But we are dealing with infinite distances so the time frame is infinite--it never stops.
A capacitor(s) will charge without any work input from the operator, it is free energy and it may be perpetual as far as my small life here on earth is concerned.
Hey Mike I posted a circuit a few posts back utilizing a capacitor and two diodes and this circuit charges the cap with NO input from you---it comes from somewhere obviously I'm just not 100% sure where. The circuit will cost you under $1 to build, why not take ten minutes out of your life and PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF.A capacitor(s) will charge without any work input from the operator, it is free energy and it may be perpetual as far as my small life here on earth is concerned.
What? Free energy my arse. You have to put energy into it, all the while some of the input is lost. Not even free.
Speaking of nothing, this thread seems to be approaching the abysmal vortex of a black hole.
So you know as a fact there are no stars AFTER the furthest star we can see with our best telescopes? WOWQuote:
But we are dealing with infinite distances so the time frame is infinite--it never stops.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Even the furthest star in space has a finite distance to Earth.
So you know as a fact there are no stars AFTER the furthest star we can see with our best telescopes? WOW
LOL, Your right I took your words out of context, I will try a new angleThat has to be one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. I have no doubt that there are stars in the far reaches of space that our telescopes cannot detect. That does not imply that these are infinate, rather they are just damn far away with some finite distance.
What I was trying to get at is that we simply do not know where space ends, if space is curved or if space is infinite. As you say the aurgument seems absurd, one billion or one trillion light years makes little difference to us on this very small planet.How did you arrive at that conclusion? Even the furthest star in space has a finite distance to Earth.
@Nigel
And there lies the ultimate question----"Who gave you the silly notion that there could ever be "nothing" anywhere at any time?". Where is this "Nothing" as you call it? If you are refering to empty space I told you physics states all space must be filled with radiation without exception, all matter must have motion thus filling the space within itself periodically. So it is a scientific fact that at no point any where at anytime can there be "NOTHING". What you call "Nothing" cannot exist because it would constitute an energy sink of infinite magnitude at which point everything that you consider "something" would rush towards this nothing at the speed of light filling it. Maybe science has missed something?, could you explain where this "nothing" is you are speaking of.
what would you say exists in a vacuum? I'd say nothing, especially if the vacuum were shielded from radiation. Please fill me in as to what's really in a shielded vacuum if I'm wrong though, and yes, the pun was intended.
Now those are some excellent pointsHe also covers what happens when these real particles collide with the anti-particles. Basically they turn into "Nothing". As its positive and negative energy canceling each other out. I'm pretty sure anti-particle is the wrong term to use here, but its the only one I can think of at the moment, as the real term eludes me. Anyways, read that book if you want to know where "Nothing" exists. Also, what would you say exists in a vacuum? I'd say nothing, especially if the vacuum were shielded from radiation. Please fill me in as to what's really in a shielded vacuum if I'm wrong though, and yes, the pun was intended.
@Cotowar
Now those are some excellent points
One thought I would have concerning the particle/antiparticle is does this sound reasonable? can you see something like this happening in reality? An analogy I would make is a stretched elastic band. If an elastic band is stretched out equally from the center producing two equally opposed conditions from the center. Then when the tension on the elastic band is released the opposite conditions cease to exist but the elastic band remains. There is a possibility that the particle/antiparticle are like the opposed conditions of the stretched elastic band, they are not something but a condition of something. When the particle/antiparticle collide the electrical tension or opposite conditions will cease to exist thus the particle/antiparticle will cease to exist. But---and this is a big but, you have to assume all space is fiiled with something. You would have to assume space is fiiled with charge carriers immersed in an insulating fluid having mechanical properties and what we call particles are not something in themselves but conditions of something hundreds of times smaller than an electron. If this is the case then a vacuum chamber can never be completely shielded from radiation because the radiation may not be travelling in matter but is travelling in "what" matter is made of on a scale so small it would be hard to comprehend. This is essentially wave theory, everyone has an opinion and I respect that, I like this theory because it makes more sense to me. The problem I have with Einstein's theory's is that there are too many inconsistencies and there are many things which make no sense like fantasy particles appearing out of nowhere without cause, I think every effect we measure or prove must have a cause we can prove.
I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?. How can you justify spending billions on physics experiments like the particle accelerators which have never benefited mankind in any way. It is said some people have produced the same results from a table top device, which would amount to a "slap across the face" to any respectable physicist.LOL, History has proven that the greatest benefits to mankind were often developed in someones garage in there spare time.I personally believe all the theories are at elast partially correct, just in different forms. I guess a similar comparrison would be calling light a wave or a particle. In the right conditions, light can be either, so neither theory is absolutely correct. They both, however, express views that are at least somewhat true.
The only theory I don't believe in is creationsim, mostly because its based solely on wishful thinking, and there is no physical proof, no experiment, and no factual evidence that proves its existence. That's a different debate though, and one that I'm not going to start on this forum.
I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?.
@Cotowar
I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?. How can you justify spending billions on physics experiments like the particle accelerators which have never benefited mankind in any way. It is said some people have produced the same results from a table top device, which would amount to a "slap across the face" to any respectable physicist.LOL, History has proven that the greatest benefits to mankind were often developed in someones garage in there spare time.
Well without the “useless” quantum physics, flash memory wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is.
Things that the general public think are useless often end up being very useful.
Oh, I understand physics well enough to get the job done, I like to practice physics rather than preach itOnly someone who does not understand physics would make such a
statement.
How about you do this. Stick your finger in a powered light socket, and after you get up, return with a rebuttal to potential energy.
*Sigh*@Mikebits
You know if I was utilizing the reactive component of electricity I "could" stick my finger in a light socket with little effect, in fact I have immersed an operating 20w bulb under water and it worked just fine. Maybe in your infinite wisdom of physics you could tell me why reactive current acts in such a manner? Or maybe to start how reactive current can be produced?
@Nigel
And there lies the ultimate question----"Who gave you the silly notion that there could ever be "nothing" anywhere at any time?". Where is this "Nothing" as you call it? If you are refering to empty space I told you physics states all space must be filled with radiation without exception, all matter must have motion thus filling the space within itself periodically. So it is a scientific fact that at no point any where at anytime can there be "NOTHING". What you call "Nothing" cannot exist because it would constitute an energy sink of infinite magnitude at which point everything that you consider "something" would rush towards this nothing at the speed of light filling it. Maybe science has missed something?, could you explain where this "nothing" is you are speaking of.
Okay, basically here's my idea. Have falling water turn fly wheels, that will spin wires in magnetic fields and generate electricity.
I was thinking a reservoir with holes in the bottom, connected to tubes containing fly wheels (similar in design to a flow meter in a water cooling system). the fly wheel can be geared to increase the output speed, and will spin tightly coiled wires through strong magnetic fields. I was thinking about using neodymium magnets for this, as they can be smaller and still have a good field.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?