot keep onto your own topic then, again, stop.

Why do you think we look to the stars? You may only do it for money, but there are scientists who posses a passion for what they do. You may only not have this passion yet.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#416 - 2012-04-05 09:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Alpheias wrote:
Tsadkiel, Whitehound has been lurking on the forums for years now and he is the top poster of ad absurdum.

And you are holding people's hands for how long?

In any case, I am still talking about motion and physics. I cannot imagine why Tsadkiel would step out of the discussion just because my questions aim at his use of words. His answers can only be as good as the words he uses to give them.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#417 - 2012-04-05 12:10:21 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Tsadkiel, Whitehound has been lurking on the forums for years now and he is the top poster of ad absurdum.

And you are holding people's hands for how long?

In any case, I am still talking about motion and physics. I cannot imagine why Tsadkiel would step out of the discussion just because my questions aim at his use of words. His answers can only be as good as the words he uses to give them.


I can't really be arsed to ask you to elaborate on that. Because it doesn't make sense.

There is also a fine line between asking a person questions and pestering a person, especially when you have been told the definition of the term a few times already. Are you really that incapable of connecting the dots on your own?

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Whitehound
#418 - 2012-04-05 12:24:29 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Are you really that incapable of connecting the dots on your own?

We have a topic and as far as I know am I not it. Get your hatred off somewhere else, please. No one is pestering anyone. OP has chosen to come here and answer all physics related questions. Try to respect it or leave.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#419 - 2012-04-05 18:10:17 UTC
does anyone have anymore physics questions?
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#420 - 2012-04-05 18:14:02 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
does anyone have anymore physics questions?


Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth?

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.