No personal attack at all.
Let me put it simply for you.
You post was hard to read, it was just a mass of words. What little context I did understand just didn't interest me any longer.
This is an (impersonal) attack. It's a poor actor that blames his audience when they leave because they didn't like the performance.
I do have a life outsize of whacky theoretical physics. I take part because it is fun, not because I hope to develop interstellar transport.
I continue to watch the thread because somebody (yourself included) may have something to say that does interest me.
Actually it was quite personal when your critique diminishes into meaningless, uninformative and untrue comments as above. My interest in nuclear physics extends back 2 decades and this was my first post in this section simply to indicate that an exception to a long held rule has been apparently discovered. My language reflected the cultural level of my perceived audience. Perhaps, in that assumption I was severely mistaken.Originally Posted by trash
Enough said on this matter.
UFO
I think that you should lay off the acid.
Yep, Trash has a good point, too many words squashed together into a rambling mess.
Hard to stay focused on what your trying to say, you can lose interest in no time.
Shorten your sentences to whats needed and space things into paragraphs.
Then i may actually attempt reading them.
I wonder if anybody will see a cent back on their investment ?
sure that story didnt run on april 1st? hehe
energy can be converted, but always at a loss, so i suppose it comes down to whether you subscribe in a finite universe or not.
most of these 'magnetic' devices use peoples understanding of how a fridge magnet sticks to their fridge to con them into believing a million fridge magnets will power the fridge. of course the problem with lode stones is that they are weak fixed fields. not much use for a powered device.
Sorry to see ufosarereal bow out of this discussion - I was enjoying his intelligent posts.
It's a real shame when the messenger is attacked.
ufosarereal (22-05-09)
he was pointing to theory. problem with theory is it tends to ingore time.
you can study any system at any given time and come to the conclusion that there is a way to 'create' energy, and you can take that same study to another timeframe and come to the same conclusion, so over many timeframes very close together i looks like there is continuity, but in reality if there is ANY break in the timeline, then there is no continuity. causality.
i think causality is blurred at quantum levels purely because of the lack of knowledge of quantum level physics, and to say that larger systems such as thermodynamics must be a victim of state because of that lack of knowledge is just nonsense. observation is the benchmark we work from, not theory.
I only saw this now, so I thought I'd just set the record straight before bowing out again. mobihci, the theory I was pointing to is substantiated by experimental fact using brownian motion models, as I mentioned in my first post. Also, I never stated that larger systems must be victims of state. Please re-read my post. I did, however, mention (in response to porkop) the possibility of such violations, and hence the infraction of causality, over short intervals at small scales. Furthermore, experimental evidence of the probability of violations of the second law of thermodynamics over such quantum scales, as expressed by the Lyapunov weight formula / Fluctuation Theorem have been amply discussed in the literature:
The Fluctuation Theorem
Authors: Denis J. Evans; Debra J. Searles
DOI: 10.1080/00018730210155133
Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year
Published in: journal Advances in Physics, Volume 51, Issue 7 November 2002 , pages 1529 - 1585
Subjects: Condensed Matter Physics; General Physics; Materials Science;
Number of References: 59
Abstract
The question of how reversible microscopic equations of motion can lead to irreversible macroscopic behaviour has been one of the central issues in statistical mechanics for more than a century. The basic issues were known to Gibbs. Boltzmann conducted a very public debate with Loschmidt and others without a satisfactory resolution. In recent decades there has been no real change in the situation. In 1993 we discovered a relation, subsequently known as the Fluctuation Theorem (FT), which gives an analytical expression for the probability of observing Second Law violating dynamical fluctuations in thermostatted dissipative non-equilibrium systems. The relation was derived heuristically and applied to the special case of dissipative non-equilibrium systems subject to constant energy 'thermostatting'. These restrictions meant that the full importance of the Theorem was not immediately apparent. Within a few years, derivations of the Theorem were improved but it has only been in the last few of years that the generality of the Theorem has been appreciated. We now know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be derived assuming ergodicity at equilibrium, and causality. We take the assumption of causality to be axiomatic. It is causality which ultimately is responsible for breaking time reversal symmetry and which leads to the possibility of irreversible macroscopic behaviour. The Fluctuation Theorem does much more than merely prove that in large systems observed for long periods of time, the Second Law is overwhelmingly likely to be valid. The Fluctuation Theorem quantifies the probability of observing Second Law violations in small systems observed for a short time. Unlike the Boltzmann equation, the FT is completely consistent with Loschmidt's observation that for time reversible dynamics, every dynamical phase space trajectory and its conjugate time reversed 'anti-trajectory', are both solutions of the underlying equations of motion. Indeed the standard proofs of the FT explicitly consider conjugate pairs of phase space trajectories. Quantitative predictions made by the Fluctuation Theorem regarding the probability of Second Law violations have been confirmed experimentally, both using molecular dynamics computer simulation and very recently in laboratory experiments.
UFO
Last edited by ufosarereal; 22-05-09 at 05:15 AM.
Originally Posted by ofosarerealThis just seems to be a clash of 2 good intelects.Originally Posted by trash
UFO, I hope we, the human race, behave in a more understanding way when we encounter superior life forms.
the way trash explains things makes it easy for village idiots like me and others his posts are always easy to understand.
ufo's posts are too complex to understand and show no real intellect because if he did it would be easy to read like trash's posts.
it is ok to talk rocket science to another rocket scientist but that is useless in a fourum.
Godzilla (27-05-09)
Hope I'm not too late ... I've been away for a couple of weeks moving house.
My apologies go out to everybody too. I always put impersonal quips into posts. It's something that has become habit and helps keep a light sense about the topics being discussed.
If anybody had heard vk2xbr and myself on ATV such acid drops have always been the spice of entertainment.
When discussing some really radical ideas, expect a few good jokes from some of the really whacky ones. Porkop loves to give me stick about tachyons, it cracks me up. Despite the reality being rather depressing I never dismiss even the most radical ideas until they've been heard out.
Then we can have some fun with them
Energy1 = Energy2 = unity
The only thing Perpetual is the search for it
Bookmarks