The concept that perpetual motion or perpetual energy is not possible is a lie!

[Bignose]

I believe the Earths core to be the same has the sun in type of energy,

As Fuzzwood said, you can believe whatever you want. But your ideas don't have have evidence to support them.

 

The earth's core has fission reactions, as confirmed by the types of neutrinos coming from the earth's core: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/

 

Whereas the neutrinos coming from the sun are know to come from fusion reactions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino

 

Until your 'belief' can explain this apparently vastly different reaction energy in the sun's and the earth's core, it is nothing more than your personal story. If you want to discuss these things scientifically, you need to not just write whatever flight of fancy comes to your mind, but understand that your ideas need to fit into the data that as already been measured.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Bignose

[xyzt]

internal workings I think I meant, internal, making external forces, external forces that attract, been gravity, and a magnetic field that repels, repelling the suns rays,

 

I do not for one minute believe that the sun is falling and we spiral around a quantum funnel. I believe the Earths core to be the same has the sun in type of energy,

 

I believe the matter of the Earth is attracted to the core, but also the Matter of Earth is attracted to the Sun, but stays hugging the Earth, been the closer.

 

I believe the Sun repels the core and the core repels the Sun, and the outcome is an equilibrium of critical balance.

 

Thermodynamics playing a part.

 

 

I place a pin by a magnet, but not to close, that the magnetic field takes hold of the pin, over time although there is distance between the pin and magnet, the pin will become slightly magnetized by the thermodynamics involved.

 

Helium is like a lifter, electrical energy making it hover up ,up, and away. The equilibrium of energy making it more positive against the core , repelling it.

 

The Hutchings effect explained , because he changed the equilibrium of matter by frequency of waves transmitted.

Ok, gone full out woo.

[Ten oz]

@ Relative, I am not sure if I would consider your pyramid idea perpetual motion as it requires energy from the sun. I also don't think it would produces a sufficient amount of energy for many commercial or industrial applications. That said I do think it is a useful conversation to have. Perpetual motion or not there is surely millions of ways to production electricity that we humans have yet to figure. There are probably more effective ways of creating motion that electricity and combustion as well. Such things are always fun to speculate about.

[Klaynos]

internal workings I think I meant, internal, making external forces, external forces that attract, been gravity, and a magnetic field that repels, repelling the suns rays,

 

I do not for one minute believe that the sun is falling and we spiral around a quantum funnel. I believe the Earths core to be the same has the sun in type of energy,

 

I believe the matter of the Earth is attracted to the core, but also the Matter of Earth is attracted to the Sun, but stays hugging the Earth, been the closer.

 

I believe the Sun repels the core and the core repels the Sun, and the outcome is an equilibrium of critical balance.

 

Thermodynamics playing a part.

 

 

I place a pin by a magnet, but not to close, that the magnetic field takes hold of the pin, over time although there is distance between the pin and magnet, the pin will become slightly magnetized by the thermodynamics involved.

 

Helium is like a lifter, electrical energy making it hover up ,up, and away. The equilibrium of energy making it more positive against the core , repelling it.

 

The Hutchings effect explained , because he changed the equilibrium of matter by frequency of waves transmitted.

None of which answers my question. There's no definition of work in here, you use the word workings once but not work.

[ajb]

Or would the result be the same?

There will not be much difference. The specific heat of metals does not vary enough to make of a change. Just without any calculation you see that there is the dependence of 1 over the speed of light squared. This tells you the result will be small.

[Relative]

I thank you for the answers and information provided, I did say I did not want to mention my definition of gravity, but has the Moderator pointed out , it was rude of me not to answer the question.

 

 

I know you require me to make some maths to fit any theory or model etc, so this path I am avoiding now.

 

I will have to agree that my machine may fail, or will result in intervals of energy rather than a consistency.

 

 

And finally on this thread, what do you mean by ''work''?

@ Relative, I am not sure if I would consider your pyramid idea perpetual motion as it requires energy from the sun. I also don't think it would produces a sufficient amount of energy for many commercial or industrial applications. That said I do think it is a useful conversation to have. Perpetual motion or not there is surely millions of ways to production electricity that we humans have yet to figure. There are probably more effective ways of creating motion that electricity and combustion as well. Such e kind things are always fun to speculate about.

Thank you sir for the kind answer, and I will keep thinking, and keep trying, and one day , even if by luck , I may stumble across something.

There will not be much difference. The specific heat of metals does not vary enough to make of a change. Just without any calculation you see that there is the dependence of 1 over the speed of light squared. This tells you the result will be small.

I thank you for your patience, and in curiousness ''if'', I could of increased the mass of the northern matter, it would of worked?

[swansont]

 

And finally on this thread, what do you mean by ''work''?

 

Yes, that is the question you have been asked. Do you have an answer?

[Relative]

 

Yes, that is the question you have been asked. Do you have an answer?

I am sorry I thought I had answered it, that is why I asked what was the science definition of work, then I can see my error in my definition.

And just to add, this is why the Cavendish experiment worked in my opinion.

 

Thermodynamic equilibrium

[Klaynos]

W = Fs

 

Where W is work, F is force and s is displacement.

 

Or

 

W = change in kinetic energy

 

Or

 

W = negative change in potential energy

 

Or

 

W = integral of F.DS

 

 

 

I cannot see where you have defined work in any of your previous posts, could you perhaps quote the section where you believed you have?

[swansont]

I am sorry I thought I had answered it, that is why I asked what was the science definition of work, then I can see my error in my definition.

And just to add, this is why the Cavendish experiment worked in my opinion.

 

Thermodynamic equilibrium

 

 

Klaynos pointed out that you used workings vs work, and the context is not the same. ("Yes they are doing work, they are in motion, how can you define motion has not work.")

 

And you've left off multiple steps between the Cavendish experiment and how it's supposed to tie in with thermodynamics.

 

One might be led to the conclusion that you're tossing about terminology without having the slightest clue about its meaning.

[Relative]

 

 

Klaynos pointed out that you used workings vs work, and the context is not the same. ("Yes they are doing work, they are in motion, how can you define motion has not work.")

 

And you've left off multiple steps between the Cavendish experiment and how it's supposed to tie in with thermodynamics.

 

One might be led to the conclusion that you're tossing about terminology without having the slightest clue about its meaning.

I am not tossing words about, thermodynamic increase or decrease of any matter changes its mass, only on a very tiny scale, but in a near vacuum , meaning space, a small increase or decrease could change orbital paths of entire solar systems. very little F is needed to move anything in space.

[Ophiolite]

Have you tried moving a super-cluster. It needs an F-ing lot of F.

[swansont]

I am not tossing words about, thermodynamic increase or decrease of any matter changes its mass, only on a very tiny scale, but in a near vacuum , meaning space, a small increase or decrease could change orbital paths of entire solar systems. very little F is needed to move anything in space.

 

The amount of orbital variation is quantifiable for a change in mass of the source. You will find — if you actually worked through the equations — that the effect for a change in mass of the object that is moving is vanishingly small (it's due to the change in center-of-mass). In the limit of a large central mass, the mass of the orbiting body vanishes in the equation.

[Klaynos]

Still no definition.