Late night (GMT+2) wonderings

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by steveb, Sep 22, 2012.

  1. steveb

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    The thing about overunity is that you can't disprove it. In Isaac Asimov's sci fi book "The Gods Themselves", parallel universes are discovered and it becomes possible to use two other universes similarly to the way we use a hot and cold body to extract energy. It becomes free energy to those in our universe. Dr. Asimov was a chemist and had a good understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, yet he imagined a way to write a sci fi book that incorporated overunity without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

    Of course, this is sci fi, but how can we say that there definitely can not be a future real scientific discovery such as this. You can't prove a negative statement like "overunity is impossible".

    The thing that baffles me about the overunity enthusiasts is that often they are just rehashing ideas that have already been disproven. Devices like generators, motors, magnets, electronics and mechanical devices don't allow for overunity. These people like to think they are more open-minded than we for believing in the possibility, but they are in fact very unimaginative to not come up with something that at least has a chance of uncovering a new principle to work with.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2012
  2. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    The thing about overunity devices is that people are trying to build them with what we have now, on our earth, with our physics. That is, in essence, impossible. Just by looking at the theory behind it should be enough proof. So until we open a portal to another dimension where their technology and physics are different, perpetual motion is impossible.
     
  3. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,158
    Wouldn't parallel universes be considered one grander universe ... for lack of a better word. So the total energy in the grander universe is finite no matter how much is shared between the sub-universes.

    The whole becomes larger no matter how many parallel universes are added to the scenario.
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  4. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    You're absolutely right, and I believe it's the 10th dimension which is the "grander universe" you suggest. You may find this video interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw
     
  5. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,168
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2012
  6. steveb

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    You can't prove any statements that say overunity devices or perpetual motion is impossible, which is my point. You can say it are not consistent with known and accepted laws of physics, but that is a different statement.

    When you say that the laws of physics preclude such things, and therefore are impossible, you are assuming that you/we know all the laws of physics, which clearly we don't.

    Our laws of physics are based on our observations. Since we never have observed overunity nor perpetual motion, naturally our laws of physics say they should not happen. So your argument amounts to the statement that, "We have never observed X, therefore X is impossible.". When stated in this way, the logical flaw is glaringly apparent. Aside from the flaw in strict logic, the real problem is that this statement is not consistent with scientific endeavors that lead to discovery.

    I think what you are really trying to say is "We have never observed X when using method Y, therefore getting X with method Y is impossible". Even though this suffers from the same logical flaw, it is at least reasonable from a science and engineering point of view. In other words, I think your thread "Doth protest too much". Those that like to delve into PM and OU ideas are able to see the logical flaw and hence you just give them a reason to hold their nonproductive views. After all, why should they listen to scientists who insist that anything inconsistent with present day physics understanding is impossible?

    Rather than saying these are impossible, it's better to point out that they are inconsistent with a great deal of experimental and theoretical evidence. This means that the likelihood of these things being feasible is low, and even if there is some undiscovered way to achieve it, some radical new principle would need to come into play, and the new physics that results would need to be an extension of (and not incompatible with) known physics.

    For example, before Special Relativity was accepted, there was no known method of traveling in time. It was thought to be impossible, as there was no physics that would allow it to be feasible. However, after Einstein in 1905, there was a physics principle that made traveling into the future an absolute certainty and it is even feasible with today's technology.

    "Impossible" is a very bad word in science and engineering.
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  7. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,168
    How about inconsistent with ALL experimental and theoretical evidence. If conservation of energy or nondecrease of entropy can be violated classically what possible underlying theory is consistent with the universe or any possible universe?
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  8. steveb

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    I don't think ALL experiments and theory are aimed at this question. But, my statement was meant to express the same sentiment you are expressing. So, let's not split hairs on word choice.

    Why restrict us to classical violations? Perhaps a quantum effect is what might be relevant. What do you consider superconductivity or superfluidity to be? This is quite a bit like a perpetual motion, and these things were once thought to be impossible. Can you be sure that a frictionless movement isn't possible via a quantum effect? Can you be sure someone will not build such a device someday?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2012
  9. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    I hear you steveb. I understand your POV completely, and in a sense, I agree. However, do you really feel it's worth wasting one's time and energy trying to build something that goes against what we know about physics? 99.99999% of the time, our understanding of physics is correct, so even though there is that 0.00001% chance that overunity is actually possible, would it be worth wasting yours or someone else's time asking about it?

    My point is that there's a reason discussion of perpetual motion devices is prohibited here. All of the understanding we have of physics has been proved--the energy lost as heat, friction, etc. And if you really think about it, there's no logical way to avoid these losses, either. Therefore, since these physics have been proved, it is safe to say that overunity is essentially impossible.
     
  10. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    Superconductivity and superfluidity do not break the known laws of physics. They are in no way like perpetual motion. There are many aspects of science which were once thought to be impossible. However, the physics behind them had never been proved wrong. The "physics" behind overunity have been proved wrong, in many ways.

    You seem to be forgetting that friction is not the only problem with perpetual motion. There are many other issues that prevent such devices from working. Perhaps you should read up on entropy in general. It's an interesting topic that may help you out here.

    I do appreciate your ideas, but for the sake of this argument, I think we should stop discussing how our knowledge of physics might be wrong. For that, I suggest you start another thread, because I feel this one has reached the end of the logical discussion.
     
  11. Georacer

    Moderator

    Nov 25, 2009
    5,142
    1,266
    The physicists can debate all they want (even though I think most don't want to), but there's another main reason that overunity threads aren't allowed in AAC.

    We are an electronics forum mainly (where classic physics apply), not a physics one, neither a philosophical one. This ban on overunity serves mainly to make our everyday lives better, not to ensure our self-righteousness.
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  12. steveb

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Well, I'm sorry you missed the meaning what i'm trying to say. For the record, I do understand entropy (via several graduate level physics classes with A grades, and much reading, which i agree is interesting) and I don't feel that our knowledge of physics is wrong, but it is is certainly incomplete, and there is no "might" about that fact.

    However, i will end the discussion since it is your thread and i should respect your wish.

    To follow up Georacer, I'll make another statement for the record. I agree with the ban on overunity in this forum for many reasons. My only objection with this thread is the word "impossible". That's all. Everything else is fine by me.
     
  13. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    Thank you very much for your contribution. I understand what you're saying, and I mean no offense. I just fear that someone may misunderstand your meaning, and think you're encouraging them to try it.
     
  14. Georacer

    Moderator

    Nov 25, 2009
    5,142
    1,266
    As per Derstrom8's request, I split this group of posts from his thread. No other action taken so far.
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  15. steveb

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Well one more final statement for the record. I object to this being spun off as a separate thread. It bothers me to the point that I am withdrawing from this forum.

    My comments are not late night wondering but a specific response to another thread. If the comments are objectionable then delete them , don't give me a thread that I do not want.
     
  16. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    Steve, I'm very sorry you feel that way. I meant no offense. I hope you can understand my reasoning for wanting it separated. Your posts were not objectionable at all. They were simply of a different topic that was interesting enough on its own to deserve a new thread. I find your arguments fascinating, and I completely agree with your comments about our knowledge of physics being incomplete. You're absolutely right. It's just not what the original thread was intended for. Please understand my position, and know that there are no hard feelings.

    Best wishes,
    Matt
     
Loading...