Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChrisWhewell]

a-liens = persons not subject to lien.  How would one term an extraterrestrial who had title to property within the united States ?

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

a-liens = persons not subject to lien.  How would one term an extraterrestrial who had title to property within the united States ?

I'm glad you are alert to the possibilities since we clearly are in need of more experienced lerts.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

The Earth is in perpetual motion about the sun, and the moon about the Earth.    I invite proofs negating these facts.

Period and day are both of larger duration than previously?

[ChrisWhewell]

I don't know, but it does appear that jones and day seems to be shrinking.

[MYK]

The Earth is in perpetual motion about the sun, and the moon about the Earth.    I invite proofs negating these facts.

1. The Sun is a typical G-type main sequence star (G V).
2. The Sun is expected to exhaust enough hydrogen to cause it to transform into a "red giant" type star in about five billion years.
3. When the transformation happens, the Sun's radius is expected to expand by a factor of about 200, engulfing the Earth.
4. The Earth, and incidentally the Moon, will then be "incorporated" into the Sun.
5. Therefore, the Earth is NOT in "perpetual motion about the sun", nor is the Moon in perpetual motion "about the Earth".

Quod erat demonstratum, baby.  Plz send cheezburger, kthx.

Citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant#The_Sun_as_a_red_giant

[ChrisWhewell]

Dang, I'm going to have a tough time refuting that one !!

I'll have to get back to you on it

I might start with the notion that above absolute zero, atoms are always moving translationally, vibrationally, rotationally and combinations thereof.  Thus, since the temperature of the universe is above zero degrees K, all atoms will perpetually be in some form of motion, perpetually, until the temp of the universe reaches absolute zero.  Thus, an object comprising an ensemble of atoms will itself at any selected small time interval have a net momentum representable by vector, abeit tiny.  Another question is, is there anything in the universe that is not in motion at this very instant ?  If so, one would need to define a reference but such reference would only be still by definition.  I'd try to argue that all matter in the universe is in perpetual motion.

But I don't think I could win and will happily treat you to the cheeseburger of your choice (having net weight no greater than 3 pounds av.), payable by me to you upon demand in Williamson County Texas !!

[physicsnerd]

No, all the matter in the universe is NOT in perpetual motion.  You don't understand perpetual motion if you think that.  Instead of presenting a classic thermodynamics proof, recognized by most with any sizable physics background, I will simply appeal to common sense. 

Being in motion for a very very long time is not the same as perpetual motion. For example, the Moon's revolving around the Moon is not perpetual, tidal interactions cause a trickling away of rotational energy.   Same goes for the Earth's rotation.  The truth is the Earth's "day' is getting longer and longer, meaning the time it takes for the Earth to make 1 rotation is gradually taking longer and longer, due to the loss of rotational energy.  This is measurable and is quite accurately calculated.  In fact, I have done such a calculation back in my astrophysics undergrad days (many moons ago).   Further, outer space is not truly devoid of all material, so in the theoretical sense nothing travelling in space is completely free from interaction.

The point is the universe as a whole tends towards disorder.

As far as your "the universe is above absolute zero" contention, that has no impact here.  The universe is expanding, and as it does the average temperature in the universe will decrease, and the energy density will decrease.   Meaning the internal energy of the universe, will over time, decrease. 

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

... trickling away of rotational energy.   Same goes for the Earth's rotation.  The truth is the Earth's "day' is getting longer and longer, meaning the time it takes for the Earth to make 1 rotation is gradually taking longer and longer, due to the loss of rotational energy.  This is measurable and is quite accurately calculated. 

Mentioned that one above, but on further reflection and after a good night's sleep, I've decided that's not actually the case.

Instead, time is speeding up. 

So it just looks like a day is getting longer.

This thought brought to you by Absolut.

 

[Examinerguy]

As far as your "the universe is above absolute zero" contention, that has no impact here.  The universe is expanding, and as it does the average temperature in the universe will decrease, and the energy density will decrease.   Meaning the internal energy of the universe, will over time, decrease. 

So much for global warming!

(just kidding I know you are talking in billions of years).

[ChrisWhewell]

Interesting.  Then ponder the rate of change of time.  I'd propose it to be unity, since dt/dt must = 1.  Does that mean the rate of change of time is constant ?  1 what ?

One theory could be that the sum of thermal and other energies and mass in toto is constant, and net entropy change of the universe is zero, although it increases in some places but decreases in others.  For example, a fertilized ova, sprouting seed, etc. gives rise to a quantifiable amount of highly ordered structure, among a sea of chaos.  One function of life on earth is then a counterpoise to provide increased order and compensate for spontaneous disorder occurring "everywhere" else, wherever that may be.

This is pretty cool:   http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

This brought to you by Shiner Bock, Shiner Texas.

[MYK]

One theory could be that the sum of thermal and other energies and mass in toto is constant, and net entropy change of the universe is zero, although it increases in some places but decreases in others.  For example, a fertilized ova, sprouting seed, etc. gives rise to a quantifiable amount of highly ordered structure, among a sea of chaos.  One function of life on earth is then a counterpoise to provide increased order and compensate for spontaneous disorder occurring "everywhere" else, wherever that may be.

You're missing the fact that in order to generate that "highly ordered structure", the egg/seed utilizes energy, and the process efficiency is not 100%.  Think of it as being similar to air conditioning;  yes, your room gets cooler, but the waste heat generated is even greater.  You cannot cool the house by opening the refrigerator door.  Likewise, the seed initially uses energy stored by the plant that grew it, and if there was enough to sustain it until it put out a root and opened up some leaves, then it can tap into solar to sustain itself.  An egg either has its own self-contained energy supply or draws from a host;  either way, to provide that energy, disorder increases elsewhere -- nearby, not in some far-off mystical entanglement.

There is no free lunch.

This brought to you by Shiner Bock, Shiner Texas.

Dude, drink something decent!  Red Hook, or Pyramid, or SNPA.

[ChrisWhewell]

either way, to provide that energy, disorder increases elsewhere 
 

Exactly.  But what are the rules of "nearby" ?   How near is near ?  The rules of thermodynamics some call laws were written by a beermaker's son with reference to steam engines and are applicable to other systems, but nobody really knows or can know if they are applicable to all systems.  We like to believe that the laws we write are applicable to all, but historically this has not been seen to be the case in many instances.   There are those who believe man has it all figured out in some areas and thence no need to look any further, and there is another camp that suspects that something else is up and continues to seek further answers. 

E=MC2 was the work of a frenchman in 1896, later popularized by Einstein, but the device Wilhelm Reich demonstrated in a meeting with him so frightened Albert that his overseeing assistant recommended no further investigation.  Dayton Miller at CWRU disproved Michaelson-Morley even after Michaelson himself had tried in vain to refute his own work.  There is more to this all than is accepted, although I'd never claim to be able to cool a space by operating a closed-loop compression system within its confines.  When you get a chance, take a stick and hang it over the edge of your table.  Get some six pound test nylon monofilament and tie a paperclip to one of the ends, the other being tied to the overhanging stick.  Then stick a powerful magnet such as from a hard drive to the paperclip, and watch it begin spinning of its own accord.  When you can explain that or theorize it, please write back as I'd love to entertain it.

[Jim_W]

The Earth is in perpetual motion about the sun, and the moon about the Earth.    I invite proofs negating these facts.

The problem is extracting work from that motion. Anything that drew energy from the motion of the earth or the moon would cause them to slow and for their orbits to collapse inwards. The energy that put them into motion was already spent before the creation of the solar system, it's just that they have a lot of momentum and there is very little in the vacuum of space acting to slow them down. This doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Perpetual motion machines typically operate on the principle of "perform work > recover energy > repeat" with no need for additional inputs of energy. The problem is that there is nothing so far discovered in the universe that can operate on this principle because every instance of "perform work" inevitably results in some energy being lost as waste heat. Now, you can recover energy that hasn't been lost as waste heat and you can even use waste heat to perform work, but each of these recovery processes produce wasted energy of their own. The net energy output of a system is always going to be less than the input.

I'm open to the idea that someone could someday figure out a way around the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but I'm doubtful.

[physicsnerd]

Chris,

There seems to be a fairly large amount of misinformation and lack of sophisticated understanding when it comes to the principles of thermodynamics and physics in general.

So basically your response is that the universe may not obey our currently understood laws of physics.  Well, that's fine.  However, that is hardly proof that the universe is in "perpetual motion."  Study physics for a decade or two and get back to me.  Then I'll explain your little magnet trick in a way that you can understand.

Anyone believing in perpetual motion at any level has a sub-elementary understanding of physics. I suppose though that a random internet poster could be more in tune with the idea of perpetual motion than every single living or dead Nobel Physics winner in history.  This conversation is just silly.

[ChrisWhewell]

It's not my magnet trick, was conveyed to me by another.  Just tell me, why does the magnet spin ?   I haven't yet found anyone claiming to be a physicist who can.

In my previous experience, magnets sit static and point to magnetic north.  I think that's what most folk believe.

Why does it spin, in one direction only, and until the tension builds up sufficiently in the monofilament to equal the torque of whatever force is acting on the magnet ?

When I've showed this demo to folk knowledgeable in physics, they look stunned like a deer in the headlights and don't want to talk about it.