Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 3:36 AM
17 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 1/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Is It Science?

# Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection

Author Topic:   Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 31 of 202 (31667) 02-07-2003 2:13 PM Reply to: Message 30 by Alan Cresswell02-07-2003 5:38 AM

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.
 This message is a reply to: Message 30 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-07-2003 5:38 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 32 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 8:17 AM Dr Cresswell has responded Message 50 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 6:57 AM Dr Cresswell has responded

Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 32 of 202 (32217) 02-14-2003 8:17 AM Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Cresswell02-07-2003 2:13 PM

I was not notified of this post but......

The 1st law is only 50% perfect. Newton only identifies force when IN PHASE with velocity. This is power not energy. The Bernoulli equation makes the same mistake.

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

The mistake can only be rectified by marrying the terms together in a cycle of RESONANCE.

This I have done. The result is shattering but inescapably true.

 This message is a reply to: Message 31 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-07-2003 2:13 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 33 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 1:09 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 33 of 202 (32260) 02-14-2003 1:09 PM Reply to: Message 32 by Alan Cresswell02-14-2003 8:17 AM

And what has Newton got to do with the First Law of Thermodynamics?
 This message is a reply to: Message 32 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 8:17 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 34 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 1:34 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 34 of 202 (32263) 02-14-2003 1:34 PM Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Cresswell02-14-2003 1:09 PM

Newton knew nothing about thermodynamics. He never even possesed a thermometer. Joule simply assumed Newton would behave properly. He don't do he ?
 This message is a reply to: Message 33 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 1:09 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 35 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 2:19 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 35 of 202 (32265) 02-14-2003 2:19 PM Reply to: Message 34 by Alan Cresswell02-14-2003 1:34 PM

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 1:34 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 6:12 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 36 of 202 (32291) 02-14-2003 6:12 PM Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Cresswell02-14-2003 2:19 PM

All Quantum mechanics is WAVE by definition. Velocity of light C is the RMS value of a wave. Almost all physical identities are RMS.

Force leading or lagging velocity by 90 degrees is 100% ENERGY.

Newton falls flat here. He calls force in phase with velocity energy. No, No, No. It is power.

Only spin can lead or lag. I combine the two to make the first law of thermo correct and the second redundant.

This can only be done by the phenomena of resonance. Energy and power can only co-exist within a wave periodic time and the sky falls in on your beliefs.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 2:19 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 37 by wj, posted 02-14-2003 10:26 PM Alan Cresswell has responded Message 38 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-15-2003 2:33 PM Alan Cresswell has responded Message 45 by Percy, posted 02-16-2003 10:21 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

wj
Inactive Member

 Message 37 of 202 (32304) 02-14-2003 10:26 PM Reply to: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell02-14-2003 6:12 PM

Another one for the pseudoscience list.
 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 6:12 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 40 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 12:37 AM wj has not yet responded

Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 38 of 202 (32337) 02-15-2003 2:33 PM Reply to: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell02-14-2003 6:12 PM

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 6:12 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 39 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 12:32 AM Dr Cresswell has responded

Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 39 of 202 (32350) 02-16-2003 12:32 AM Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Cresswell02-15-2003 2:33 PM

Small and fast. Big or tiny. Makes no difference. There is only one way to the truth and Isaac Newton, nearly 400 years ago, never scratched the surface of it
 This message is a reply to: Message 38 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-15-2003 2:33 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 41 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 7:39 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 40 of 202 (32351) 02-16-2003 12:37 AM Reply to: Message 37 by wj02-14-2003 10:26 PM

Have you ever thought about why you exist Thicky
 This message is a reply to: Message 37 by wj, posted 02-14-2003 10:26 PM wj has not yet responded

Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 41 of 202 (32356) 02-16-2003 7:39 AM Reply to: Message 39 by Alan Cresswell02-16-2003 12:32 AM

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 39 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 12:32 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 42 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 9:52 AM Dr Cresswell has not yet responded

Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member

 Message 42 of 202 (32362) 02-16-2003 9:52 AM Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Cresswell02-16-2003 7:39 AM

YOU ARE LYING IN THE IRAQUI DESERT. YOUR BALLS ARE SHOT AWAY AND YOU ARE HOLDING ON TO YOUR WET SLIPPERY INTESTINES.

YOU SAY PLEASE HELP ME IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. THERE IS NO HELP. 50 MILLION HAVE PERISHED THIS CENTURY FOR THIS MADNESS.

HELP YOURSELF. THE BUSH BLAIR ALLIANCE IS BASED ON POLITICAL AND SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE.

I BOUGHT THE COMPUTER TO POST THE MESSAGE. I HAVE NO WISH TO INSULT YOU. I NEED YOUR HELP. 50 MILLION OTHER PEOPLE ALSO LOOK TO YOU.

LETS GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 This message is a reply to: Message 41 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 7:39 AM Dr Cresswell has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 43 by Admin, posted 02-16-2003 10:03 AM Alan Cresswell has responded Message 44 by John, posted 02-16-2003 10:04 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 43 of 202 (32365) 02-16-2003 10:03 AM Reply to: Message 42 by Alan Cresswell02-16-2003 9:52 AM

This post is off-topic. Please delete the contents and repost to one of the relevant threads in the Coffee House forum. Thanks!

------------------

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 9:52 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 47 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-17-2003 4:38 AM Admin has responded

John
Inactive Member

 Message 44 of 202 (32366) 02-16-2003 10:04 AM Reply to: Message 42 by Alan Cresswell02-16-2003 9:52 AM

uh-huh....

I'm assuming you mean the war is about oil and your technology will make oil irrelevant.

Ship me a working model of your device. Then I'll help. Right now, I don't believe your story.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-16-2003 9:52 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 45 of 202 (32368) 02-16-2003 10:21 AM Reply to: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell02-14-2003 6:12 PM

 Alan Cresswell writes:Velocity of light C is the RMS value of a wave.

I'm curious, how do you get units of velocity from the RMS of a wave?

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-14-2003 6:12 PM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next FF