perpetual motion

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.

I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease.  It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.

With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat.  So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.

And with fire, are you serious about this?  Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.  The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale.  This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire.  As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.

I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.

Hello shruggedatlas.  Feel free to entertain your opinions.  No doubt they're valid.  I have no interest in arguing the merits of something that is dismissed out of hand.  And you've both missed and dismissed the point of my post - entirely.

regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

I agree it's a waste of time to read Rosemary's stuff because her claims are entirely groundless let alone that she demonstrated complete lack of basic understanding in chemistry and physics.

However, let me ask you what are you talking about:

Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.

You don't know that there's no conversion of mass into energy in chemical reactions, is that it? Please correct that at once because it's embarrassing.

[shruggedatlas]

You don't know that there's no conversion of mass into energy in chemical reactions, is that it? Please correct that at once because it's embarrassing.

I am not a scientist, so I may have used the wrong terminology.  But I think that fire is basically  oxygen combining with molecules from the fuel, which happens at an appropriate heat level.  Energy is also released during this process.

[spinn_MP]

The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.

I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease.  It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.

Yes, conservation of momentum, Coriolis, etc... Heil to free energy kicks and knocks..

With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat.  So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.

What do you mean by electron would not to make it all the way around? ...loosing power over time???
You should check up Mr. Gustav Kirchoff... There are some LAWS named after him.... Think about his 1st one... An electrotechnical equivalent of CoE... Conservation of charge? Anyone? Ah, sorry...

And with fire, are you serious about this?  Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.  The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale.  This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire.  As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.

Chemical reactions do not have anything with the E=mc2 equation...
With a wood (or even any chemical reaction/oxidation) burning, there actually isn't any mass to energy conversion happening...
This is a common knowledge, widely known even on the primary school chemistry level... Hell, even OmniBot knows that...

I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.

There's not even one active member on this site, who can claim about himself that he (she) is a REAL scientist....
Surely you knew that?

Unless, of course, you really think that OmniBot is a scientist? :-)

[sm0ky2]

When an object is in obrit, such as the earth orbiting the sun,
or even our own satellites orbiting the earth (moon excluded due to extra variables)

is orbits in a near-perfect balance bewteen gravitational pull and centrifugal outward-force. gravity slightly wins this battle, but the balance is so close that the wind-down of orbital circumference is very slow. This can only occur when the planet or object enters the attraction field at relatively tangential angles to the gravitational sphere. If the object is vectorally directed on a path too perpendicular, or to obtuse the object will either crash into the mass, or fly right past it. the materials that formed the planets in our solar system, passed the sun at just the appropriate angle to become trapped in their circling-spiral towards the center of the sun.

if you take a ball, and wrap a think wire around it concentrically, like a pancake-coil. then stretch this up like a spring.
now cut each "ring" seperate, and flatten them all out so they piece together like a jugsaw puzzle, of concenrtic spirals.

each ring represents a single orbit around the mass (sun, earth, atom, ect). without an outside force interfering with its velocity, as the satellite moves into each closer ring, its velocity will increase with the increase of strength of the gravitational field.
This is very similar to magnetism, except that the gravitational field changes with both distance AND time, whereas the magnetic field only changes with distance. - they are both caused by the same force, but the differences between the two manifestations could take up an entire other thread to explain. The gravitational force at each closer ring is stronger than the ring before, and this is where the energy is drawn from to accelerate the orbital velocity of the satellite.

When the satellite slows down, due to outside interactions, it (normally) moves to a closer orbit to the mass, which accelerates the satellite, until it either enters into a collisional vector, or regains the orbital-balance, of pull in both directions.

When the satellite is sped-up by outside interactions, it moves to an orbit further away from the mass. more centrifugal force pulling it outward, until enough time and distance pass than the mass can begin to slow it down again, and the ortibal balance is one again at equilibrium. If too much energy was transfered into the satellite from an outside collision, it can free the satellite completely from the gravitational field and it will fly off into space.

This is identicle to what occurs around the atomic structure.

its not perpetual motion, but it is very very close.
The remaining "half-life" of our solar system is longer than the expected life-span of our sun. But all one has to do is look at Mercury, to see what happens to an electron as it about to collide into an atomic nuclii.

When you analyize the vectoral direction of the electron spin, at this moment, you will begin to understand the true nature of atomic radiation, and the interactions that take place when the atom "decays" into another type of element.

When you analyze an orbit, you must consider the two perpendicular forces towards and away from the gravitational field, as well as the forward momentum. Momentum is always conserved, but an increase or decrease in the force of the gravitational field translates into velocity changes in the satellite.
minus the energy required to offset its momentum.

the energy of the field is exponentially greater mass for mass than the energy added to the satellite as it moves to a closer distance.
Meaning there is exponentially more energy contained in the field than is required to acellerate the satellite to its orbital-velocity.

Take for instance a coil, positioned in a stationary magnetic field.
due to the magnetic interactions between the nucleus and the magnetic field, the electrons assume a particular energy level, and thus establish an associated orbit around the copper atom.
When you move this coil towards the magnet, electricity flows through the coil. The energy you put into the coil to move it closer, is offset perfectly by the lorent'z force, holding you back.
so, "where" does this energy come from??  It comes from the field itself, and the fact that the coil is moving through it.

As the field-strength becomes greater, the magnetic interactions become more intense, and the electron assumes a higher energy-state. if you move far enough into the field, and at a fast enough rate, the electrons will "fly" out of their atomic-orbit and travel along the conductive path of the wire.
This would be similar to hitting the earth from behind with a fast moving asteroid and accelerating it to an orbit further out, or out of orbit completely.

Nothing we observe is in a state of true "pertual motion", but everything seems to be moving perpetually.
There are fields of energy everywhere, and when one orbit breaks down, the mass will be captured and accelerated into another orbit, starting the whole process over again.

like an electron breaking free from an atom, only to be captured into orbit by an ion nearby, and then accelerated back up orbital velocity.

These fields of energy exist on every level, from the smallest we can imagine, to the largest of scales we can comprehend.
To the point that we cannot create an area of space void of all energy, much less figure out a way to measure it if we did.

There is infinite energy all around us, thats why everything is in perpetual motion. Mercury may one day crash into the sun, when its orbit decays, and it will be consumed by the sun, and spat out of spews of dust, light, and radiation.
and Mercury ( or rather its pieces) will travel on through the universe on route to their next semi-perpetual destiny.
We know a great deal about these fields, where they come from, how to interact with them,
its just a matter of utilzying the fields of energy at the right time, and in the right way to achieve a desired outcome.