Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
HI
will you be more specific on what sort of infinite energy you are talking about ?
Are you talking about infinite energy through mechanical,electronical,electrical or nuclear means?
Specify this,then we will discuss.
haha it sounds u solved the problems of the world, if you can achieve that in an envairomentally healthy way.... i think u could be looking at the nobel price.... Though you really haven't told us anything about it.
A black hole. one of sufficient size can generate all of our energy...
The problems:
"Ow this gravity is crushing me to death"
"Theres enough radiation here to pop popcorn"
<After raising his right eyebrow much like Spock>
Please explain and give a source for this odd idea. Black holes are my area of research. Therefore, I should have heard of this theory.
Question: If a black hole is simply anti-matter, then how does one go about explaining the gravity (unless it consists of a singularity of antimatter, but then all the matter pulled in would react, giving off massive amounts of energy.)
Look at this article at arstechnica.com/columns/science/science-20050403.ars.
Now, scientists at Lawrence Livermore are challenging accepted beliefs, claiming that there's no such thing as a black hole. "It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist", according to George Chapline. According to him, black holes are actually stars made out of dark energy formed by the collapse of massive stars.
"There has never been direct evidence of a black hole," said Chapline, while acknowledging there are objects that general relativity would predict are black holes at the centers of galaxies. "Ironically, Einstein also didn’t believe in black holes even though he created general relativity.
hi
i believe helios is right....u cannot hv infinite energy. as far as anti-matter is concerned i hv heard abt it in Dan Brown novels ...donno the exact definition of it. can anyone kindly explain this to me.
Well. The antimatter thing first: Antimatter combined with matter creates a huge burst of energy. This is not infinite. It is dependant upon how much of each one has. Antimatter, such as a positron (anti-electron), was formed with the big bang as well as matter. One can just as easily create antimatter from energy as matter (not that this is easy, takes a LOT of energy, the equation works both ways).
As for infinite energy in general, there is no such thing. THERE IS ONLY A FINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY AND MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE! Done, thats it. One can convert energy to matter and matter to energy, but that does not mean an infinite supply.
Time is not matter, cannot by converted into matter or energy. From where does this crazy idea come from? That is like saying that you could convert 'up' (as in the dimension) into energy.
Now, scientists at Lawrence Livermore are challenging accepted beliefs, claiming that there's no such thing as a black hole. "It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist", according to George Chapline. According to him, black holes are actually stars made out of dark energy formed by the collapse of massive stars.
It says that black holes are made of dark energy which "makes up 60 percent of the mass of the universe." ENERGY HAS NO MASS. It can be converted to matter, which does, but it has no mass. That alone in my mind discredits this.
No direct evidence of black holes my foot. How does one explain the gravitational lensing, the acrition disk, the event horizon?
Back to the antimatter thing and black holes: If a black hole was antimatter, then rather quickly all the matter being pulled in would cause the antimatter to disintigrate, and rather quickly there would be a black hole no longer. Besides, light dosn't react with a/matter.
I must admit, however, that my first post was a joke, and not intended to be taken seriously, ie the bit about radiation popping popcorn and all that.
perhaps it is a matter of interpretation. las a human, i care not if the universe has an infinite supply or a finite amount of energy. i only care what i can use, and thankfully THAT is infinite.
the USE of that energy is infinite, simply on the grounds that energy is conserved.
But thats the thing. I do have an open mind to physics. If you can prove to me that time can be converted to energy, then my beliefs will be changed. If I can show myself that this is possible, then my beliefs will be changed. I know that funky things happen at the subnucleonic level, ie electrons 'teleporting', etc. It is just that the equation, E=MC² has no mention of time in it. The Lorentz transformation, from which it comes, does mention time, but only in the velocity of the relatively moving coord. system.
Give me your sources. I will not consider a tabloid repetuable enough.
it would take an exhaustive search for me to find a suitable reference that shows how time gets converted to energy (and then from energy to mass which i assume you DO agree with). unfortunately i don't have anything handy at the ready.
If one is to believe your contention, then you should be able to produce some supporting argument - your own, or others. The fact that you can't, or won't, makes your hypothesis suspect from the outset. Just because YOU believe something does not make it fact - if you truly understand what you have proposed, you should be able to explain it.
instead i'll present a logical argument, and you can take any way you like. you see quite simply that E=mc^2. C is the speed of light. speed involves time (meters per SECOND), thus time is part of the equation. how to convert it to energy? what is time but the rate of change of mass as it sweeps out an area. here mass can be inertial, or reletavistic (gravitational).
Clearly, from the above argument, you do not understand e=mc^2. The 'c' is a constant of proportionality - the units have no more relevance than 'pi' in the equation for the area of a circular section. The 'c' arises in the derivation of the mass-energy relationship through limits assumed for velocity.
Further, the last sentence of your argument runs in a circle. How would you define time without using the term time? You have said that time is the "rate of change" of mass - in other words, time is the change in mass with time. Your example falls completely apart with your own words.
I have a good imagination, but I also have a good education - combined with over 60 years of life experience, teaching, and experimenting. Give me a solid argument I can get my teeth into, and I'll jump on your wagon. You should stay away from using the tired technique of trying to convice people based on "you just don't understand because you won't open your mind". Fringe physics has connections to the body of physics. To be on the fringe, you must be attached to the rest of the fabric.
I agree wholeheartedly with House_Cat. You have yet to give a valid argument, indeed a complete one. Your 'argument' stops whith your explanation of time. It says what you think time is, but not HOW to convert it to energy.
The First link is to perfectly legitimate references, but which one actually has in it that time can be converted to energy?
The second one is to an article about gaining energy from the background radiation of the universe. It has no mention of converting time to energy. I think what confused you is where it refers to using a single unit based on energy rather than mass, the precise opposite of what is normally used, but perfectly valid. With the normally used unitary system, mass is the base unit. In this we get one gram of water takes up one cubic centimeter. The length of one cubic centimeter is one centimeter. From this we get that one second is how long it takes light to travel 299,792,458 meters. This definition of a second is based upon international agreement, which is why it is standard.
the first link was general information to show that good science can be accomplished without necessarily having all documents in refereed journals.
the second link converts time into energy. it does not say "and this is exactly where time is converted into energy" you have to fully understand the concept to make that realization.
in any case, i have not fully explained all that i know, and what i do know is not explained well. with that in mind, i'll go back and remove all of my posts - i don't want to mislead anyone. i'll continue with my own persuits, you can continue with yours, and where/when the two cross each other perhaps we can help each other.
Infinity energy has the free quark.
We can’t see free quark, because it forbidden the antiscreening and quark confinement. But God can vanish quark (or gluon) from QGP, it had infinity energy. From large distances this (random) color QGP see more charged, and attract everything, and finally give a gigantic color QGP. The universe gathers in to one sphere.
The low energy (or large distance) quark potential is: V(r)=-kr, it is infinty at the universe size.
How can God disappear matter?
God’s field are SUSY (supersymmetry) particles (LSP, ξ1,2,3 χ1,2,3 ) with long lifetime. SUSY transformations can break the charge and energy conservation law, because the superspace and super propagators are small (compact).
The SUSY transformation was described at **broken link removed** **broken link removed**
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
