FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Perpetual Motion Machines
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [37 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:26 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Dear richarddesaneis:

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vghm92l2hind9qsrfeb7neeb16g4557qlc@4ax.com...
Quote:
Magnetic energy approaches infinity as distance to
a current carrying conductor approaches zero,

Field strength, NOT energy. And REAL conductors, made of REAL
materials don't let you approach zero.

Quote:
Isn't it great to know that the source of orbital
energy is infinite?

Black Hole? NOT infinite.

Quote:
It makes charged particle collision experiments
so easy to calculate.

If you say so.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:48 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:26:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Quote:
Dear richarddesaneis:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vghm92l2hind9qsrfeb7neeb16g4557qlc@4ax.com...
Magnetic energy approaches infinity as distance to
a current carrying conductor approaches zero,

Field strength, NOT energy. And REAL conductors, made of REAL
materials don't let you approach zero.

Isn't it great to know that the source of orbital
energy is infinite?

Black Hole? NOT infinite.
An electron and a proton cannot form a MINI black hole, without near

infinite gravitational (or electrostatic) force. If electrons and
protons have near infinitely small diameters (as they would in a black
hole), why wouldn't their force be as predicted (Kmm/r**2 with near
zero r) and their energy of each be greater than the starting
materials?
Quote:

It makes charged particle collision experiments
so easy to calculate.


If you say so.
Perhaps Energy = MC**2 + gravitational energy + electrostatic energy +

magnetic energy.

The point of this posting was to show that magnetic, gravitational and
electrostatic forces are finite, thus proving that extrapolating the
mathematical force equations to near zero distance, does not prove
existance of high energy or great force.

If two electrons can exist at the same POINT in space, then the
electrostatic force between the electrons cannot be infinite. Perhaps
the energy needed to get two electrons to occupy the same point can
provide a clue to measuring the finite force and energy of the
electrostatic field of an electron.
Quote:

David A. Smith
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:oein92dfggo134eojml8ref280drvolao5@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:26:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Dear richarddesaneis:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vghm92l2hind9qsrfeb7neeb16g4557qlc@4ax.com...
Magnetic energy approaches infinity as distance to
a current carrying conductor approaches zero,

Field strength, NOT energy. And REAL conductors, made of REAL
materials don't let you approach zero.

Isn't it great to know that the source of orbital
energy is infinite?

Black Hole? NOT infinite.
An electron and a proton cannot form a MINI black hole, without near
infinite gravitational (or electrostatic) force.

Why should they form a black hole rather than a neutron?

Black holes are created as a result of the mass/energy
density in a region of space exceeding a certain threshold.
The density of neutronium isn't quite up to it.

Quote:
If electrons and
protons have near infinitely small diameters (as they would in a black
hole), why wouldn't their force be as predicted (Kmm/r**2 with near
zero r) and their energy of each be greater than the starting
materials?

Once matter enters a black hole it inevitably ends up
at the singularity where it ceases to exist as
individual particles. Certainly composite particles
such as protons (composed of quarks) which have a
spacial extent cannot exist there.

Quote:

It makes charged particle collision experiments
so easy to calculate.


If you say so.
Perhaps Energy = MC**2 + gravitational energy + electrostatic energy +
magnetic energy.

The point of this posting was to show that magnetic, gravitational and
electrostatic forces are finite, thus proving that extrapolating the
mathematical force equations to near zero distance, does not prove
existance of high energy or great force.

If two electrons can exist at the same POINT in space, then the
electrostatic force between the electrons cannot be infinite. Perhaps
the energy needed to get two electrons to occupy the same point can
provide a clue to measuring the finite force and energy of the
electrostatic field of an electron.

The energy of electric and magnetic fields of particles are
finite. The separation of charges is never zero due to
the constraints imposed by reality -- things have radii,
things have uncertainty, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle
steps in for Fermions.
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:22:20 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:oein92dfggo134eojml8ref280drvolao5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:26:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Dear richarddesaneis:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vghm92l2hind9qsrfeb7neeb16g4557qlc@4ax.com...
Magnetic energy approaches infinity as distance to
a current carrying conductor approaches zero,

Field strength, NOT energy. And REAL conductors, made of REAL
materials don't let you approach zero.

Isn't it great to know that the source of orbital
energy is infinite?

Black Hole? NOT infinite.
An electron and a proton cannot form a MINI black hole, without near
infinite gravitational (or electrostatic) force.

Why should they form a black hole rather than a neutron?

A neutron has more mass than an electron plus a proton. There might
be a problem converting the kinetic energy of colision to the provide
the mass needed to create a neutron. In other words, you have to
create a black hole before you have the energy to create a neutron.
Quote:

Black holes are created as a result of the mass/energy
density in a region of space exceeding a certain threshold.
The density of neutronium isn't quite up to it.

?? I thought matter converts to neutronium by means of a black hole???


Quote:
If electrons and
protons have near infinitely small diameters (as they would in a black
hole), why wouldn't their force be as predicted (Kmm/r**2 with near
zero r) and their energy of each be greater than the starting
materials?

Once matter enters a black hole it inevitably ends up
at the singularity where it ceases to exist as
individual particles. Certainly composite particles
such as protons (composed of quarks) which have a
spacial extent cannot exist there.

Good point. The charge on a proton is a point charge, thus the
positron portion of a neutron might survive entry into a black hole if
the positron is not annihilated by an electron. Only those items
proven to have a non-zero diameter must become neutronium.
Quote:


It makes charged particle collision experiments
so easy to calculate.


If you say so.
Perhaps Energy = MC**2 + gravitational energy + electrostatic energy +
magnetic energy.

The point of this posting was to show that magnetic, gravitational and
electrostatic forces are finite, thus proving that extrapolating the
mathematical force equations to near zero distance, does not prove
existance of high energy or great force.

If two electrons can exist at the same POINT in space, then the
electrostatic force between the electrons cannot be infinite. Perhaps
the energy needed to get two electrons to occupy the same point can
provide a clue to measuring the finite force and energy of the
electrostatic field of an electron.

The energy of electric and magnetic fields of particles are
finite. The separation of charges is never zero due to
the constraints imposed by reality -- things have radii,
things have uncertainty, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle
steps in for Fermions.

Careful, not everything is covered by uncertainty and in some cases

the uncertainty is produced by the measurement, or did not exist
before the measurement. For example, quantum electromagnetic emission
by definition does not have an uncertain energy.

Mathematically, what are you claiming about the diameter of an
electron, with respect to uncertainty of the diameter?
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

In article <03pn92teqt3t19tmf5lf1o4tp8dkcsa0l5@4ax.com>,
<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:22:20 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oein92dfggo134eojml8ref280drvolao5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:26:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Dear richarddesaneis:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vghm92l2hind9qsrfeb7neeb16g4557qlc@4ax.com...
Magnetic energy approaches infinity as distance to
a current carrying conductor approaches zero,

Field strength, NOT energy. And REAL conductors, made of REAL
materials don't let you approach zero.

Isn't it great to know that the source of orbital
energy is infinite?

Black Hole? NOT infinite.
An electron and a proton cannot form a MINI black hole, without near
infinite gravitational (or electrostatic) force.

Why should they form a black hole rather than a neutron?

A neutron has more mass than an electron plus a proton. There might
be a problem converting the kinetic energy of colision to the provide
the mass needed to create a neutron. In other words, you have to
create a black hole before you have the energy to create a neutron.

Nope

No black hole needed - this is word salad

Quote:

Black holes are created as a result of the mass/energy
density in a region of space exceeding a certain threshold.
The density of neutronium isn't quite up to it.

?? I thought matter converts to neutronium by means of a black hole???


No


Please read some elementary physics.

Quote:


--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Mr Clarke
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

I don`t HAVE to reply, of course...

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vghm92l2hind9qsrfeb7neeb16g4557qlc@4ax.com...
Quote:
Magnetic energy approaches infinity as distance to a current carrying
conductor approaches zero, yet total magnetic cannot be greater than
the electric current that becomes magnetism.

Denounced by the wonderfull experiments with superconductors recently.

Quote:
Let the distance between two small current carrying conductors
approach zero, then use the infinite kinetic energy to produce more
magnetism.

Make us one then.

Quote:
This method also works for gravity and electrostatic energy. Let the
distance (r) between two masses (m) approach zero, then convert the
infinite energy expended from
energy = k*m*m/r
back to mass to get more collisions that create more energy.

It seems to work alright around here, naturally.

Quote:
For electrostatic energy between two oppositely charged particles (q1
and q2), use the infinite energy from reducing distance (r) between
them to near zero
energy = k*q1*q2/r
to create infinitely greater energy than annihilation of a positron
and an electron. Use the infinite energy to create more charged
particles.

Isn't it great to know that the source of orbital energy is infinite?

Hmm, maybe? But some are still trying to find ways to sell "nothing"!

Quote:
It makes charged particle collision experiments so easy to calculate.

Of course it does and so do electronic calculators!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:32 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Dear richarddesaneis:

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:03pn92teqt3t19tmf5lf1o4tp8dkcsa0l5@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:22:20 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:
....
An electron and a proton cannot form a
MINI black hole, without near infinite
gravitational (or electrostatic) force.

Why should they form a black hole rather
than a neutron?

A neutron has more mass than an electron
plus a proton.

Yet this exact reaction has been observed, just as its inverse (a
neutron decaying to a proton and an electron) has been observed.

Quote:
There might be a problem converting the
kinetic energy of colision to the provide
the mass needed to create a neutron.

No, just need an electron neutrino or its antiparticle on either
side of the interaction.

Quote:
In other words, you have to create a
black hole before you have the energy to
create a neutron.

Really bad guess. "Dual to black hole"s have been created by
slamming gold nucleii together. Nothing comes out but light.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:32:53 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Quote:
Dear richarddesaneis:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:03pn92teqt3t19tmf5lf1o4tp8dkcsa0l5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:22:20 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:
...
An electron and a proton cannot form a
MINI black hole, without near infinite
gravitational (or electrostatic) force.

Why should they form a black hole rather
than a neutron?

A neutron has more mass than an electron
plus a proton.

Yet this exact reaction has been observed, just as its inverse (a
neutron decaying to a proton and an electron) has been observed.

With application of .7823 MeV, the formation of a neutron has been

observed. I would like to claim that the gravitational and
electrostatic energy between a proton and an electron is less than
..7823 Mev, but have no means to prove or disprove it.

Quote:
There might be a problem converting the
kinetic energy of colision to the provide
the mass needed to create a neutron.

No, just need an electron neutrino or its antiparticle on either
side of the interaction.

Just the electron neutrino or antineutrino, not the energy?
Quote:

In other words, you have to create a
black hole before you have the energy to
create a neutron.

Really bad guess. "Dual to black hole"s have been created by
slamming gold nucleii together. Nothing comes out but light.

If you are referring to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm
this article claims black hole characteristics, not black hole. The
article also claims "At these energies and distances, gravity is not
the dominant force in a black hole." If gravitational energy held the
gold black hole together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

Has the AMOUNT of gravitational and electrostatic energies of an
electron been measured or calculated, aside from the infinite energy
predicted by force equations?
Quote:

David A. Smith
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

In article <379q92hudaqon8iqoglgls5dvo2kctsh66@4ax.com>,
<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:
With application of .7823 MeV, the formation of a neutron has been
observed. I would like to claim that the gravitational and
electrostatic energy between a proton and an electron is less than
.7823 Mev, but have no means to prove or disprove it.

Then you cannot claim it.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Dear richarddesaneis:

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:379q92hudaqon8iqoglgls5dvo2kctsh66@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:32:53 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Dear richarddesaneis:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:03pn92teqt3t19tmf5lf1o4tp8dkcsa0l5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:22:20 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:
...
An electron and a proton cannot form a
MINI black hole, without near infinite
gravitational (or electrostatic) force.

Why should they form a black hole rather
than a neutron?

A neutron has more mass than an electron
plus a proton.

Yet this exact reaction has been observed, just
as its inverse (a neutron decaying to a proton and
an electron) has been observed.

With application of .7823 MeV, the formation of
a neutron has been observed.

And a neutrino (or anti neutrino, can't remember which) was also
a product.

Quote:
I would like to claim that the gravitational and
electrostatic energy between a proton and an
electron is less than .7823 Mev, but have no
means to prove or disprove it.

Why would you like to claim this? Electrostatic forces are
nothing compared to the strong and weak interaction forces, when
talking about particle and nucleus binding forces.

Quote:
There might be a problem converting the
kinetic energy of colision to the provide
the mass needed to create a neutron.

No, just need an electron neutrino or its
antiparticle on either side of the interaction.

Just the electron neutrino or antineutrino, not
the energy?

Energy is also a *product* of neutron decay.

Quote:
In other words, you have to create a
black hole before you have the energy to
create a neutron.

Really bad guess. "Dual to black hole"s
have been created by slamming gold nucleii
together. Nothing comes out but light.

If you are referring to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm
this article claims black hole characteristics, not
black hole.

Right. I was careful to label it as they did.

Quote:
The article also claims "At these energies and
distances, gravity is not the dominant force in
a black hole."

Not strictly true, since they did not create a black hole. Time
will tell.

Quote:
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Quote:
Has the AMOUNT of gravitational and electrostatic
energies of an electron been measured or
calculated, aside from the infinite energy
predicted by force equations?

I have no idea what you are asking. Said energies are usually
represented in "rest mass" and "unit charge". And only infinite
results come from classical theory.

Consider these two facts:
- the energy of creation of an electron results in a finite size
("classical electron radius")
- the experimentally determined size of the electron is inclusive
of zero (and in agreement with established non-classical theory)

If you are going to ask Nature to stoop to behaving as your pet
theories require of Her, you should not be surprised if She will
not listen to you. You and She are capable of so much more.

David A. Smith
Back to top
In Fo
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:13 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Coming relatively soon;
http://community.webtv.net/SkyVessel/FreeEnergy

Prime
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:52 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

In article <24871-449DF15A-448@storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net>, In Fo
<prime137@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Coming relatively soon;
http://community.webtv.net/SkyVessel/FreeEnergy

Prime


We'll be waiting.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:08 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Quote:
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Quote:

Has the AMOUNT of gravitational and electrostatic
energies of an electron been measured or
calculated, aside from the infinite energy
predicted by force equations?

I have no idea what you are asking. Said energies are usually
represented in "rest mass" and "unit charge". And only infinite
results come from classical theory.

Consider these two facts:
- the energy of creation of an electron results in a finite size
("classical electron radius")

The classical electron radius is roughly the size the electron would
need if the electron's mass COMPLETELY converts to electrostatic
potential energy. Electron mass contains electrostatic potential
energy, but electron mass IS NOT electrostatic potential energy.
Similarly, mass contains gravitational energy, but mass IS NOT
gravitational energy.

The total energy of an electron = electron mass + gravitational
potential energy + electrostatic potential energy.

Quote:
- the experimentally determined size of the electron is inclusive
of zero (and in agreement with established non-classical theory)

Does zero electron size mean two electrons can occupy the same point

without forming a black hole and without requiring infinite energy to
bring the electrostatic charges together?

Quote:
If you are going to ask Nature to stoop to behaving as your pet
theories require of Her, you should not be surprised if She will
not listen to you. You and She are capable of so much more.

David A. Smith
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:26 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Dear richarddesaneis:

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
Quote:
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes,
and this is not fringe science, but fairly well
accepted. And in agreement with the observation
that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the
event horizon

Not *at* the horizon. Near the horizon, when the particles
appear, one of them falls in the other may not. They are not
constrained to appear near the horizon.

Quote:
instead of near the greatest gravity?

Gravity does not exist in quantum mechanics, even though people
are spending a great amount of time and energy to write it in.
The particle pairs occur anywhere, but matter-antimatter is
doomed to a short existance. If the point of appearance is near
the horizon, the two particles can have different endpoints.

Quote:
Why gravity increases the frequency that
particle-antiparticle pairs exist, without
gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

It is mass that is the source. It is "determinacy" that provides
the brief ability to teleport.

Quote:
If the mass within the black hole is completely
converted to photons,

How would we know?

Quote:
gravity would be zero, because photons have
no mass.

Energy also contributes to spacetime curvature. "Assemblies" of
photons (greater than 1 photon) have rest mass... *in the center
of momentum frame*.

Quote:
If a black hole completely retains gravity, then
mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

No. Really bad guesses on your part.

Quote:
Has the AMOUNT of gravitational and
electrostatic energies of an electron been
measured or calculated, aside from the
infinite energy predicted by force equations?

I have no idea what you are asking. Said
energies are usually represented in "rest
mass" and "unit charge". And only infinite
results come from classical theory.

Consider these two facts:
- the energy of creation of an electron results
in a finite size ("classical electron radius")

The classical electron radius is roughly the
size the electron would need if the electron's
mass COMPLETELY converts to electrostatic
potential energy. Electron mass contains
electrostatic potential energy, but electron
mass IS NOT electrostatic potential energy.
Similarly, mass contains gravitational energy,
but mass IS NOT gravitational energy.

Mass does not "contain" gravitational energy. It takes a system
to do that. It is true that said energy derives from mass... but
energy is more than that. It takes spacetime, which derives from
all mass/energy in the Universe, to be that which assigns
"energy" to some sub-part.

Quote:
The total energy of an electron = electron mass
+ gravitational potential energy + electrostatic
potential energy.

Please define your terms. An electron has mass and charge. The
mass takes care of both "electron mass" and the mass part of
"gravitational potential energy". Likewise its charge takes care
of part of "electrostatic potential energy".

Quote:
- the experimentally determined size of the
electron is inclusive of zero (and in agreement
with established non-classical theory)

Does zero electron size mean two electrons
can occupy the same point without forming a
black hole and without requiring infinite energy to
bring the electrostatic charges together?

Zero size means that you cannot get two electrons to collide but
that all diversion of their paths is contained within coloumb
repulsion.

You've got this real hangup with infinities, don't you?
Everything has to be a "black hole". Anything but taking Nature
at face value. You just have to assume that Nature must behave
as Newton would seem to describe.

Quote:
If you are going to ask Nature to stoop to
behaving as your pet theories require of Her,
you should not be surprised if She will not
listen to you. You and She are capable of
so much more.

Maybe you are NOT capable of more...

David A. Smith
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:13 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
Quote:
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Quote:

Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Quote:

If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

[snip]
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [37 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:01 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Is there a way to write out the process of the cumulative... Michael11 Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:16 am
No new posts Relative motion from individual motion kenseto Relativity 79 Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:16 am
No new posts Brownian motion, covariance Ken Honda Math 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:48 pm
No new posts 3D motion of an Object IED Physics 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:56 pm
No new posts Time dilation mirrors perpendicular to motion Zinc Potterman Relativity 20 Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:43 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0498s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0046s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]