Why Over-Unity is Possible

[conradelektro]

"It is a clever logical word play and I have no good counter argument besides that it sounds tricky." why do you think it's a 'word play'? "It sounds tricky"; as an argument that is equivalent to saying 'it does not feel right'; neither is a scientific argument.

Why it is a tricky argument: current theory demands that no work is done otherwise it would break down. And of course the assumption is made that no work is done. This is kind of circular.

But if you are happy with the "no work is done" explanation, so be it.

What is a scientific argument: on the fundamental level most arguments are axiomatic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom , meaning they are assumed and can not be proven. So, it comes down to belief. There might be many arguments leading to an axoim (to a belief), but in the end there is no proof just assumption.

So, within the assumptions (the axioms established by the establishment) of current physics theory "no work is allowed to be done".

The "no work is done" explanation sounds to me more like a requirement than a proven fact. And you might call that feeling unscientific.

Axioms are the end of every scientific argument, believe the axiom or do not believe it. Both is scientific.

I do not want to convince any one. I am reporting a feeling or an impression which is always dificult to convey or to be understood by others. I have the feeling that the axioms leading to the "no work is done" assumption are not sound.

Fore someone believing in an axiom it might be unscientific to question this axiom. But this is for sure unscientific, because it would exclude discussion of axioms.

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

Hi,
Thats typical answer from physics..

But consider the following example:
To the ceiling is via magnet attached a sack with bullets. Now you add additional bullets till the sack with final weight M falls to the ground.
I hope we can agree that kinetic energy of the sack at the ground will be smaller comparing to the normal fall  from the same height as magnet slows down the fall.
Now, where is this energy difference lost? Gravity performed work. So did magnet preventing fall at the beginning. So who paid for this slowdown?

Marcel

This example is exactly what makes me feel uneasy with the "no work is done " requirement (according to me it is not a proved fact but a requirement of current theory).

Similar problems exist with the requirement that "the electron does not need energy to spin around the nucleus" (according to me it is not a proved fact but also a requirement of current theory).

But who am I? I do not want to convince any body, I know much too little and every person versed in the slang of current physics theory could talk me down in an instant.

Hopefully science will progress and more about the underlying reality (beyond particle physics) will be understood. The particle zoo is just too crazy to be the last word. I think I understand quantum weirdness, but there should be more underneath which will explain it.

Greetings, Conrad

[pauldude000]

"It is a clever logical word play and I have no good counter argument besides that it sounds tricky." why do you think it's a 'word play'? "It sounds tricky"; as an argument that is equivalent to saying 'it does not feel right'; neither is a scientific argument.

It is actually not word play. Gravity imposes a 9.18 meter per sec/ per sec downwards acceleration on the hypothetical magnet. For the magnet to stay motionless on the ceiling, it is applying an equal to or greater acceleration upwards. There is a definitive measurable acceleration and therefore is doing work; the fact that subjectively it seems motionless to the observer is irrelevant.


Hold a neodymium magnet 1/2" from a steel plate on the ceiling and you will see the work being done, when the magnet leaps to the plate. Motion in the form of acceleration is required for work. Visible motion(subjective) relative to the observer is not a requirement of work.

[pauldude000]

I will demonstrate my point with the magnet.
W=Fd (Work equals Force times distance)
F=W/d (Force equals Work divided by the distance)


If this ended here, that would be that, so to speak. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, again so to speak. Yes, I like colloquialisms.


F=ma (Net Force equals mass times acceleration)


So, we are stuck with distance, and since the magnet appears to be stationary, how does that work?


d=vt (distance equals velocity times time)


Therefore, a 5g magnet hanging on the ceiling, overcoming a 9.18 ms/s downwards acceleration to remain at equilibrium yields:


F=45.9 Newtons
d= 9.18 meters is the distance the magnet has to move every second to overcome gravity.
W= 5 Joules per second required to remain in equilibrium.


If the 5g magnet were an electromagnet, those 5 Joules would be in electricity. Whether talking natural or artificial magnet fields makes no difference, as the work is still 5 Joules per second.

[Zephir]

For me the biggest hole in the physics world view of today is the notion that the electron spinning (or whatever it is doing) around the nucleus does not need an energy source. A similar strange concept is that a permanent magnet stuck to a steel ceiling does not need an energy source to hold its own weight (or even more than its own weight). Once this energy source is discovered new ways to convert it to e.g. electricity or heat will be available.

In dense aether theory the life inside the vacuum corresponds the life inside the oven on the surface of molten iron. Because our environment is actually very hot, it keeps the currents inside the superconductors and magnets in neverending motion in similar way, like the Brownian motion at the water surface keeps tiny particles in motion.

But this analogy still doesn't provides the way, how to draw the energy from this motion. Even if the vacuum is very hot, we need to have colder places in it for to utilize its power. Even the life inside the hot oven doesn't provide the way, how to utilize this heat until no colder surface is accessible.