 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1267
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That reminded me of something I saw once. I just did a search on topological
crochet and found this:
http://www.squidoo.com/mathknit
This looks like a craft taylor made for you.
--
H²
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert wrote:
> http://www.squidoo.com/mathknit
...da HELL?! O_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1267
I wonder why everyone is always so concerned about the violation of the
second law of thermodynamics. What about the first law? Why isn't anyone
concerned about that one? Someone might be violating the first law of
thermodynamics right now, and nobody cares!
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I wonder why everyone is always so concerned about the violation of the
> second law of thermodynamics. What about the first law? Why isn't anyone
> concerned about that one? Someone might be violating the first law of
> thermodynamics right now, and nobody cares!
Tell me: Precisely *how* could you possibly violate the First Law? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I wonder why everyone is always so concerned about the violation of the
> > second law of thermodynamics. What about the first law? Why isn't anyone
> > concerned about that one? Someone might be violating the first law of
> > thermodynamics right now, and nobody cares!
> Tell me: Precisely *how* could you possibly violate the First Law? ;-)
With a perpetual motion machine, of course.
There's also a third law of thermodynamics. Is anyone watching that one?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I wonder why everyone is always so concerned about the violation of the
>>> second law of thermodynamics. What about the first law? Why isn't anyone
>>> concerned about that one? Someone might be violating the first law of
>>> thermodynamics right now, and nobody cares!
>
>> Tell me: Precisely *how* could you possibly violate the First Law? ;-)
>
> With a perpetual motion machine, of course.
>
> There's also a third law of thermodynamics. Is anyone watching that one?
...OK, checking what Wikipedia has to say on the matter, the 1st law
says something radically different from what I was expecting.
I guess this is what happens when you learn thermodynamics from Flanders
& Swan. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> There's also a third law of thermodynamics. Is anyone watching that one?
>
The second law has something to do with entropy. Why is everyone so
concerned with entropy?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert wrote:
> That reminded me of something I saw once. I just did a search on topological
> crochet and found this:
http://www.kleinbottle.com/klein_bottle_hats.htm
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> The second law has something to do with entropy. Why is everyone so
> concerned with entropy?
Because it's a statistical rule, not an absolute. So people are
constantly trying to prove a way they've invented to get around it,
leading to free energy.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh. Thats Cliff Stoll's site. He is the astronomer who tracked a German spy
hacking into US military networks from his computer center at Lawrence
Berkeley Labs in 1985. He's a real freak. The book about the hacking
incident is really interesting reading.
http://www.amazon.com/Cuckoos-Egg-Tracking-Computer-Espionage/dp/1416507787/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226428067&sr=8-1
but after that he adopted a very skewed attitude regarding the Internet and
what it would or should become.
--
H²
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> > The second law has something to do with entropy. Why is everyone so
> > concerned with entropy?
> Because it's a statistical rule, not an absolute. So people are
> constantly trying to prove a way they've invented to get around it,
> leading to free energy.
I thought free energy was related to the first law, not the second.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> The second law has something to do with entropy. Why is everyone so
>>> concerned with entropy?
>
>> Because it's a statistical rule, not an absolute. So people are
>> constantly trying to prove a way they've invented to get around it,
>> leading to free energy.
>
> I thought free energy was related to the first law, not the second.
Only in closed systems. If you can suck useful work out of ambient air
temperature, that counts as "free" energy in the "gratis" "no-cost" sense.
That is, it's in the same sense that running your car on solar energy is
"free energy", even tho obviously the sun is supplying the energy and is
running down much faster than your car is speeding up.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I thought free energy was related to the first law, not the second.
>
> Only in closed systems. If you can suck useful work out of ambient air
> temperature, that counts as "free" energy in the "gratis" "no-cost" sense.
>
> That is, it's in the same sense that running your car on solar energy is
> "free energy", even tho obviously the sun is supplying the energy and is
> running down much faster than your car is speeding up.
Dude, don't forget zero-point energy. One day somebody's going to figure
out how to harness that and we'll all have limitless amounts of energy
for nothing!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Dude, don't forget zero-point energy. One day somebody's going to figure
> out how to harness that and we'll all have limitless amounts of energy
> for nothing!
I am told by people with PhDs in theoretical particle physics that this
is not theoretically impossible. Zero-point energy is apparently not
subject to the same conservation laws, so *if* you could actually get it
out, you'd be golden. Way over my head, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Dude, don't forget zero-point energy. One day somebody's going to
>> figure out how to harness that and we'll all have limitless amounts of
>> energy for nothing!
>
> I am told by people with PhDs in theoretical particle physics that this
> is not theoretically impossible. Zero-point energy is apparently not
> subject to the same conservation laws, so *if* you could actually get it
> out, you'd be golden. Way over my head, tho.
Interesting. The definition of "zero-point energy" is the minimum energy
state of the system, such that it is impossible to reduce it to a lower
energy state.
Therefore, by definition, if you *can* actually access the energy then
it isn't actually zero-point energy. :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Dude, don't forget zero-point energy. One day somebody's going to figure
> out how to harness that and we'll all have limitless amounts of energy
> for nothing!
Will then a gravity gun be possible?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Dude, don't forget zero-point energy. One day somebody's going to figure
>> out how to harness that and we'll all have limitless amounts of energy
>> for nothing!
>
> Will then a gravity gun be possible?
Unlikely.
Maybe you could use zero-point energy as an energy source. But that
still doesn't give you the ability to artificially generate forces like
that. (Not to mention overcome Newton's Third Law of Motion...)
Alternatively, maybe you could find a way to generate forces like that,
but it's powered by batteries or something, and so you have no need for
zero-point energy.
IOW, zero-point energy and the gravity gun don't actually have much
relationship.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Interesting. The definition of "zero-point energy" is the minimum energy
> state of the system, such that it is impossible to reduce it to a lower
> energy state.
Right. But the reason it's the minimum level is due to the Heisenberg
uncertainty, not because you can't take any out. It's not a
one-dimensional quantum effect, but a quantum of two combined quantities
(like all such things when you get to the appropriate level of detail).
> Therefore, by definition, if you *can* actually access the energy then
> it isn't actually zero-point energy. :-D
But since it doesn't obey conservation laws, you take the energy out and
yet it's still there. That's kind of the point.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> IOW, zero-point energy and the gravity gun don't actually have much
> relationship.
I wasn't aware anyone had actually figured that out. :-) As in, I was
pretty sure that quantum gravity was one of the big unsolved mysteries.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> IOW, zero-point energy and the gravity gun don't actually have much
> relationship.
Of course they do. The proper name for the gravity gun is, after all,
zero-point energy field manipulator.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> IOW, zero-point energy and the gravity gun don't actually have much
>> relationship.
>
> Of course they do. The proper name for the gravity gun is, after all,
> zero-point energy field manipulator.
...you realise that the gravity gun is a work of fiction though, yes? ;-)
The fact that it has a particular physics term in the name doesn't
necessarily mean that the real-world physics concept by that name is in
any way related...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> But since it doesn't obey conservation laws, you take the energy out and
> yet it's still there. That's kind of the point.
Indeed, one may even go so far as to say the fact that the minimum isn't
zero is what *makes* the conservation laws fail.
I have three quarks. I give you one of them. How many do I have? How
many do you have? ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
