Gravity, when the feeling's gone and you can't go on, it's gravity

[RudeCurve]

Gravity is the word we humans use to represent what is actually curvature in space-time. Calling it a form of energy is roughly as correct as calling a hill a source of energy. You may get energy out of it by rolling an object down it, but the process gives no more energy out of it than you put in (less, when you count friction and other losses).

Magnets work on exactly the same principle I might add. Anything you get out of them is no greater (and pretty much unavoidably less actually) than what you put in. They're not infinite batteries in any way, shape or form any more than a gravity well is an infinite battery.

In other words if you take two objects and put one on the left and one on the right without lifting it you used energy to do that work but the two objects that you moved has no potential energy whatsoever yet gravity is appying a constant force on those two objects.

You didn't answer my question. So it takes ZERO energy to keep the planets from flying off into space?

Then the magnets serve no purpose, because the electric energy needed to keep the rotor spinning is by neccessity going to be at least equal (due to resistance, friction etc) to the repellation force of the magnets, or the rotor would stop on its own.

Also, as soon as you load the axle the motor would of course stop spinning. ...Unless you ramp up on the electric current, of course like with any ol' electric motor we've designed and built in the last ~150 years-ish.

The pendulum of a clock swings with very little energy because there's almost no resistance to its movement.

The inventor disagrees and has a machine that shows a motor accelerates under load using special HV coils.

 

[Grall]

Of course it doesn't that's why the new RA technology is being tested on the existing system so that no ADDITIONAL pedal effort is needed.

You presented the video as evidence of the existence of your miraculous "RA technology". However the video shows no evidence of that (you even admit as much yourself apparantly). So in reality your evidence is actually worthless.

Kindly present another piece of evidence kkthx. One that shows some evidence of the evidence you claim to be in it, preferably...

Of course it exist, the guy invented it and not even a PhD from MIT could dispprove it or sucessfully explain it.

As full details of the contraption and its design/construction have not been divulged, it's going to be hard to disprove completely. However there's the laws of thermodynamics which can't be explained away, and that's enough.

So gravity is not a source of energy?

No it is not. I think it's clear you lack a fundamental grasp of physics, and perhaps science in general.

So how do the planets orbit the sun?

Without being an astrophysicist, I'd say it's because the planets are taking the shortest path available to them through curved spacetime.

Besides, planetary orbits have nothing to do with magnetism, or "regenerative acceleration". These are separate phenomena (not that I accept "RA" as a "phenomena", mind you.)

Well then gravity doesn't have "fuel" either but somehow it's able to fuel a mysterious force to keep the planets from flying off.

Correct, it doesn't have fuel because it isn't actually a force. It's a curvature in space. It's like that experiment which you've probably seen of a smaller ball rolling on a rubber membrane round and round a dimple created by a larger ball, except the curvature isn't expressed in either two-dimensional or three-dimensional space.

Actually the magnets ARE fighting against the force that you exert to pry it apart.

If the magnets were anything but a passive part we'd be able to detect their involvement with instruments and we can not.

The magnets are no more fighting against you (as in producing any actual work in a physics sense of the word; they're obviously repelling each other) than a spring is actively fighting against you when you compress it. Just because you can't see the repelling magnetic fields doesn't mean there's anything special about them, or anything that makes them energy sources.

Springs aren't energy sources either I'm sure you agree, yet they also "fight" you when you try to compress them. It's on a logical level the same thing, just in a more, eh, tangible form.

I'd suggest you pick up some elementary physics knowledge. Your misconceptions on these fundamentals is quite startling really... Have you even studied the subject in highschool?

 

[RudeCurve]

I'd suggest you pick up some elementary physics knowledge. Your misconceptions on these fundamentals is quite startling really... Have you even studied the subject in highschool?

This coming from a guy that thinks it takes zero energy to keep planets from flying off and away from the sun.

Keep on reading those textbooks....it's not going to magically increase your IQ or show that ZERO energy is required to keep planets from flying off into space.

You obviously have ZERO grasp of reality....I really have no time to discuss this with you, but before I go...

Try this experiment.

Go get a video camera and video yourself on the outer edge of a spinning merry-go-round....then come back here and enlighten us to your theory that it takes ZERO energy to keep your @ss from flying off.

 

[Grall]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes I did in fact do that. You're just not getting it.

You can start your illumination process here: General Relativity.
"In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force."

Gravity is not a force.

So it takes ZERO energy to keep the planets from flying off into space?

*sigh*
Again: because gravity is not a force it's not expending any energy...correct.

The inventor disagrees and has a machine that shows a motor accelerates under load using special HV coils.

Which violates laws of conservation of energy. Hence, what he claims is either not happening, or what's happening is not what he's claiming. Either way, you can't get more energy out of a motor than what you put into it. Other wise you could have the motor run itself forever by connecting its output to its input, and perpetual motion machines break the laws of physics, which means his invention is a fake. QED.

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

this better be a troll thread

 

[RudeCurve]

Yes I did in fact do that. You're just not getting it.

You can start your illumination process here: General Relativity.
"In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force."

Gravity is not a force.


*sigh*
Again: because gravity is not a force it's not expending any energy...correct.


Which violates laws of conservation of energy. Hence, what he claims is either not happening, or what's happening is not what he's claiming. Either way, you can't get more energy out of a motor than what you put into it. Other wise you could have the motor run itself forever by connecting its output to its input, and perpetual motion machines break the laws of physics, which means his invention is a fake. QED.

It doesn't matter what you want to call gravity, force, energy or curve. The POINT is it exerts a FORCE on BODIES-> F-MA

And please stop repeating the same violating the laws of physics BS. A PhD from MIT couldn't explain or prove anything but you the armchair expert thinks you know the answer?

Again since you conveniently gloss over what I said.

Try this experiment.

Go get a video camera and video yourself on the outer edge of a spinning merry-go-round....then come back here and enlighten us to your theory that it takes ZERO energy to keep your @ss from flying off.

 

[Grall]

This coming from a guy that thinks it takes zero energy to keep planets from flying off and away from the sun.

Keep on reading those textbooks....it's not going to magically increase your IQ to show that ZERO energy is required to keep planets from flying off into space.

Physics fail...

Again: did you actually study physics in school?

I can tell you I did, and not just my textbooks, but any physicist agrees with me on this point. God(s) know I wasn't the best student in the natural sciences, but I do have an at least casual acquaintance with the subject, which is obviously more than can be said about you.

I really have no time to discuss this with you

Interpretation: "I'm getting badly owned here, so I'll try to withdraw whilst pretending I'm not withdrawing so I can still maintain a modicum of dignity..."

Go get a video camera and video yourself on a spinning merry-go-round....then come back here and enlighten us to your theory that it takes ZERO energy to keep your @ss from flying off.

You are correct: zero energy. (Work, really.)
"The centripetal force in a uniform circular motion, for example, does zero work since the kinetic energy of the moving object doesn't change."

 

[RudeCurve]

You are correct: zero energy. (Work, really.)
"The centripetal force in a uniform circular motion, for example, does zero work since the kinetic energy of the moving object doesn't change."

Yes I'm correct, no distance equal no work. Doesn't mean zero energy. Just because you can't get a 1 ton rock to move doesn't mean you don't expend any energy trying to move it. This is the basis of isometric exercises...

 

[Mize]

You don't understand energy at all RC.

It takes exactly the same amount of work to separate the magnets as they will exert returning to their "locked position" - hence, conservation of energy. Same goes for gravity - you want to drop something you got to lift it first.

Look up: potential vs. work in a basic physics textbook.

 

[RudeCurve]

You don't understand energy at all RC.

It takes exactly the same amount of work to separate the magnets as they will exert returning to their "locked position" - hence, conservation of energy. Same goes for gravity - you want to drop something you got to lift it first.

Look up: potential vs. work in a basic physics textbook.

Actually I understand it quite well. The point which you ignore is the CONSTANT force that the magnet has, just like the constant force gravity applies on everything. This FORCE is CONSTANT regardless of work being done or not. This force requires some sort of energy.

Again explain how the gravitational force keeps the planets from flying off into space. WHERE DOES THIS FORCE COME FROM??? Where does the ENERGY to keep the planets from flying off come from????

Now if you think there is ZERO energy involved then go ahead and make that merry-go-round video...

I'm surprised you let the world know you taught engineering...yet can't even grasp basic physics....

 

[Mize]

dude, force IS NOT energy.

U = Work = integral [Force * distance]

And, just for your sake, magnets aren't magic. They de-magnetize with use just like a battery goes dead. Hell, my eleven year old knows more about classical physics than you do.

 

[RudeCurve]

I didn't say force was energy...yet another STRAWMAN ATEMPT by the MIZER!!!

I said/implied there is some sort of energy involved/required to create a force.

As for magents demagnetizing...of course but guess what? With the latest magnetic materials they lose less than 1% overall magnetism over a 10 year period. As long as they don't overheat they will last very long.

 

[Mize]

You are so far out of your league RC, it's sad. So tell me how you can harness this mysterious energy held within your magical magnets or your mysterious gravitational "energy field" please.

You're basically a layman - no formal training in physics. You probably believe that if you climb a hill and then come back down to the point you started that you have done work. By physics vernacular, you have not. We physicists have very specific definitions for force, potential energy, kinetic energy and work. You don't seem to know any of these terms so arguing with you is like trying to explain baseball when you don't even speak the same language.

Gravity, on its own, does not have energy. An object placed in a gravitational field can have potential energy that can be converted to kinetic energy.

When we talk about energy for things like bicycle motion, we're talking about some source of energy that can be converted into kinetic energy. So, for example, put a bike up a hill then it has potential energy. Let it coast down the hill it has kinetic energy.

BUT YOU HAD TO GET IT UP THE HILL FIRST. That's the work you aren't understanding. You essentially store potential energy by riding/pushing the bike up the hill and that work is defined as the integral of force dot distance (do product, not multiply). That work is exactly equal to the potential energy you store in the bicycle - conservation of energy.

Likewise to access the potential energy that a magnet can create, you have to do work to place a magnetic object in its field. If you want to repel, you have to pull it closer. If you want to attract you have to pull them apart. In so doing you are doing work again (integrate F dot dx) and that work will equal the stored potential energy.

There's no magic here. We do these things all the time.

 

[Grall]

It doesn't matter what you want to call gravity, force, energy or curve. The POINT is it exerts a FORCE on BODIES-> F-MA

No, the POINT is it DOESN'T EXERT A FORCE.

It can't exert any forces on any bodies since gravity fundamentally isn't a force. Logically, planetary orbits are straight paths, not curved ellipses (although having mentioned the word "logically" I have a feeling I'm talking to deaf ears here, heh...)

The sun is no more exerting any physical forces on the bodies orbiting it than you listen to the image on your computer's monitor screen. It's not forces involved here, so F=M*A isn't the appropriate equation.

If forces WERE involved, where does the energy involved come from and where does it go??? Holding a dozen major and (counting low) millions/billions of minor bodies in their orbits for ~4 billion years would require fantastic amounts of energy. Yet there's no trace of any such energy expenditures, even on a theoretical level.

A PhD from MIT couldn't explain or prove anything but you the armchair expert thinks you know the answer?

Does that "PhD from MIT" have a name? Did she or he have unrestricted access to the device, blueprints and its alledged operating principles?

Where are the independent peer-reviewed and verified experiments confirming his conclusions? I see nothing of that sort anywhere.

As for "armchair expert", you're no more an expert on this subject than I am (and clearly less so in fact, not even grasping basic fundamental concepts of physics), so I don't know how you can act so certain either.

 

[Karoshi]

On the merry go round example, but without anybody on it:
What "energy" keeps the merry go round itself together? Why doesn't it explode in a billion atoms? Why don't the atoms explode in their subatomic particles?

Thread title "???" delivers.

 

[Grall]

Rudecurve, when you grab a ketchup bottle, turn it upside down and squeeze, ketchup comes out.

Does that mean the bottle was the source of the ketchup?

No of course not, the bottle just stored ketchup that was previously put into it.

That's why magnets aren't infinite sources of "magnetic power" any more than ketchup bottles are infinite fonts of ketchup.

When you push two magnets together with identical poles facing using your hands, you're inserting potential energy into the system, converted from chemical energy in your muscles. It's an analogue situation to compressing a spring; your muscles force tension in the windings of the spring. In essence, you're "filling ketchup into the bottle".

When the magnets are let go, the energy previously stored is released/the ketchup comes spurting out. It's not the magnets themselves being tapped of limitless magnetic power, they're just capacitors storing a charge.

Rudecurve: troll, or just plain clueless fucking idiot...you decide! Either way he's funny as hell. A regular ol' barrel o' laughs!

 

[Gubbi]

You didn't answer my question. So it takes ZERO energy to keep the planets from flying off into space?

Yes.

Cheers

 

[_xxx_]

Yes I did in fact do that. You're just not getting it.
...

Gravity is not a force.

...

*sigh*
Again: because gravity is not a force it's not expending any energy...correct.

"Gravity is not a force"?

Strange, I learned in the very first physics course back in the elementary school that universal gravitation is one of the four elementary forces.

www.cpo.com/tn/downloads/04_1 four elementary forces.pdf
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858451.html

To put it short: YOU are not getting it

A friendly advice: hang your head in shame and avoid any scientific discussions in the future. You're SO not qualified.

 

[WhiningKhan]

"Gravity is not a force"?

Strange, I learned in the very first physics course back in the elementary school that universal gravitation is one of the four elementary forces.

Oh god, _xxx_. Aren't you supposed to be an engineer?

Don't you remember anything about classical mechanics?

The correct term is four elementary interactions, not forces, unless you deliberately want to mix up concepts. Yes, sometimes you can see them being referred to as forces, which is comparably incorrect as the term "centrifugal force".

 

[Mize]

_xxx_ post 53 explained it. If you're really on the side of perpetual motion and free energy from magnets, just say so.