Leaderboard

I must be missing something. Somebody arguing for the properties of the fabric of space, quotes Tesla for support, who said "... for the simple reason that it can have no properties ...".

I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A. Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that A would require to operate in isolation. And B must provide A with the same amount of energy B would require to run in isolation. So the result is that the only way the device A and B could work as a 100% efficiency perpetual motion device together is if they could do so in isolation. A and B are perpetual devices on their own or the device (A+B) is not a perpetual device. In other words you can not build a perpetual motion device unless you have a set of perpetual motion devices. This does of course not alter the fact that perpetual motion machines is not possible. It is just a way of showing how OPs setup is not working in a general case. (I answered from phone earlier and was unable to use an image. This is pretty much same as @Janus but I had started drawing already so posting probably does not harm.) *) Not possible! Only used to setup the explanation.

I think my coal object was formed by coal dust that had settled in between the staves of the boats cargo hold and when it sank the coal dust formed the "loaf of coal bread" I have. The pot in the above example didn't fall out of a coal mine but was found later in the place where coal was being shoveled into a furnace. An old pot dropped in the coal dust accumulating in a corner or some other place and allowed to sit for years could explain the pot in the lump of coal.

The entire NIH grants database is searchable. Here's the results for Wuhan University. Two R01's awarded to the same PI for AIDS related immunology research. Here's the Chinese Academy of Sciences results. None awarded by the NIAID. That took all of two minutes to disprove. Unless, another institution gave the a subaward from their NIAID grant, but the fact the author's name is not given, the paper not cited and the grant number isn't stated, it's rather impossible to verify that situation.

You’re not answering the question. How do you determine if something is made of normal matter or exotic matter? I have a rock. How do I tell if it’s normal matter, or how much exotic matter is in it?

How do I tell if something is made of normal matter or has exotic matter in it?

What would be the demarcation between these two types of masses? Are asteroids small or exotic? Moons? Comets? Gravitational interactions have been observed on fairly small masses. Are ~1kg lead spheres normal matter?

Say you have some uranium (VI) fluoride UF6, and it decays. It spits out a helium nucleus and forms Thorium and helium. But the helium nucleus is shot at at a huge speed. So, according to the conservation of momentum, the Thorium nucleus must be kicked the other way by the recoil. It is usually set moving so fast that most of the fluoride ions simply get left behind. Indeed, most of the outer electrons get left behind too So you get a mess of fluorine, helium, thorium (as ions) and electrons all moving in different directions.

So far as I can see, Fauci is likely to be right. I try to avoid relying on sources with a political bias, and it is well-known that the US Right has been out to get Fauci for ages because he has credibility and stood up to Trump, making Trump look like the idiot he was. This story for some reason seems to be carried only by right wing outlets. However I did find this "fact check", made last month on the topic, which concludes that the accusations against Fauci are false: https://www.ibtimes.sg/fact-check-did-anthony-fauci-fund-bat-research-wuhan-lab-by-bypassing-rules-56635 ...unless he has better things to do than dance to the tune of a grandstanding politician, of course.

There were solar updraft towers proposals around, warming the air in a flared "hothouse" base. Is that what Revl has in mind? Other ways of using low grade heat to make mechanical movement or electricity include stirling engines and thermocouples.

Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time. Oh no, not another Tesla crank. That's two in the space of a week! Tesla was a turn of the c.20th inventor, electrical engineer and Groucho Marx lookalike, who went mad* and died 80 years ago. Quoting what Tesla had to say about a branch of physics he knew nothing about, not being a physicist, does not enhance anyone's credibility. *In 1932 he announced he had invented a motor that would run on cosmic rays:

My position is that held and suported by observational and experimental data. Not at all. The vast majority of professional cosmologists hold that view, and it is supported by the evidence. While Tesla made some notable discoveries, he was also some what eccentric.

That clock wouldn't work no matter how she put it up.

Work is Fd, force times distance. To calculate the work done, you need to know not just the force but the distance through which it is applied. Do not run away with the notion that you can get limitless power from the expansion of ice. The bigger the load, the smaller the distance through which it will be lifted. Ice is not incompressible. The work it does will be finite - and small compared to the latent heat released. But to be honest I think I am wasting my time now. At every turn, it seems, you generate another bogus complication, to evade acceptance of what I and others here have been telling you. I think you are determined to hold onto this daft notion of Tesla's, as you have these past 9 years, (I now discover you were posting on the same topic, in another forum I belong to, back in 2012) and that you are impervious to reason. Thanks for the "ice engine", though. I shall add it to my list of the more memorable crank attempts to get round the laws of thermodynamics, along with the Japanese infra-red photovoltaic in the box and the German surface tension one, which took weeks to unscramble. The common feature of all of them is to devise a scenario that is just complicated enough to exceed its proponent's powers of analysis - and hey presto, the laws of thermodynamics have been broken and free energy is available for all. Not.

Maxwell, Stokes and others worked all this out in great detail in the early to mid 1800s. But they rejected these mechanical models is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, and finally devised experiments to disporove aether models once and for all. How much less satisfactory do you think we now find them 150 years alter, armed with our greater knowledge and many, more refined experiments ?

You are asking this question of the Physicists here. In most Physcis textbooks the authors are not to worried about charge so the equations presented do not generally observe conservation of charge. So the equations presented often have a beta minus or alpha positive charge on one side, but no charge on the other. So these equations do not balance in respect of charge. For example Chemists are more careful so here is an extract from a Chemistry textbooks that explains this in detail, balancing the charges as well. And yes the equations now balance for charge. Some reactants and/or products are now shown charged (eg as ions or whatever) Another way to compare is to understand that Physicists are talking about nuclear reactions and so use the chemical symbols to represent the nucleus, which always carries a positve charge equal to the atom ic number. Chemists use the same symbols to represent the electrically neutral atom so must always display the charge to refer to an ion. Does this help ?

I don't see what is so contradictory about saying I understand a point of view, I just don't completely share that point of view. Given my way of looking at things and my experiences in life, I see things differently. I'm willing to discuss it, and I will try very hard to understand why someone else thinks the way they do, or sees things differently, and I'm more than willing to be convinced, if the argument or explanation they present makes sense. But when people just take on an air of authority and expect me to accept whatever they say without question, I'm not impressed. For example, the only logical solution I have been able to come up with for the formula for the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine, why it calculates nothing but the temperature difference is that it is a holdover from Carnot's own theory of heat. It's the maximum "height of the fall" that the "caloric" can travel, from the hot reservoir to the cold reservoir. It is known that the entire premise on which this mathematical formula is based is completely erroneous and not representative of reality, yet it is still taught and used and spoken of as if it is absolute, unshakable, unquestionable physical law. Yet, when I examine it closely, it makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't even add up. At this point in time it embodies two incompatible completely irreconcilable pictures of reality. If my heat engine is 500 degrees on one side and 250 degrees on the other than the "caloric" can only fall 250 degrees from 500 down to 250 which is 50% of the "fall" on the way down to absolute zero. (Arbitrary numbers on the Kelvin scale but it works out the same way on any other) That makes my engine 50% efficient, at best, because that is as far as the "caloric" can possibly fall. It is a hard limit for the same reason that sea level is a hard limit. The liquid can't flow any lower than the lower reservoir. If we know heat is not a fluid, but energy that can be converted, then why continue to use a formula derived from a misconception about the very nature of heat. So I'm told that the original theory was wrong and nobody believes it anymore, but "somehow Carnot managed to get the math right", though he had no concept of absolute zero at the time. The whole thing is a hodge lodge of irreconcilable theories munged together by a completely simplistic formula that takes into consideration nothing whatsoever that has any actual influence or bearing on any engine efficiency. I understand how it works, or is supposed to work, I think. But I can't for the life of me understand how people can actually believe it. It has no foundation or basis whatsoever in reality. It's nonsense. Why should anyone give it a second thought? It doesn't even work out in practice in a way that makes any sense, because if an engine actually IS 100% efficient, "carnot efficiency" might be 15% or 20% If my heat engine utilizes ALL the heat fed into it, and converts every bit of it into useful work so no heat whatsoever "flows out" into the sink, carnot efficiency might be calculated at almost any arbitrary number represented by the temperature difference. How efficient the engine actually is doesn't enter into the calculation at all. It's complete hogwash.

My position on this would be the same as Nikola Tesla: Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time.