[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 80 KB, 484x526, 2_perpetual_motion[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5716931 No.5716931[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

When did you guys lose your faith in mainstream science?
I lost mine when I found out perpetual motion is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbU13LaHe4A

>> No.5716935

>>5716931

Some Russian kid builds a windmill.

Awesome.

>> No.5716941

>>5716935
It's what he demonstrates, tard.

Awesome.

>> No.5716945

>>5716941

He demonstrates a windmill.

Name calling is a violation of the rules of this board.

>> No.5716951
File: 98 KB, 776x602, 1362945669811.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5716951

Whats with these perpentual motion threads again, /pol/ invasion happening or something, maybe /x/

>> No.5716953

>>5716945
You think that win is pushing it?

>> No.5716954

>>5716953

Build one yourself. See how long it runs without some energy input.

>> No.5716959

>>5716954
So you've got nothing then?
If I build it and it works what then?

At the moment we're observing what happens if I build a thread and get no input.

>> No.5716961

>>5716959
>So you've got nothing then?
>If I build it and it works what then?
You become a billionare, simple as that.

>> No.5716972

Compare the number of weights on the left side of the axel to those on the right side in your picture OP.

>> No.5716973

explain this shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=287qd4uI7-E

>> No.5716982

>>5716931
If perpetual motions machines generated any net work we would use them to power things.

They don't and we don't, these have been around for over 100 years and people still believe they work and there is a conspiracy by the government to repress knowledge of them.

I have news for you, the knowledge of these systems is everywhere, and every respectable scientist is aware that it is nonsense.

>> No.5716991

>>5716931
> russians

>> No.5716992
File: 1.93 MB, 235x240, 1363718685321.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5716992

mfw i realize that our solar system is a perpetuum mobile

>> No.5716997

>When did you guys lose your faith in mainstream science?

when i found out downwind-faster-than-the-wind was possible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsXcHoJu-A

>> No.5717005

>>5716992

Nope.

>> No.5717003

>>5716997
or under-the-ruler-faster-than-the-ruler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-trDF8Yldc

>> No.5717007
File: 458 KB, 484x526, penisland.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5717007

>>5716972
not seeing it

>> No.5717009

>>5716931
> I lost mine when I found out perpetual motion is possible
Really? When you learned Newton's first law?

>> No.5717011

i lost mine when i found out the usn is the center of the solar system

>> No.5717018

>When did you lose your faith in mainstream science?

When I started reading philosophy.

>> No.5717023

>>5717018
I'm very interested, can you elaborate?

>> No.5717026

>>5716973
someone please explain why the self-flowing flask wouldn't work

>> No.5717029

>>5717007

Protip: count the ends of the weights, not the attachment points. Are you even trying?

>> No.5717030

>>5717023

he probably means "philosophy".

>> No.5717033

>>5717026
build it and see

>> No.5717034

>>5717023
souls souls all over mah books
consciousness magic
souls qualia

and Mass Effect 3 is a wonderful game (indoctrinated.jpg)

>> No.5717036

Classical mechanics doesn't really have a means of describing a perpetual generator of usable power since it contains no mechanism which increases the available useful power. What would possibly help is looking into information theory and particle physics for a way to either destroy information or store an indefinably large amount of information with a finite amount of energy. For the latter, you'll have to deal with the Bekenstein bound. I'm currently not familiar enough with the details of quantum mechanics to tell you I'm sure it can't be disregarded, but I'm fairly sure that allowing unbounded information to be stored in finite space/energy would allow for the disregarding of the uncertainty principle as well. Your other options for storing information are allowing for the expansion of space over time to be accelerated by the power generation device device and finding a way to increase space in an extra-dimensional manner such that the expansion of the three-dimensional space we live in isn't accelerated by the device.

>> No.5717038

>>5717026

Surface tension.

The water will eventually be able to form a "seal" on the pipe and it won't drip any more.

>> No.5717044

>>5717038
thanks

>> No.5717047

>>5717023
>I'm very interested, can you elaborate?

Sure. I had science up on a pedestal, and I guess had foolishly considered it objective access to truth. As I started reading philosophy, it began to tear my knowledge of science and they way I looked at science to shreds. The Greeks and logic were fine, but as I explored specific areas -- epistemology, ethics, philosophy of science, metaphysics... it began to undermine everything I had learned. Ryle and Nagel, and even Spinoza began to destroy they way I looked at the mind and consciousness through neurology; and sceptics like Kant and Heidegger obliterated any faith I had that science could be correct. Fortunately Korzybski and Popper partially rebuilt it in a twisted inter-subjective form, but it was never the same; it's now an abstracted framework that uses bayesianism to correlate, but there is no verification or 100%'s; and, when forced to scrutinise axioms, they all require a leap of faith.

The more I read, the more I realised how dogmatic I had been with science, and the more scepticism seemed to make sense. Existentialism was fun; analytic and logical positivism seemed to provide hope, but they were soon dissolved. I was left with every epistemic knowledge shattered, moral values destroyed, aesthetic judgements burned, and empiricism a blurry filter that partially obscured the gaping abyss of meaninglessness and nothingness.

I still adore 'the scientific method' of looking at reality, but philosophy almost killed it for me.

>> No.5717048

>>5717044
also, look up the basic properties of fluids

>> No.5717050

>>5717047
I understand how philosophy can be interesting, but its never shaken my belief in science. I work in a genetics lab, and one hour I can demonstrate all three forces of the central dogma with nothing but a vial of bacterial broth and some acids and bases. Well, that and a few enzymes and primers.

>> No.5717052

>>5717047

ahh, yeah, then it's legit philosophy.
and welcome to the club, then. science still rocks, though. no skepticism can truly destroy it, only limits can be noted, which is very useful, but by no means a reason to abandon the ship of science.

>> No.5717054 [DELETED] 

>>5717038

As for liquids that aren't water, it will still drip, as gravity will pull it toward the middle of the bend from both in the cup, and from at the end of the tube.

>> No.5717055

>>5717038

As for liquids that aren't water, it still won't drip, as gravity will pull it toward the middle of the bend from both in the cup, and from at the end of the tube.

>> No.5717069
File: 86 KB, 872x768, arrows.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5717069

>>5717055

At equilibrium, the forces will balance such that it doesn't drip. The green is negative pressure, from the liquid trying to run both ways.

The only reason it runs at all is because the liquid is poured in, giving it more downward force, initially, but this is lost due to interactions with the glass and air.

>> No.5717079

>>5717069
If it worked, it would work as a siphon. But a siphon requires that the column where fluid is exiting has a higher pressure than the fluid source, by e.g. being longer and gravitationally below.

The "perpetual motion" device is an upside down siphon, in a way. It definitely will not work without additional energy.

>> No.5717084

>>5717047
I know those feels. The best thing philosophy did for me was cure my militant atheism.

>> No.5717109

>>5716931
>machine not fully in frame for the hole video
Good work, Russia

>> No.5717132

>>5717050
>central dogma
That term makes me cringe. Like 'imaginary numbers'. What a bad choice of words.

>> No.5717145

>>5717084
I too know those feels. It's something any decent mind needs to traverse in this society.

captcha- mystics whetryp

>> No.5717147

>>5717132
Its a real term, the "centra dogma of genetics" is the term for the idea that DNA leads to RNA which leads to Protein, and that you can go from RNA to DNA, but not protein to DNA or RNA.

READ A BOOK, READ A BOOK, READ A MOTHFUCKIN BOOK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_genetics

>> No.5717161

>>5717147
I know what a grade 10 bio concept is. I mean it was a bad choice of words to call it that. The person who came up with it later regretted calling it so.

>> No.5717182

philosophy taught me that nothing matters.

since under that point of view philosophy doesn't matter, I chose to ignore it.

>> No.5717194

philosophy taught me perpetual motion doesn't matter

>> No.5717197

Why are perpetual motion machines impossible?

>> No.5717198

Would perpetual motion be possible in a vacuum room so there is not any air resistance?

>> No.5717203

>>5717198

Friction, then entropy.

>> No.5717212

>>5716931
I lost faith in /sci/ when threads created by /x/ shitposters ggain atttention.

>> No.5717219
File: 14 KB, 300x200, 1346494891842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5717219

>>5717047
>mfw reading nietzsche and spinoza for the first time when I was like 16

>> No.5717220

>>5716931
>faith
I don't have faith. I have trust that is earned, and can be taken away.

Semantics, I know. But still.

>> No.5717217

>>5717197
Whenever something accelerates, it gains energy. Some of this energy invariably turns into heat, which radiates irreversibly into the surroundings. In order for something to cause indefinite acceleration, you would need to supply an indefinite amount of energy to make up for that which is lost by heat radiation.

>> No.5717227

>>5717132

"Imaginary numbers" is the perfect choice of words.

Think of a weight on a spring. Its equation of motion in the X direction is precisely identical to that of a pendulum's. However, pendulums also have a Y component. Therefore, you can model a weight on a spring as a pendulum with an IMAGINARY Y component. Hence, imaginary numbers.

>> No.5717238

>>5717217
That sounds simple, why do some people think they have found a way around that to make their own perpetual machines?
Is it all hoaxes and scams or do people really believe and try to make them?

>> No.5717268

How about instead of responding to a shitty troll we all report, hide and sage?

>> No.5717302

>>5716997
Wouldnt it need an initial push?

>> No.5717309

>>5717268

You do not think it is a little late for that?

>> No.5717377

>>5717047
All of those people were wrong. Especially Popper.

Scientific veracity is based upon the level of accuracy of predicting a certain phenomena. All of that other pseudo-scientific bullshit you mentioned is unobservable and predicts naught.

>> No.5718109

>>5716973
Huh, I didn't know those ran at all, or that they would start going just from the pressure of pouring water in them. Looks like a fun thing to play around with.

>> No.5718115

>>5718109
they don't run

>> No.5718186

>>5716973
The amount of force is equal, doesn't imply the speed is.

>> No.5718243

If I could build one of those and hide a hall effect switch and some magnets or a photocell and IR LED for sensing, a coil and batteries in the base, some iron in the arms and a simple controller, I'd have a sensation for a while, until the batteries go dead.

>> No.5718269

>>5717047

Nice name dropping, you spent two paragraphs saying precisely nothing, you MUST be a philosophy major. Science has nothing to do with the pursuit of objective truth, it's only a methodical framework on which to build models that produce the same results as what is observed.

When you get down to it, no scientist will ever say (when asked in this context) that he is determining the true nature of the universe through his work. Scientists themselves understand that it's not a question of maybe being right, or maybe being wrong, but rather never even attempting to take a stance in that context.

Science is literally creating models of reality that fit previous observation, testing them with hypothesis, and deciding that the models are good enough to make predictions - enough to make decisions regarding politics, engineering, and health - for a specific required accuracy and implementation. That's why we are still taught "outdated" theories in science, because they are still good models for their intended uses.

It's as if you people really think that somewhere in the sourcecode of the universe the equation E = mc^2 has been codified, or that somewhere the differential equations regarding planetary motion are embedded into the fabric of the universe. There is no 2nd order equation regarding RLC circuits set down somewhere, there is no imaginary number schema defined that lies behind every voltage signal. It's all just our way of predicting what we observe through math.

This is something you trolls will never understand, you religious and philosophical idiots looking for greater meaning in our applied mathematics. We created every "amazing" equation of the cosmos; it seems to fit in our context, but that doesn't make it 100% truth.

>> No.5718284

>>5718269
Adding to my collection of copy-pastes from /sci/.

>> No.5718602

You showed me. Modern day science never expected someone to build a windmill! You go OP!

>> No.5718627

>>5717047
Hypothesis:
If I press the "a" button 10 times, the letter "a" will print 10 times.

Method:
Press the "a" button 10 times

Results:
aaaaaaaaaa

Discussion:
Science works and I welcome you to prove me wrong.

Conclusion:
The letter "a" was printed 10 times fully supporting my hypothesis.

>> No.5718649

>>5718115
In terms of generating power they don't, but in the video it seemed to spout for a few seconds.

>> No.5718651

Assuming I do create perpetual motion, how do I stop it?

>> No.5718665

>>5718649
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qk

a commenter spotted it, can you?

> This channel publishes Videos created on pseudo-scientific beliefs, unproven facts, false evidences, science jokes, not-patented inventions and my own crazy ideas...

>> No.5718666

>>5718627
thats the scientific method, but it doesn't prove anythign else.

Anyone will tell you the scientifici method isn't the only thing you must do to support something .

>> No.5718668

>>5718651
That is a good question. If perpetual motion is achieved, will the motion stay contant or will the motion accelerate?

>> No.5718735 [DELETED] 

>>5718665
Well so much for self-stirring chocolate milk then. I don't see what your quote has to do with it sense the channel that made the first video doesn't seem to actually promote the idea that perpetual motion works, it just seems display it in a ton of videos to draw attention and then has two on giant wooden medieval construction tools. And if that's not the Youtube comment that points out the flaw in it, don't expect me to dig around for it.

Oh wait, the first video had a link to the other account in the description. Still, the tone in the second video made it seem like the "beer makes in perpetual" comment was a joke, so I don't think that one was trying to promote perpetual motion either, though in both cases that's possibly just my optimism towards the motivations of others talking. But anyway, alright, I can accept that a flask pouring into itself can't even work like some kind of fluid analog to the inductor.

>> No.5718753

>>5718665
Well so much for self-stirring chocolate milk then.I didn't read the video description, much less the comments, and even less the comments on another video linked int he description. Even then, the comment just states that the videos show false evidence, not what it's false evidence of, and isn't even strictly speaking talking about the same channel anyway. Either way, though, I can accept that a flask pouring into itself can't even work like some kind of fluid analog to the inductor.