The law of conservation of energy is wrong "you cannot get something from nothin

[Marty Champions]

because gravity itself is a FREE force already. also magnets are a free force

add some physics, with some magnets working with gravity  in a machine thus making out with more energy than you started out with

physics i mean domino effect say on a small scale you have some 2x4 peices of wood arranged in a domino fashion, all that is needed is a slight nudge to get many pounds of force when each 2x4 topples over

just a fraction amount of force started the domino trend of the 2x4's wich cranked a pedal for electricity output

now once all the 2x4's have toppled over you need all the boards to reset, this is done by tilting the whole axis with the 2x4's almost like a seesaw to reset, only minimal force would be needed or you could use magnets on the side that needed to be tilted down, this process could be programmed and ran for infinity giving free energy

there are many other free energy devices and not hard to imagine at all this will all be mainstream by 2018

[Marty Champions]

[Marty Champions]

[Marty Champions]

because gravity itself is a FREE force already. also magnets are a free force

add some physics, with some magnets working with gravity  in a machine thus making out with more energy than you started out with

physics i mean domino effect say on a small scale you have some 2x4 peices of wood arranged in a domino fashion, all that is needed is a slight nudge to get many pounds of force when each 2x4 topples over

just a fraction amount of force started the domino trend of the 2x4's wich cranked a pedal for electricity output

now once all the 2x4's have toppled over you need all the boards to reset, this is done by tilting the whole axis with the 2x4's almost like a seesaw to reset, only minimal force would be needed or you could use magnets on the side that needed to be tilted down, this process could be programmed and ran for infinity giving free energy

there are many other free energy devices and not hard to imagine at all this will all be mainstream by 2018

doesnt take a brainiac to picture this and put it into play in there minds to see if it would work

[avxo]

What the fuck... Do you really believe this bullshit you spout or are you expertly trolling?

[pedro01]

because gravity itself is a FREE force already. also magnets are a free force

add some physics, with some magnets working with gravity  in a machine thus making out with more energy than you started out with

physics i mean domino effect say on a small scale you have some 2x4 peices of wood arranged in a domino fashion, all that is needed is a slight nudge to get many pounds of force when each 2x4 topples over

just a fraction amount of force started the domino trend of the 2x4's wich cranked a pedal for electricity output

now once all the 2x4's have toppled over you need all the boards to reset, this is done by tilting the whole axis with the 2x4's almost like a seesaw to reset, only minimal force would be needed or you could use magnets on the side that needed to be tilted down, this process could be programmed and ran for infinity giving free energy

there are many other free energy devices and not hard to imagine at all this will all be mainstream by 2018

And the force to put the dominoes up in the first place doesn't matter?

[avxo]

And the force to put the dominoes up in the first place doesn't matter?

SHUT UP! MAGNETS! SEE-SAW! MINIMAL ENERGY! FUCKING MAGNETS I SAY!

How's my Johnny Falcon impression?

[Marty Champions]

And the force to put the dominoes up in the first place doesn't matter?

no because the dominos can reset themselves after theyve fallen, or fall the other way

[pedro01]

no because the dominos can reset themselves after theyve fallen, or fall the other way

Dominoes cannot fall upwards.

The energy you get from them falling = the energy it will take to restack them (ok - some can be wasted).

The end result is you get out what you put in.

Although I would like to hear about dominoes that can fall upwards....

[Marty Champions]

Dominoes cannot fall upwards.

The energy you get from them falling = the energy it will take to restack them (ok - some can be wasted).

The end result is you get out what you put in.

Although I would like to hear about dominoes that can fall upwards....

you could rotate the platform so they fall upside down

[Marty Champions]

Dominoes cannot fall upwards.

The energy you get from them falling = the energy it will take to restack them (ok - some can be wasted).

The end result is you get out what you put in.

Although I would like to hear about dominoes that can fall upwards....

you can always cut the amount of work to a minimal with carefully placed wedges

its just physics and mangnets

gravity is the free energy the physics and magnets play off of that


gravity is already something for nothing, you just have to duplicate this in your mind for a set up, for this to happen over and over again

each time you implement gravity with an object thats +1 of free energy

[pedro01]

you could rotate the platform so they fall upside down

Which would take more energy than the falling dominoes created because of the additional weight of the platform.

[avxo]

you can always cut the amount of work to a minimal with carefully placed wedges

its just physics and mangnets

gravity is the free energy the physics and magnets play off of that


gravity is already something for nothing, you just have to duplicate this in your mind for a set up, for this to happen over and over again

each time you implement gravity with an object thats +1 of free energy

Really? So why does it take massive amounts of work to put objects in orbit? Why does it it take effort to do a deadlift? Why do you need to step on the gas on a car or crank the pedals on a bike when going up a hill?

Come on. Are you trolling and playing the part of an idiot or did you suffer a stroke and have trouble thinking in addition to poor bladder control?

[Mr Nobody]

We must support the Falcon or he will beat the piss out of out of people trying to take over here.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[daddy8ball]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[2]

That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

[ukjeff]

Cant get something from nothing?
Idol doesnt think so.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=480464.0

[avxo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[2]

That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

First of all, you will notice that it says "conservation of energy can appear to be violated" which is quite a different thing from "conservation of energy is violated". Plus, you left out a most interesting bit from the wikipedia article which states that "energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators."

Changes things quite a bit, don't you think?

[polychronopolous]

Johnny, beyond your number one schmoe fan, Mr. Nobody, I don't think anyone is buying it.

[Mitch]

[arce1988]

[doriancutlerman]

Interesting reasoning, but nah, Big Johnny, the Law of Conservation of E is about as close to "truth" as we can get in this life.

You mention gravity?  It's not "free."  Gravity is very much bound by energy.

This will seem a silly example, but surely you've seen Star Wars before and you're familiar with the Death Star.  

For the heathens who don't know, the Death Star is a 160 klick-wide spherical battlestation.  It has the ability to blow Earth-like planets completely apart in a split-second.  It also has very powerful faster-than-light engines which allow it to traverse the Star Wars galaxy, which is just a bit bigger than our own galaxy (the Milky Way) in a matter of hours or days.

OK:  so, in Episode IV, where we meet Han and company for the first time, this evil, high-ranking fucker in the Galactic Empire, Grand Moff Tarkin, was given command of the Death Star, right?  (Tarkin was portrayed by epically lean old actor Peter Cushing.)  Well, HIS boss, the Emperor Palpatine a.k.a. Darth Sidious, sent his right-hand man, Darth Vader, to capture this little ship and arrest Princess Leia (we'll overlook the fact that we later learn she's actually Vader's daughter), because she had info that could potentially fuck over the Death Star and but good.

Blah blah blah ... the relevant part:

Tarkin decides to test the Death Star's planet-killing weapon on Leia's homeworld, Alderaan.  She protests and whines, Tarkin ignores her, then the planet is completely blown to shit after the Death Star fires.  The remnants of the globe fly apart so ridiculously fast, it was obvious the Death Star's shot was actually major overkill.

My point?  LOL.  Simple:  anything with mass has what's called gravitational binding energy.  The more massive the body, the greater the GBE.  Something the size of Earth or thereabouts has a mind-blowing GBE.

To overcome that gravity-based force the way the Death Star did requires -- yep -- almost unfathomable amounts of energy.  One of my old pals, a Star Wars enthusiast and physics expert, reckoned the blast that shattered Alderaan so violently contained more energy than our Sun -- yes, our SUN -- has released since the time of Moses.

Seems crazy, I know, but it took that much energy to pulverize Alderaan.  And at the risk of being even more repetitive, what did that energy do?

Yep:  as I said, it was expended overcoming the very gravitational forces that held the planet together.

Much love as I have for ya, my Carolinian bro (no homo? ), no:  gravity is literally bound by the same laws that govern energy.  I'm tipsy, whatwith the Star Wars example and all, but perhaps something more straight-forward to posit would be NASA trying to launch a spacecraft into orbit.  Do they or do they not have to burn all kinds of fuel just to get a tiny shuttle into space?  If gravity was somehow exempt, well ... I think you're more than with me by now.

OH:  and any jackass who calls me a Star Wars geek, nerd or whatever ... you're goddamned right

[Rudee]

There is no such thing as nothingness.  As long as there is potential to create "something", there is never "nothing".

[daddy8ball]

First of all, you will notice that it says "conservation of energy can appear to be violated" which is quite a different thing from "conservation of energy is violated". Plus, you left out a most interesting bit from the wikipedia article which states that "energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators."

Changes things quite a bit, don't you think?

"appear" is a cop out from a limp dicked sugar blooded FUCKTARD that can't quite pull the trigger. Appears? It either does, or does not. If it DIDN'T, then why didn't he say so?

appears?

Seriously?

and your second point..same as the first..if there is something definite..let me know. don't come to me with "appears" and "seems to be".

thanks.

[avxo]

Man, why do I always end up in arguments with people with IQs that make a sloughed-off hemorrhoid look like a genius?

"appear" is a cop out from a limp dicked sugar blooded FUCKTARD that can't quite pull the trigger. Appears? It either does, or does not. If it DIDN'T, then why didn't he say so?

The correct term is appears. The earth appears locally flat, but in reality we know it's an oblate spheroid. In more mathematical terms the earth is a 2-manifold in R³, being locally Euclidian at any given point p.

appears?

Yes.

Seriously?

Yes.

and your second point..same as the first..if there is something definite..let me know. don't come to me with "appears" and "seems to be".

I tried to let you know - when I highlighted the next sentence about the Hamiltonian. Alas, it's hard to discuss advanced physics with someone who isn't versed in physics to begin with.

Do you even know what the Hamiltonian is? Have you studied quantum mechanics and understand the basic concepts involved?

Without that background, it would be hard to have a meaningful discussion. And this isn't a background that you can acquire in 15 minutes of wiki-reading or even a week of intensive studying. So unfortunately, I don't think this is a discussion we can have at all.

thanks.

You're welcome.