Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection

I know there's almost certainly somewhere else for people who have recently registered to say hello, but I thought I'd make my first post on this forum here. Because, despite sharing the same name, I'm not the person known here as Alan Cresswell. Nor are we, to my knowledge, related. And I most assuredly do not consider the OP to represent anything even vaguely resembling science.Alan Cresswell, but not Alan Cresswell.
Oh heck, I'm confused now. And a bit peeved that a user name I've gone under on discussion forums for almost 4 years is being used by someone else.

I have a bizarre set of Dopplegangers .... I've a PhD in Physics, there's another Alan Cresswell who's a physics professor at a university in Pennsylvania. Strange. I have an interest in science/Christian faith issues (but, unfortunately, very little time to read forums such as this) and find another Alan Cresswell registered here.It is a very strange world at times!And I've now totally derailed this thread, but it seemed pretty dead anyway. Off to find an interesting discussion elsewhere in these forums .....

Um, just to say that much though I would like to respond in kind to your post in kind, in deference to the guidelines for this forum I will not. Though if I see any more ad hominem comments directed towards me I will probably take advantage of the Free for All forum here and let you know exactly what I think of your so-called debating style.I see little point in critiquing diagrams 2, 2a or 3 since they're built upon very shaky foundations. I would prefer to discuss those foundations first, but they appear to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. "The problem is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong", umm any evidence apart from rephrasing the law into non-standard language? The First Law simply states that energy is conserved, where on earth do you get the gross simplification that "heat=energy"? It's true that heat is a form of energy, and the friction of the flywheel generates heat - conserved energy lost by the slowed spin; the heat generated in turn is the energy of the motion of gas molecules in air, motion of atoms in the flywheel and it's axel, or electromagnetic radiation. Energy is still conserved.And, one more thing. I work for a living, doing genuine scientific research of practical benefit, and don't have unlimited time to spend online during the day. The time I do have is spent on another forum where I have responsibilities as a moderator. As such, I will only be posting here from home.

Your "Gyro Torque Engine of Perpetual Motion" still cannot do any more than slow down as friction acts on it; and I can't see anything there which produces zero friction. Without a zero friction environment perpetual motion is impossible, unless you can some how disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics - which brings us back to your foundations of nothing but smoke and mirrors.We're back to your statement "The problem is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong". The problem for everything on your page (or at least that which I've managed to read without splitting my sides laughing at the stupidity of it) is that you have not proved your assertion that the First Law is wrong, indeed you cannot do so for the First Law is not wrong.

Just wondering, did you read my last post? In case you missed it, you're site is built on an assertion that the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. Without that starting point nothing on your site makes any sense at all. So, can you defend the assertion that the First Law is wrong or not? And claiming that the law says something other than energy is conserved isn't good enough.

And what has Newton got to do with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

OK, if we take for argument your position that the development of the laws of thermodynamics builds on Newtonian mechanics, let's look at your critique of Newtonian physics ....

quote:

---

Newton only identifies force when IN PHASE with velocity.

---

What the fuck does this mean? To talk of something being in phase implies a wave. Velocity is not a wave, so to talk of something being in phase with it is nonsense. Though you are correct force (rate of change of momentum) is more closely related to power (rate of change of energy) than it is to energy per se - I just don't see where this observation leads.

quote:

---

When FORCE leads or lags VELOCITY by 90 degrees, the product is pure ENERGY.

---

Again, this is nonsense as you are using language assuming a wave for a non-wave concept.Alan

I thought we were discussing Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics. You can hardly critise Newton for not understanding quantum mechanics, nor those who developed thermodynamics. Heck, I've a PhD in multi-particle quantum phenomena and have difficulty understanding quantum mechanics at times. Especially when you try and explain it ...Can you explain why a discussion of QM is relevant to theories based on classical physics? Or are you claiming that the whole of classical physics is junk because it (to an extent) fails at the extremes of very small or very fast?Alan

Fundamentally scale and speed make no real difference - assuming a genuine theory of everything that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity exists. However, there is no doubt that within everyday scales and energies Newtonian mechanics is accurate. It isn't "true" in the sense that it fails at velocities close to the speed of light (where Relativity is required) and atomic scales (where Quantum Mechanics rules). However, in discussing the First Law of Thermodynamics (and specifically your rather, ahem, unconventional formulation of it as heat=energy) we are dealing in everyday scales and energies (though it should be noted that energy is conserved in quantum mechanical or relativistic systems as well).Alan

Don't worry, with a doctorate in nuclear physics I may sometimes assume a mad scientist persona, but I haven't completely lost it.The biggest problem I see with either trying to understand the website or discuss it is that the person who shares my name seems to be using words which have well defined meanings (such as heat, energy and power) but with a different meaning attached to them. This actually makes following whatever logic that is in the website almost impossible ... and we're left simply with statements backed up by incomprehensible reasoning that say that fundamental laws of physics are incorrect. These laws were formulated by men far more intelligent than I, based on extensive experimental data, verified by yet more experiments, never been found to fail experimental tests, and have been used in formulating many other laws and theories that are equally successful in explaining a vast range of experimental observations. Considering the success of the laws he wishes to overturn and the totally obscurity in his reasoning it is no wonder that he isn't being taken seriously.Alan

quote:

---

I will e-mail an attachment. Just ask.

---

I didn't ask, and don't open unsolicited email attachments (especially if they're Word files) so I haven't looked at it. Not that I'm expecting it to be any more comprehensible than the rest of the stuff on your site.Alan

quote:

---

I did not e-mail the design drawing to you

---

As I said, I never opened the file but I got an email with an attachment ("swash plate drive 2.doc") described as a preview of a new item. I simply assumed this was what you were refering to in your earlier post today. My apologies if I got this wrong.Alan

quote:

---

Of course measured C = f x lambda always but this value shifts about 3 x 10^8 m/s

---

Ah, so we can add Einstein to the list of scientists who clearly didn't know what they were talking about.AlanPS ... the quote function. To the left of the reply window is a link that says "UBB Code is ON" - click that and you'll get a description of how to do various things in UBB, including quoting (the same page is probably linked to elsewhere, but that's the one I can see at the moment)

Can I admit here a bit of confusion?First of all, from earlier in this thread I got the impression you were fairly dismissive of formal education and university qualifications. As I understood what you were saying they supress original thinkers inorder to maintain the status quo. For instance, you said:

quote:

---

A degree or PhD only guarantees unseemly arrogance and the characteristics of a clockwork parrot.

---

Now, however, you want to dimiss the scientific input of Einstein because he "was an inexperienced patent office clerk" ... I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the academic system suppresses the ideas of outsiders such as yourself or a mere patent clerk ... or else if an outsider comes up with a great idea that works then academics accept it.Hmm, now what do you reckon is the reason why the academic establishment rejects your ideas ... because it's a closed shop that doesn't want to be challenged by outsiders or because your ideas are crap?Alan(PS, and yes, I know, the early scientific career of Einstein was much more aligned with the academic established than his being a mere patent clerk implies)

quote:

---

Postulating a medium (ether or whatever) that electromagnetic waves need to propagate, borders on the absurd. I recommend reading about the Michelson-Morley experiments (which - I think - predate the theory of relativity by some time)...

---

Yes, these experiments predate Relativity. What they showed was that the speed of light is not relative to some underlying static medium, nor one that flows in some way - ie: no aether. They also show that the speed of light is not relative to the source of that light (ie: not like bullets fired from a gun with a muzzle velocity). It was the results of these experiments that led Einstein to realise that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for all observers irrespective of their relative motions ... from which the Special Theory of Relativity derives.Alan