Since the "space" vehicles used since then have all been rather primitive and have certainly not used any antigravity, one has to conclude that you're a conspiracy nutbag (as you put it).
I sure hope all that Nasa junk is cover for the real space program, because if this is all we can do for $18billion a year and the military can't outdo it with trillions in black budget since the 40s, we have really wasted a lot of cash.
To be honest, it doesn't take a conspiracy nutbag to conclude that UFOs are just military craft and that Nasa is just PR and distraction to keep everyone from snooping around into the affairs of the military. All it takes is a little common sense and the ability to follow the money.
If you are convinced that everything about Apollo makes sense and you can watch a shuttle launch and actually believe that it costs as much as advertised and you can happily ignore the trillions that dissapear into black projects without bothering to consider where it goes and perhaps ignore the UFO phenomena.... Well, my guess is you voted for Bush, so there probably isn't too much anyone can do for you;-0
The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
I have seen this argument rage a bit and am certainly no authority. There was a writeup by soeome at Caltech that seems to support the assumption that the LEM could have made it through the Van Allen belt without killing the Astronauts, but it must be observed that by his own admission, he is seeking to justify that solution rather than being skeptical of it.
"It has to be possible to go to the Moon, because we who are old enough all saw them on TV; a million of us (me included, for Apollo 11) saw the actual launch; a few of us (me included, for Apollo 8) saw the Trans-Lunar Injection burn, from low-Earth orbit to trans-lunar trajectory in the dark sky over Hawaii; and how could anyone fake all that?!"
This is pretty typical. Everyone wants to believe that we went to the moon. I am not disputing that we did. I am, actually, just suggesting that there might have been a bit of extra technology at work that the general public isn't aware of. And I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the US keeps a lot of military secrets. Anyhow, let's move along...
First, the assumption that a given mission must expend all the vehicle's fuel is highly naive. Every rocket is provided with slightly more fuel than its mission requires, as a safety margin. In any event, the rocket is not compelled to burn all of it. The Saturn V was a sophisticated flying machine that was able to shut off its engine when the desired velocity was obtained, regardless of remaining fuel.
Again, I am not a rocket scientist (IANARS), but my point had nothing to do with the ability to turn on and off the boosters. My point was simply about the required delta-v to make it to the moon and back in the time it took.
By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.
From Wikipedia, we see that the descent thrust of the Lander was just under 10,000 lbf of thrust, so your choice of the Harrier jump jet is a good one for comparison's sake at about 2.5x the thrust of the lander. Really, this issue is almost trivial to point out the paradox in: We have footprints in fine dust on the moon from Neil Armstrong just feet from the thruster that must have been firing to keep the lander from crashing. Without an atmosphere to blow the dust back over the scatter region where the 10,000 lbf thrust would have scattered such dust (very violently), how is it possible that there was dust for Neil to step inot after the lander landed?
Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.
Actually, the videos (google for them) clearly show the lander firing and heading off into deap space
Dude.. are you retarded? Do you know what sound is? Geezus.. you learn in 4th grade science that sound is the vibration of air molecules. There is no atmosphere on the moon, doofus. Sound isn't possible.
Oh, I guess I must be wrong in my assumption that the engine was attached to the LEM which contained a breathable environment for the crew. Or perhaps vibrations from the engine don't propagate from the engine to the crew compartment? Or maybe the audio being recorded of the astronauts talking during decent to the moon wasn't in the compartment full of air molecules being vibrated by the entire LEM that is connected to that engine?
I guess I must be missing something...
You're an insult to conspiracy nutbags. Most conspiracy nutbags have IQs over 80 and don't ride the "special" bus to school or wear a helmet all the time for their protection.
Dude, I swapped that fig newton bar I found under my seat for your helmet, fair and square, on our bus no less than 10 years ago. Tomorrow I will give it back... Didn't know it bothered you so much...
The real moon conspiracy is not "Did we walk on the moon?" but "How did we get there?"
It appears to be reasonably clear that Americans were on the moon in the 60s (left intentionally vauge). But there are very significant problems with the Apollo story.
(#1) The most significant problem in the story is the Van Allen radiation belt. Go do your research on this sucker and the absolute lack of radiation shielding on the Moon lander. We are talking dead astronauts before they reach the moon. WAY BEFORE.
(#2) Fuel. If you know how to do the math, do the math. Could the Apollo actually propel the lander to the moon in the time it took? Or... go look it up... there are some interesting quotes by Wernher van Braun on the net about the size of rocket actually required (hint: bigger than Apollo).
(#3) Sound, Vibration and lack of exhaust burn/crater under the lander on the moon. Just watch the video of the lander (where is the sound and vibration from the thrusters). Then go look at the pictures of the lander on the moon (where is the charred earth and crator from the exhaust of the lander?)
(#4) The lander taking off from the moon. Go watch this one. Anyone with half a brain will find the video amazingly funny. A small pop and woosh! Off goes the lander like a rocket without exhaust...
But, the fact is, we do have equipment up there (laser reflectors, etc..) Much of the video footage really is unimaginable to fake and the rocks we have could not all have been found in Antarctica, right?
So, we are left with a mystery. The mystery isn't "did we go?". The mystery is "what is the secret behind how we got there?"
Can anyone say "Military technology"... Or perhaps "Advanced propulsion systems" ???
Am I a conspiracy nutbag or has the US been in possession of high aerospace technology (such as antigrav) for more than 40 years? You be the judge. But don't be hardheaded and blind.
If the developers are strapped for cash and need "donations" they should just ask for them instead of charging for their "free software". People are upset not because they are ungrateful and selfish, but because the developers, as contributors to FOSS and GPL code, have a moral obligation to uphold the principles of the community and are failing to do so. The developers are violating, if not the letter of the GPL, at least the spirit of the GPL, and so deserve any ill-will directed toward them. If they don't want to play the game then they should not participate, no matter how much time, effort, and money they have contributed to benefit the community.
These guys are busting their asses to give the entire mac community a beautiful native port of OO, on their nickle and their clock and you say "they deserve any ill-will directed toward them" for requiring money for an early-access build? (btw, you can download the source and build it yourself today, knucklehead)
Only a completely selfish sociopathic moron would say such a thing. I don't care one iota if your ideals are offended because they don't slave away for free so you can have your toys. Fact is, they are providing a valuable service and are trying to figure out how to pay their bills while they do it. Would you prefer that they stop performing this service, since they aren't doing it in a way that impresses you?
Personally, I have this suggestion for them: When the new NeoOffice is ready (read: complete, not alpha or beta) and aquified, make a big announcement about it but do not release it. Don't distribute the source or the binaries. Instead, have a round of fund-raising through donations. Set a target such as $100,000 - The binaries and source to be released when the target is met. If the target isn't met, don't release it (DON'T DISTRIBUTE IT). This does not violate the GPL at all. Nobody can claim that they must release it. If they want, they can modify OO until it becomes HAL and if they don't distribute it, it's there business.
I would love to see those guys do such a thing. People will donate to get the thing released, the developers deserve to profit from their labors and people like the parent poster can shove it up their *ss.
This will be my final post with slashdot, i'll be moving to digg for my news after today.
This guy wants to quit his day to day responsibilities to give away his money to the less fortunate and all you guys want to do is bash him. Hey, I like Linux, I own a Mac and have tons of Windows experience, but just because you don't like his business practices or his OS dosn't give you the right to belittle him. Will you manage to give away 80% of your fortune before you die? Didn't think so fucktard!
Give the guy a break, he's one of the few modern day humanitarians!
Bill Gates has singlehandedly destroyed more businesses, careers and dreams (in our field) than any other individual in history. He has kept the advancement of computer science at the pace of snails, has extorted governments and smashed innovation. His primary product has, through neglect and incompetence, infected the Internet with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of zombie computers doing all sorts of diabolical garbage.
He is quite the humaitarian.
That fortune he is giving away was stolen from the public through the most unethical of business practices. He never deserved it in the first place. And you are assuming that he isn't just doing the Rockefeller thing (creating legions of trusts and non-profit ventures that outwardly look humanitarian but are truly just a front for the mass accumulation of more wealth and power). I am skeptical.
This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer"
Neither would this have happened if the maintenance tech had followed procedure and just switched the damned thing off. I don't see how this is any different from a normal industrial accident with something like a sheet metal press.
Oh come on, the submitter is on to something here. The manufacturer of the robotic manufacturing equipment most definitely should have encoded the three laws into their manufacturing robots. It couldn't be too hard, right?
Seems that Carmack and company like the bounty idea. I hope they are right, I would really like to see these guys bag one and get a win. From Armidillo's website:
The lunar lander centennial challenge is our top priority this year unless something else pops up. We had a commercial opportunity that was exciting, but it seems to have fallen through.
I'm not thrilled about landing on inclined, boulder strewn fields, but the payload and delta-V requirement are easier than we expected. Having two levels and consolation prizes is a good thing.
As soon as we can show that the new engines can make two 90 second burns, the current vehicle should have level one in the bag. We will need software changes and a remote video system, but no other significant modifications. To take the big level two prize we will need a completely different landing gear arrangement, and the total performance may be pushing it a bit. If our new engine Isp is as good as it briefly looked, we may be able to modify this vehicle for level two, but we are expecting to have to use the upcoming 65" diameter vehicle, which will have a better mass ratio.
It is unfortunate that the prizes can only be claimed at the X-Prize Cup, because that will encourage us to sit on the vehicles after they have been proven out, rather than flying them hard and potentially crashing them.
We've never had an unbreakable DRM. Will we really have an undernet that can't be spied on?
The answer to this is yes, and the method is through Onion Routing. The solution I like the most is TOR which was developed by Naval Intelligence and is currently in the hands of the EFF.
Tor makes me feel safe when overseas using banking sites and my own email accounts. You simply don't have to sweat so much about man-in-the-middle attacks or packet sniffing in less than completely trustworthy environments.
Yeah, yeah, and the oil industry is hiding the 100 MPG carburetor and a car that can run on water.
There are many techniques to achieve high MPG and it is no secret that the oil companies pressure auto manufacturers not to be too ambitious. There is no conspiracy here, just business. Nothing to see here, move along...
Cars that can run on water? This is really not as far fetched as you may think. Between hydrogen and the variety of desktop fusion possibilities such as sono-fusion, using water is likely a real possibility.
don't buy the argument that the oil companies could prevent such technology from being found out about or that their investors would be all that interested in stopping it instead of getting all their money into it first or at least into other lucrative industries.
Do you buy that if you tried to enter into a major U.S. market with cocaine that you wouldn't be quickly eliminated by the monopolies that control such contraband? Do you realize how amazingly much more money there is in oil than cocaine? Do you think, even for a second, that these monopolies will not protect their markets with as much prejudice as the drug lords protect theirs? Grow up.
We've had many Presidents who were boosters of the space program or at least of our ICBM program during the Cold War. Had we a cheap way of getting to space based on alien technology, then why the hell would we waste all that money on chemical rockets when the life of the nation was on the line in nuclear detente? We could've dominated space over the Soviet Union with a fleet of craft, knocked nukes out of orbit on launch, and pretty much won the Cold War as a conventional war without all of the fuss.
First, I think we don't have to invoke the alien card because it is much more likely that advanced technologies of these kinds are quite terrestrial in origin, just ahead of the visible curve. As far as the white space program, it has long been postulated that it exists as cover for the black space program. The way this works is simple - the funds appropriated by nasa are funneled to the various contractors who themselves work on both the white cover project and the black underproject. The money trail is completely auditable, just laughingly (or shockingly) expensive. The expense is not due to corruption (or at least mostly not), it is due to the fact that two things are being payed for at once.
From here, we go into deep tinfoil hat territory. Most people are not comfortable navigating that terrain, so I will stop. But you should carefully consider the amount spent on Nasa in the last 40 years and the visible results. It is a bit difficult to believe that any organization could be THAT inefficient. And Nasa is just one of thousands of ways to pay for such things.
Remember, we are potentially talking about technology that would radically change the face of warfare, possibly even moreso than the advent of nuclear weapons. Of course, any government with such technology would have a demented paranoid need to keep even the existence of such things secret for fear that adversaries would know which direction to direct their research.
it, Occam's Razor demands that the most simple explanation (that we don't have the technology) should be listened to over the theory that we have all the technology but the world hasn't been shaped by it because of a coalltion of people working for interests that don't match the public interests they should have.
Occum's Razor has no place in analysis of monopolies and paranoid warmongering governments. In both of those scenarios, the need to keep secrets and force your will on others is paramount.
Does anyone know what the daytime / nighttime temperature variations are on Venus? How long, taking into account axial rotation and rotation around the Sun, is the venusian day and venusian night at different points on Venus?
Are there regions in perpetual darkness or perpetual light? Is it possible that there are areas that are much lower temperature? Or perhaps a moving seasonal band of low temperature following the rotational cycle of the planet?
Seems to me there might be some interesting possibilities for life on Venus due to it's slow rotation.
The parent poster is probably dead on. With the introduction of Boot Camp, Dell now finds itself in direct competition with Apple for laptop and small footprint home/media computers.
Because Apple has a very strong Identity that is synonymous with style, innovation and eloquence, Dell has a serious marketing problem. How does Dell compete with Apple for the same sales?
This has never happened before and may be quite a shock in Round Rock Texas. For as long as these guys could remember, Apple was that funny little company in Cupertino that sold unimportant computers (and some good gadgets) to a bunch of fanatics. Imagine the horror of realizing that your customer base is now targeted to get membership cards in that fanatical group.
What about apple and Airport, built into the ibook, released in 1999. I do not believe ANYONE had a builtin 802.11b solution back then, except for apple. (there was 802.11b, just as a pc card).
In fact, the ibooks were delayed because they had yet to pass FCC testing when they were announced at MacWorld.
I think Kevin is just a little confused. The silicon valley boys come to houston and show their wares and Kevin gets to do stuff like play with the toys and say "I like that one". He may simply think that Apple, who also sells [those other kind of] computers, does much the same thing and therefore he has as much a right to claim responsibility as they do.
From his point of view, he really is chosing and setting the course for industry. You just have to see it from his point of view... [shrug]
And oh, is the Republican Party responsible for Global Warming now? That is such a tired cliche.
I don't think he was implying that the Republican Party is in any way responsible for global warming. I believe he was implying that the Republican Party is responsible for denying that there is any such thing as global warming. And yes, that denial is very tired even if it is cliche.
The way to prevent this is for the hardware to perform a signature check on the bios before booting. Only authorized vendors could sign bios code. It would lock-out everyone from hacking the bios and, frankly, that is probably a pretty good idea.
I'm no physicist, but no one else has responded to your bizarrely modded-up posting.
My other preceeding comments were, in my opinion, bizarrely modded down. But it is clearly a matter of perception. Some people don't want to look at this puzzle. And yes, it is a puzzle, but you need to open your mind a little bit to see it.
The essential point that I am making is that there is a difference between a force-field and force in operation. Or more clearly that a potential to impart force requires no energy, but force in operation requires an expense of energy. This is reasonably simple to grasp, but yes, it does go against what you learned in high-school (and college) physics (where force in operation magically does not use energy if the system is in equilibrium and the forces originate in the fundamental forces of nature [gravity, nuclear, electrostatic, magnetic]). So, what we learned is that conservation of energy is a law, but we don't need to use it to analyze the fundamental forces because they are, what? Everlasting? Permanent? Do not require energy to maintain?
Are you getting the drift yet?
A man weighing 80kg stands on the surface of the earth. Gravity imparts a force equal to 80kg*9.8m/s^2 on the man for a total of 784 Newtons. This force is in constant operation (it is not a potential force, it is an active force). However, the ground is similarly (by Newton's Third Law) exerting an equal and opposite force of 784 Newtons. In the case of the ground, this force is a direct consequence of the molecular bonds of the various materials that the earth is constituted from. The force is sustained by distributing the 784 Newtons, that gravity has imparted through the standing man onto the ground, to the various molecular bonds in the materials he is standing on. Those bonds are each now generating some small fraction of the force required to keep the man from falling straight through the ground like a bowling-ball through tissue paper.
But is gravity consuming energy to apply 784 Newtons on the man (and therefore through him and onto the ground)? And are the molecular bonds (electrostatic bonding) consuming energy to counter this 784 Newtons so that the molecules can stay together and therefore sustain the weight of the man?
Conventional wisdom is, NO, THESE INTERACTIONS ARE FREE. But where is the wisdom in this? How can this possibly be free? How much additional force can the electrostatic bonds generate? How much addtional force for acceleration can gravity generate? No one can argue that these forces cannot do useful work, they can and do continuously. Yet, as if terrified by the implications, our learned society turns their backs on these incredible phenomena and says things such as, "force in equilibriumm does not require energy". That statement simply hides where the energy is being spent. It is, in my opinion, patently incorrect.
Energy does NOT need to be exerted to counteract a force: another force operating in an opposite direction with equal strength will do the job nicely.
Force does not exist in a vacuum. Something must generate it and my entire point is that requires energy. This idea is new and controversial, so I am not surprised you have a blindspot preventing you from even seeing my argument.
If you have not studied physics, I can see that this can be confusing because many of the terms are used loosely day-to-day, but in physics that is not the case. If you are truly interested, pick up a college level physics text meant as an introductory course for physics majors (don't get one of the "overviews" for non-majors). Better yet, pick up an undergraduate text in Newtonian Mechanics. The principles you will learn carry over into thermodynamics, so you should get a better understanding of exactly what I'm discussing. In case you haven't guessed by now, I have a degree in physics from UNC-Chapel Hill.:-)
I'm afraid you are missing the point.
Let's start with counteracting gravity. But let's assume we want a mass to levitate in a field of gravity. In order for that to happen, it will need to accelerate opposite the field of gravity. In the case of earth, that would be 9.8 m/s^2 and a conventional rocket will require a great deal of energy expenditure to pull this trick off. There is no doubt that the rocket is, in fact, generating force equal to it's acceleration times it's mass. But only a fool would say this doesn't require energy. Instead of saying that it doesn't require energy to exert a force, it is probably much more accurate to state that when the force is a result of a fundemental force (such as molecular bonds in the matter under the rocket at rest), that those fundamental forces are responsible for the energy accounting required to sustain the force. Perhaps the definition of energy, itself, needs an update.
However, the assertion that energy is not required in some cases yet is required in others is suspect and needs to be investigated more vigorously. We are so accustomed to hand-waving away the molecular bonds, electrostatic forces, gravity and magnetism (all ASSUMED to be permanent artifacts of some cosmologically perfect universal truth) that we never really bother to question the energy characteristics of those very basic "wheel works of nature.". My entire point is that these should not, in fact, be hand-waved away.
Energy is required to generate and sustain a force. Period. Please prove me wrong. And while contemplating this, please prepare yourself for some insight when you start to consider that the forces in question all hinge on gravity, electrostatic, nuclear and magnetic fields - considering them to be constantly replenishing their energy to maintain force or considering them to have the ability to generate force without expending energy end up being equivilent for almost all conventional analysis. Only when one starts to question how to tap into these potentially huge energy streams do the two different views begin to differentiate.
The article of context is suggesting just such a thing. And there are hundreds of other projects, experiments and theories that are doing the same.
Instead of suggesting I go back to high-school to learn newtonian mechanics, may I suggest you unlearn some of what you learned so that you can open your eyes to a vast new horizon of opportunities?
Work = (Force)(Displacement)
Something can float without work being done or energy being used.
Really? This is news to me. Let's use your insight to analyze a rocket that lifts off from it's launch pad and then slows to a constant acceleration of exactly 9.8 m/sec^2 straight up. Hmm... Guess what? That rocket is not moving because that is precisely the acceleration down due to gravity. The rocket is burning fuel (a lot of it) in order to levitate with precisely zero displacement.
According to your formula, the amount of work that the Rocket is doing to remain stationairy and float in the air is given by Work = Force x Displacement. Since Displacement is zero, work must also be zero, right?
Do you see how ridiculous this claim is? The problem is that the rocket is counteracting acceleration (gravity). You cannot do that without work and the expense of energy.
When you push on a wall, the force from your arm does no work. However, you grow tired because work is being done at the cellular level in you body. Your muscles require energy to remain contracted.
You would have us believe that there is a difference in the expense of energy related to the success of moving the object or not? Are you listening to yourself?
Please provide any example of how one body can compress another body without the continual expense of energy, without resorting to other suspect forces (such as molecular bonds via rubber bands or bracing, or gravity, etc..). One example. You will actually find that there are other equations in physics that relate energy to compression (such as a spring). These equations will be more useful to you than the force x distance one in this argument. It is also important, when makiing this analogy, to assume that any thought experiment must be constrained to not depend on any bracing at any time in the experiment. Doing so simply hands over to the molecular bonds of the brace all work required to continue the compression. It becomes hand-waving the problem away.
A compressed rigid (or non-rigid) body is only going to generate heat while it is being compressed. After that it cools. If that were not the case, I could heat my apartment by stacking up a pile of rocks.
At what point does gravity stop exerting force on a body? During compression, heat is generated as molecular bonds in the compressed body are broken. This process will continue with some half-life in a body experiencing constant compression, albeit at a much slower rate than during a change in compression. But even this doesn't matter much - you are looking for ways to balance the equations of conservation of energy (as you were taught). My assertion is that there is none at the level of the basic wheel-works of nature. In fact, I am stating that there is always an expense in energy when one body experiences a force (even if that force is in equilibrium). This is really self evident if you think about it. We are taught to believe that conservation of energy is a fundamental law and therefore don't question whether it applies to forces such as gravity. But upon inspiction, it becomes very clear that it does not. Gravity can and does act to accelerate other bodies without ever diminishing in effectiveness. Once you accept that fact, you must then consider the work it is performing on stationary objects as well. Consider Fusion in the sun. Consider black holes. Then think about the surface of the planet and tension on molecular bonds. Think outside the box.
And yes, absolutely, you could heat your house with gravity. Take a look here and here.
The power lost in the electromagnet in this scenario is only due to the resistance in the electromagnet. If you were to do this you would notice that the electromagnet would heat up and that heat would account for the energy lost from whatever energy source you used to power the electromagnet. This is the only power loss as long as the other levitating magnet is remaining stationary.
I am currently dumbfounded by two things. (1) That someone keeps modding these comments down, as the subject is intensely interesting and there is valid debate here, as I shall show (again). and (2) That I get responses like this one which are self-defeating, as I shall proceed to show.
As to your comment, above, let us try a simple thought experiment. Imagine two electromagnets sitting on a tabletop and oriented such that their flux will cause a repulsive force when the electromagnets are powered. Imagine that both of these electromagnets are attached to a platform that can move on the table (wheels, low friction surface, whatever). Now further imagine that we place them arbitrarily close together. When we apply power to the electromagnets, what happens? Obviously, the electromagnets exert a motive force on one another and move apart. The act of moving apart clearly uses energy.
Is your assertion that the energy expended to impart a motive force to the experimental apparatus not originating in the electrical power used to energize the magnetic coils? Or, perhaps you believe that the only energy expended is expended when the aparatus actually moves? If your answer is the first one, then your argument is self defeating because that clearly violates the law of conservation of energy. If your answer is the second one, then let us add aditional parameters to our experiment and see what happens. Since you (in this case) are stating that energy is only consumed when the aparatus moves, let us place two rigid bodies with pressure sensors on the opposing sides of each electromagnet and re-run the experiment. In this case, the electromagnets will exert a motive force on one another, but the aparatus can no longer move. However, the pressure sensors will register presure (active compression) related to the imparted motive force. This constant pressure REQUIRES A CONSTANT EXPENSE OF ENERGY.
Do you disagree? If so, can you please explain how the electromagnets are causing a measurable compression of the pressure sensor without a constant expenditure of energy?
Now for the electrons repelling each other; the energy comes from bringing the electrons closer together. So, in order for the electrons to repel each other again, some amount of energy has to be exerted in bringing the electrons close together again. Energy is completely conserved in this situation. Just remember... force is not energy. It also doesn't take a supply of power to maintain a force. While there are problems with our understanding of the universe, this is not one of them.
It took me exactly 2 seconds to conceive of a simple thought experiment to prove you wrong. I am surprised that you didn't realize the same thiing when you were typing your response to me. I must assume that you are not actually thinking about this subject, but rather blinding regurgitating old, learned, conservation of energy religion. Here it is:
Imagine a closed system in free space with a large quantity of electrons freely *bouncing around*
Get the picture yet? Need help?
Ok, here is help: Those electrons don't have anyone pushing them together (e.g. they are not being accellerated, except perhaps by one another). However, over time they will have essentially infinite electrostatic interactions with one another, bouncing around infinitely, never loosing energy. But here is the kicker: Because of their interactions with each other, they will constantly be exposed to electrostatic acceleration which implies the expenditure of energy. Acceleration is not free. At no time does t
The basic idea behind harnessing the power of a permanent magnet is related to the similar phenemona associated with the electrostatic force in electrons/protons, the nuclear force, gravity and other such seemingly permanent forces. All of them give the full appearance of being able to perform useful work in perpetua.
For example, two electrons, through electrostatic repulsion, will accelerate away from one another. It is impossible to dismiss that energy was required to cause this acceleration. Yet, the electrons do not diminish in energy, they do not loose any electrostatic potential and are in fact capable of continually doing this same magical feat indefinitely. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it will take some serious evidence to say it isn't a duck. The electrostatic force associated with an electron appears to have an infinite supply of energy to exert accelerating forces on other electrons. It is trendy to say that the electrostatic force of an electron is coupled to ZPE (Zero Point Energy), and through this coupling, it is able to draw from ZPE to keep it's electrostatic potential constant.
A permanent magnet appears to have the same properties (e.g. it is capable of exerting force to accelerate objects without decreasing in apparent energy). It is true that a permanent magnet has it's properties because of the alignment of atoms and that over time the work that the magnet is doing does cause atoms to re-align and therefore decrease the effectiveness of the magnet. But this is in no way can account for the massive amounts of energy that the magnet appears to be able to use during it's effective lifetime. One could even say that the molecular bonds that are holding the magnet together and keeping the magnetic flux lined up are themselves generating the energy, since those bonds are countering the large magnetic forces that threaten to realign the magnet so that it is no longer magnetic. Those molecular forces themselves do not diminish and continue to exert strong accelerating forces.
In summary, it is impossible to dismiss this phenomena. A permanent magnet is capable of performing work, as is simply evidenced in many different ways (although it does not appear to have been commercially realized - who knows why? Anyone have a tinfoil hat?). Electrostatic forces, molecular bonds, nuclear forces and gravity all appear to have a similar property of endless access to energy to perform work.
If you reply to this comment, please don't hand-wave and say your physics professor knows more than me. Think about this subject seriously. The basic wheelworks of nature do give the full and blantant appearance of constantly violating the law of conservation of energy. That should be something that anyone who considers themselves a skeptical scientist would like to understand better.
Something can float without work being done or energy being used. A FORCE has to exist, but that doesn't mean energy is being consumed or work is being done. A boat floats in water because the force exerted on the boat by the water it displaces counteracts the force of gravity trying to sink it. Zero work is done by a floating boat though forces are acting on it to keep it floating.
You are forgetting that in this particular example, we are countering the effects of gravity. To counter the acceleration due to gravity, energy is required. Even your equation is blatantly wrong. If I push on a wall, I am exerting energy and force but there is no displacement.
And in the case of gravity, even a rigid body is exerting energy to keep a mass from accelerating towards the center of gravity. It is just that the expended energy is distributed to the atomic and molecular bonds of the rigid body that is working to counteract gravity (and continuously generating heat in the process, as any compression of a rigid body will do). As I put in another post related to the grandparent, those molecular bonds are also suspect because they appear to be able to exert force that requires energy in perputua. There is something more at work here and it is only subtle if you don't question how it works (e.g. if you memorized your physics from college but never bothered to ask how, for example, electrostatic forces could continue to operate at the same intensity in perpetua without decreasing in effectiveness).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my assertion that a rigid body counteracting gravity is quite different than a magnetic field counteracting gravity. If you used an electromagnet to levitate an object, there would be a measurable current drain that directly correlates to the energy required to create the repulsive force that is required to counter the acceleration of gravity. But we blindly accept that a permanent magnet does this without using energy?
As a side note, there is evidence for unusual energy properties even in rigid bodies. When you place a mass on a rigid body in the presence of a gravitational field, the force that counters gravity is distributed to the atomic/molecular bonds of the rigid body itself. These bonds also appear to be able to exert force indefinitely in much the same way as a permanent magnet. So your example is also something that should be examined more closely and hardly can be used to hand-wave this phenomena away.
The fact that two electrons can exert accelerating forces upon one another and yet retain the capacity to exert the same force in the future (e.g. electrostatic repulsion does not diminish with the number of times or intensity of their work) is itself interesting in the same way. As I said before, this particular line of inquiry is filled with subtle dragons, even for the most well trained physisct.
My comment was modded down by someone who blindly accepts that the basic wheelworks of nature have properties that defy the law of conservation of energy. And they do, blatantly so (as in the electron example). Is blindly accepting this without questioning it a valid skeptical approach to science??
It is more than obvious that what we see in the behavior and attributes of electrostatic attraction/repulsion, magnetism, nuclear forces and other basic wheelworks of nature is in fact a coupling to a universal power-source (e.g. Zero-Point Energy). If this were not so, the forces that bind atoms and molecules together would quickly depelete their energy and rigid bodies would simply fall-apart rather continuously.
It is my observation that those who mock such OBVIOUS problems with our understanding of the universe are themselves pseudo-scientists. The real scientists are the ones who have the courage and skeptism (of current scientific understanding) to ask the hard questions and try to really get to the bottom of things.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, it doesn't take a conspiracy nutbag to conclude that UFOs are just military craft and that Nasa is just PR and distraction to keep everyone from snooping around into the affairs of the military. All it takes is a little common sense and the ability to follow the money.
If you are convinced that everything about Apollo makes sense and you can watch a shuttle launch and actually believe that it costs as much as advertised and you can happily ignore the trillions that dissapear into black projects without bothering to consider where it goes and perhaps ignore the UFO phenomena.... Well, my guess is you voted for Bush, so there probably isn't too much anyone can do for you
I have seen this argument rage a bit and am certainly no authority. There was a writeup by soeome at Caltech that seems to support the assumption that the LEM could have made it through the Van Allen belt without killing the Astronauts, but it must be observed that by his own admission, he is seeking to justify that solution rather than being skeptical of it.
This is pretty typical. Everyone wants to believe that we went to the moon. I am not disputing that we did. I am, actually, just suggesting that there might have been a bit of extra technology at work that the general public isn't aware of. And I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the US keeps a lot of military secrets. Anyhow, let's move along...
Again, I am not a rocket scientist (IANARS), but my point had nothing to do with the ability to turn on and off the boosters. My point was simply about the required delta-v to make it to the moon and back in the time it took.
From Wikipedia, we see that the descent thrust of the Lander was just under 10,000 lbf of thrust, so your choice of the Harrier jump jet is a good one for comparison's sake at about 2.5x the thrust of the lander. Really, this issue is almost trivial to point out the paradox in: We have footprints in fine dust on the moon from Neil Armstrong just feet from the thruster that must have been firing to keep the lander from crashing. Without an atmosphere to blow the dust back over the scatter region where the 10,000 lbf thrust would have scattered such dust (very violently), how is it possible that there was dust for Neil to step inot after the lander landed?
Actually, the videos (google for them) clearly show the lander firing and heading off into deap space
I guess I must be missing something...
Dude, I swapped that fig newton bar I found under my seat for your helmet, fair and square, on our bus no less than 10 years ago. Tomorrow I will give it back... Didn't know it bothered you so much...
The real moon conspiracy is not "Did we walk on the moon?" but "How did we get there?"
It appears to be reasonably clear that Americans were on the moon in the 60s (left intentionally vauge). But there are very significant problems with the Apollo story.
(#1) The most significant problem in the story is the Van Allen radiation belt. Go do your research on this sucker and the absolute lack of radiation shielding on the Moon lander. We are talking dead astronauts before they reach the moon. WAY BEFORE.
(#2) Fuel. If you know how to do the math, do the math. Could the Apollo actually propel the lander to the moon in the time it took? Or... go look it up... there are some interesting quotes by Wernher van Braun on the net about the size of rocket actually required (hint: bigger than Apollo).
(#3) Sound, Vibration and lack of exhaust burn/crater under the lander on the moon. Just watch the video of the lander (where is the sound and vibration from the thrusters). Then go look at the pictures of the lander on the moon (where is the charred earth and crator from the exhaust of the lander?)
(#4) The lander taking off from the moon. Go watch this one. Anyone with half a brain will find the video amazingly funny. A small pop and woosh! Off goes the lander like a rocket without exhaust...
But, the fact is, we do have equipment up there (laser reflectors, etc..) Much of the video footage really is unimaginable to fake and the rocks we have could not all have been found in Antarctica, right?
So, we are left with a mystery. The mystery isn't "did we go?". The mystery is "what is the secret behind how we got there?"
Can anyone say "Military technology"... Or perhaps "Advanced propulsion systems" ???
Am I a conspiracy nutbag or has the US been in possession of high aerospace technology (such as antigrav) for more than 40 years? You be the judge. But don't be hardheaded and blind.
Only a completely selfish sociopathic moron would say such a thing. I don't care one iota if your ideals are offended because they don't slave away for free so you can have your toys. Fact is, they are providing a valuable service and are trying to figure out how to pay their bills while they do it. Would you prefer that they stop performing this service, since they aren't doing it in a way that impresses you?
Personally, I have this suggestion for them: When the new NeoOffice is ready (read: complete, not alpha or beta) and aquified, make a big announcement about it but do not release it. Don't distribute the source or the binaries. Instead, have a round of fund-raising through donations. Set a target such as $100,000 - The binaries and source to be released when the target is met. If the target isn't met, don't release it (DON'T DISTRIBUTE IT). This does not violate the GPL at all. Nobody can claim that they must release it. If they want, they can modify OO until it becomes HAL and if they don't distribute it, it's there business.
I would love to see those guys do such a thing. People will donate to get the thing released, the developers deserve to profit from their labors and people like the parent poster can shove it up their *ss.
He is quite the humaitarian.
That fortune he is giving away was stolen from the public through the most unethical of business practices. He never deserved it in the first place. And you are assuming that he isn't just doing the Rockefeller thing (creating legions of trusts and non-profit ventures that outwardly look humanitarian but are truly just a front for the mass accumulation of more wealth and power). I am skeptical.
Here, I'll show you... Where did I put my wrench?
Tor makes me feel safe when overseas using banking sites and my own email accounts. You simply don't have to sweat so much about man-in-the-middle attacks or packet sniffing in less than completely trustworthy environments.
Cars that can run on water? This is really not as far fetched as you may think. Between hydrogen and the variety of desktop fusion possibilities such as sono-fusion, using water is likely a real possibility. Do you buy that if you tried to enter into a major U.S. market with cocaine that you wouldn't be quickly eliminated by the monopolies that control such contraband? Do you realize how amazingly much more money there is in oil than cocaine? Do you think, even for a second, that these monopolies will not protect their markets with as much prejudice as the drug lords protect theirs? Grow up. First, I think we don't have to invoke the alien card because it is much more likely that advanced technologies of these kinds are quite terrestrial in origin, just ahead of the visible curve. As far as the white space program, it has long been postulated that it exists as cover for the black space program. The way this works is simple - the funds appropriated by nasa are funneled to the various contractors who themselves work on both the white cover project and the black underproject. The money trail is completely auditable, just laughingly (or shockingly) expensive. The expense is not due to corruption (or at least mostly not), it is due to the fact that two things are being payed for at once.
From here, we go into deep tinfoil hat territory. Most people are not comfortable navigating that terrain, so I will stop. But you should carefully consider the amount spent on Nasa in the last 40 years and the visible results. It is a bit difficult to believe that any organization could be THAT inefficient. And Nasa is just one of thousands of ways to pay for such things.
Remember, we are potentially talking about technology that would radically change the face of warfare, possibly even moreso than the advent of nuclear weapons. Of course, any government with such technology would have a demented paranoid need to keep even the existence of such things secret for fear that adversaries would know which direction to direct their research. Occum's Razor has no place in analysis of monopolies and paranoid warmongering governments. In both of those scenarios, the need to keep secrets and force your will on others is paramount.
Does anyone know what the daytime / nighttime temperature variations are on Venus? How long, taking into account axial rotation and rotation around the Sun, is the venusian day and venusian night at different points on Venus?
Are there regions in perpetual darkness or perpetual light? Is it possible that there are areas that are much lower temperature? Or perhaps a moving seasonal band of low temperature following the rotational cycle of the planet?
Seems to me there might be some interesting possibilities for life on Venus due to it's slow rotation.
The parent poster is probably dead on. With the introduction of Boot Camp, Dell now finds itself in direct competition with Apple for laptop and small footprint home/media computers.
Because Apple has a very strong Identity that is synonymous with style, innovation and eloquence, Dell has a serious marketing problem. How does Dell compete with Apple for the same sales?
This has never happened before and may be quite a shock in Round Rock Texas. For as long as these guys could remember, Apple was that funny little company in Cupertino that sold unimportant computers (and some good gadgets) to a bunch of fanatics. Imagine the horror of realizing that your customer base is now targeted to get membership cards in that fanatical group.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
From his point of view, he really is chosing and setting the course for industry. You just have to see it from his point of view... [shrug]
Keep this article far FAR away from this guy!!!
Click at your own risk. Reality bending questions lurk here.
The way to prevent this is for the hardware to perform a signature check on the bios before booting. Only authorized vendors could sign bios code. It would lock-out everyone from hacking the bios and, frankly, that is probably a pretty good idea.
I'm no physicist, but no one else has responded to your bizarrely modded-up posting.
My other preceeding comments were, in my opinion, bizarrely modded down. But it is clearly a matter of perception. Some people don't want to look at this puzzle. And yes, it is a puzzle, but you need to open your mind a little bit to see it.
The essential point that I am making is that there is a difference between a force-field and force in operation. Or more clearly that a potential to impart force requires no energy, but force in operation requires an expense of energy. This is reasonably simple to grasp, but yes, it does go against what you learned in high-school (and college) physics (where force in operation magically does not use energy if the system is in equilibrium and the forces originate in the fundamental forces of nature [gravity, nuclear, electrostatic, magnetic]). So, what we learned is that conservation of energy is a law, but we don't need to use it to analyze the fundamental forces because they are, what? Everlasting? Permanent? Do not require energy to maintain?
Are you getting the drift yet?
A man weighing 80kg stands on the surface of the earth. Gravity imparts a force equal to 80kg*9.8m/s^2 on the man for a total of 784 Newtons. This force is in constant operation (it is not a potential force, it is an active force). However, the ground is similarly (by Newton's Third Law) exerting an equal and opposite force of 784 Newtons. In the case of the ground, this force is a direct consequence of the molecular bonds of the various materials that the earth is constituted from. The force is sustained by distributing the 784 Newtons, that gravity has imparted through the standing man onto the ground, to the various molecular bonds in the materials he is standing on. Those bonds are each now generating some small fraction of the force required to keep the man from falling straight through the ground like a bowling-ball through tissue paper.
But is gravity consuming energy to apply 784 Newtons on the man (and therefore through him and onto the ground)? And are the molecular bonds (electrostatic bonding) consuming energy to counter this 784 Newtons so that the molecules can stay together and therefore sustain the weight of the man?
Conventional wisdom is, NO, THESE INTERACTIONS ARE FREE. But where is the wisdom in this? How can this possibly be free? How much additional force can the electrostatic bonds generate? How much addtional force for acceleration can gravity generate? No one can argue that these forces cannot do useful work, they can and do continuously. Yet, as if terrified by the implications, our learned society turns their backs on these incredible phenomena and says things such as, "force in equilibriumm does not require energy". That statement simply hides where the energy is being spent. It is, in my opinion, patently incorrect.
Energy does NOT need to be exerted to counteract a force: another force operating in an opposite direction with equal strength will do the job nicely.
:-)
Force does not exist in a vacuum. Something must generate it and my entire point is that requires energy. This idea is new and controversial, so I am not surprised you have a blindspot preventing you from even seeing my argument.
If you have not studied physics, I can see that this can be confusing because many of the terms are used loosely day-to-day, but in physics that is not the case. If you are truly interested, pick up a college level physics text meant as an introductory course for physics majors (don't get one of the "overviews" for non-majors). Better yet, pick up an undergraduate text in Newtonian Mechanics. The principles you will learn carry over into thermodynamics, so you should get a better understanding of exactly what I'm discussing. In case you haven't guessed by now, I have a degree in physics from UNC-Chapel Hill.
I'm afraid you are missing the point.
Let's start with counteracting gravity. But let's assume we want a mass to levitate in a field of gravity. In order for that to happen, it will need to accelerate opposite the field of gravity. In the case of earth, that would be 9.8 m/s^2 and a conventional rocket will require a great deal of energy expenditure to pull this trick off. There is no doubt that the rocket is, in fact, generating force equal to it's acceleration times it's mass. But only a fool would say this doesn't require energy. Instead of saying that it doesn't require energy to exert a force, it is probably much more accurate to state that when the force is a result of a fundemental force (such as molecular bonds in the matter under the rocket at rest), that those fundamental forces are responsible for the energy accounting required to sustain the force. Perhaps the definition of energy, itself, needs an update.
However, the assertion that energy is not required in some cases yet is required in others is suspect and needs to be investigated more vigorously. We are so accustomed to hand-waving away the molecular bonds, electrostatic forces, gravity and magnetism (all ASSUMED to be permanent artifacts of some cosmologically perfect universal truth) that we never really bother to question the energy characteristics of those very basic "wheel works of nature.". My entire point is that these should not, in fact, be hand-waved away.
Energy is required to generate and sustain a force. Period. Please prove me wrong. And while contemplating this, please prepare yourself for some insight when you start to consider that the forces in question all hinge on gravity, electrostatic, nuclear and magnetic fields - considering them to be constantly replenishing their energy to maintain force or considering them to have the ability to generate force without expending energy end up being equivilent for almost all conventional analysis. Only when one starts to question how to tap into these potentially huge energy streams do the two different views begin to differentiate.
The article of context is suggesting just such a thing. And there are hundreds of other projects, experiments and theories that are doing the same.
Instead of suggesting I go back to high-school to learn newtonian mechanics, may I suggest you unlearn some of what you learned so that you can open your eyes to a vast new horizon of opportunities?
Work = (Force)(Displacement) Something can float without work being done or energy being used.
Really? This is news to me. Let's use your insight to analyze a rocket that lifts off from it's launch pad and then slows to a constant acceleration of exactly 9.8 m/sec^2 straight up. Hmm... Guess what? That rocket is not moving because that is precisely the acceleration down due to gravity. The rocket is burning fuel (a lot of it) in order to levitate with precisely zero displacement.
According to your formula, the amount of work that the Rocket is doing to remain stationairy and float in the air is given by Work = Force x Displacement. Since Displacement is zero, work must also be zero, right?
Do you see how ridiculous this claim is? The problem is that the rocket is counteracting acceleration (gravity). You cannot do that without work and the expense of energy.
When you push on a wall, the force from your arm does no work. However, you grow tired because work is being done at the cellular level in you body. Your muscles require energy to remain contracted.
You would have us believe that there is a difference in the expense of energy related to the success of moving the object or not? Are you listening to yourself?
Please provide any example of how one body can compress another body without the continual expense of energy, without resorting to other suspect forces (such as molecular bonds via rubber bands or bracing, or gravity, etc..). One example. You will actually find that there are other equations in physics that relate energy to compression (such as a spring). These equations will be more useful to you than the force x distance one in this argument. It is also important, when makiing this analogy, to assume that any thought experiment must be constrained to not depend on any bracing at any time in the experiment. Doing so simply hands over to the molecular bonds of the brace all work required to continue the compression. It becomes hand-waving the problem away.
A compressed rigid (or non-rigid) body is only going to generate heat while it is being compressed. After that it cools. If that were not the case, I could heat my apartment by stacking up a pile of rocks.
At what point does gravity stop exerting force on a body? During compression, heat is generated as molecular bonds in the compressed body are broken. This process will continue with some half-life in a body experiencing constant compression, albeit at a much slower rate than during a change in compression. But even this doesn't matter much - you are looking for ways to balance the equations of conservation of energy (as you were taught). My assertion is that there is none at the level of the basic wheel-works of nature. In fact, I am stating that there is always an expense in energy when one body experiences a force (even if that force is in equilibrium). This is really self evident if you think about it. We are taught to believe that conservation of energy is a fundamental law and therefore don't question whether it applies to forces such as gravity. But upon inspiction, it becomes very clear that it does not. Gravity can and does act to accelerate other bodies without ever diminishing in effectiveness. Once you accept that fact, you must then consider the work it is performing on stationary objects as well. Consider Fusion in the sun. Consider black holes. Then think about the surface of the planet and tension on molecular bonds. Think outside the box.
And yes, absolutely, you could heat your house with gravity. Take a look here and here.
The power lost in the electromagnet in this scenario is only due to the resistance in the electromagnet. If you were to do this you would notice that the electromagnet would heat up and that heat would account for the energy lost from whatever energy source you used to power the electromagnet. This is the only power loss as long as the other levitating magnet is remaining stationary.
I am currently dumbfounded by two things. (1) That someone keeps modding these comments down, as the subject is intensely interesting and there is valid debate here, as I shall show (again). and (2) That I get responses like this one which are self-defeating, as I shall proceed to show.
As to your comment, above, let us try a simple thought experiment. Imagine two electromagnets sitting on a tabletop and oriented such that their flux will cause a repulsive force when the electromagnets are powered. Imagine that both of these electromagnets are attached to a platform that can move on the table (wheels, low friction surface, whatever). Now further imagine that we place them arbitrarily close together. When we apply power to the electromagnets, what happens? Obviously, the electromagnets exert a motive force on one another and move apart. The act of moving apart clearly uses energy.
Is your assertion that the energy expended to impart a motive force to the experimental apparatus not originating in the electrical power used to energize the magnetic coils? Or, perhaps you believe that the only energy expended is expended when the aparatus actually moves? If your answer is the first one, then your argument is self defeating because that clearly violates the law of conservation of energy. If your answer is the second one, then let us add aditional parameters to our experiment and see what happens. Since you (in this case) are stating that energy is only consumed when the aparatus moves, let us place two rigid bodies with pressure sensors on the opposing sides of each electromagnet and re-run the experiment. In this case, the electromagnets will exert a motive force on one another, but the aparatus can no longer move. However, the pressure sensors will register presure (active compression) related to the imparted motive force. This constant pressure REQUIRES A CONSTANT EXPENSE OF ENERGY.
Do you disagree? If so, can you please explain how the electromagnets are causing a measurable compression of the pressure sensor without a constant expenditure of energy?
Now for the electrons repelling each other; the energy comes from bringing the electrons closer together. So, in order for the electrons to repel each other again, some amount of energy has to be exerted in bringing the electrons close together again. Energy is completely conserved in this situation. Just remember... force is not energy. It also doesn't take a supply of power to maintain a force. While there are problems with our understanding of the universe, this is not one of them.
It took me exactly 2 seconds to conceive of a simple thought experiment to prove you wrong. I am surprised that you didn't realize the same thiing when you were typing your response to me. I must assume that you are not actually thinking about this subject, but rather blinding regurgitating old, learned, conservation of energy religion. Here it is:
Imagine a closed system in free space with a large quantity of electrons freely *bouncing around*
Get the picture yet? Need help?
Ok, here is help: Those electrons don't have anyone pushing them together (e.g. they are not being accellerated, except perhaps by one another). However, over time they will have essentially infinite electrostatic interactions with one another, bouncing around infinitely, never loosing energy. But here is the kicker: Because of their interactions with each other, they will constantly be exposed to electrostatic acceleration which implies the expenditure of energy. Acceleration is not free. At no time does t
The basic idea behind harnessing the power of a permanent magnet is related to the similar phenemona associated with the electrostatic force in electrons/protons, the nuclear force, gravity and other such seemingly permanent forces. All of them give the full appearance of being able to perform useful work in perpetua.
For example, two electrons, through electrostatic repulsion, will accelerate away from one another. It is impossible to dismiss that energy was required to cause this acceleration. Yet, the electrons do not diminish in energy, they do not loose any electrostatic potential and are in fact capable of continually doing this same magical feat indefinitely. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it will take some serious evidence to say it isn't a duck. The electrostatic force associated with an electron appears to have an infinite supply of energy to exert accelerating forces on other electrons. It is trendy to say that the electrostatic force of an electron is coupled to ZPE (Zero Point Energy), and through this coupling, it is able to draw from ZPE to keep it's electrostatic potential constant.
A permanent magnet appears to have the same properties (e.g. it is capable of exerting force to accelerate objects without decreasing in apparent energy). It is true that a permanent magnet has it's properties because of the alignment of atoms and that over time the work that the magnet is doing does cause atoms to re-align and therefore decrease the effectiveness of the magnet. But this is in no way can account for the massive amounts of energy that the magnet appears to be able to use during it's effective lifetime. One could even say that the molecular bonds that are holding the magnet together and keeping the magnetic flux lined up are themselves generating the energy, since those bonds are countering the large magnetic forces that threaten to realign the magnet so that it is no longer magnetic. Those molecular forces themselves do not diminish and continue to exert strong accelerating forces.
In summary, it is impossible to dismiss this phenomena. A permanent magnet is capable of performing work, as is simply evidenced in many different ways (although it does not appear to have been commercially realized - who knows why? Anyone have a tinfoil hat?). Electrostatic forces, molecular bonds, nuclear forces and gravity all appear to have a similar property of endless access to energy to perform work.
If you reply to this comment, please don't hand-wave and say your physics professor knows more than me. Think about this subject seriously. The basic wheelworks of nature do give the full and blantant appearance of constantly violating the law of conservation of energy. That should be something that anyone who considers themselves a skeptical scientist would like to understand better.
Work = (Force)(Displacement)
Something can float without work being done or energy being used. A FORCE has to exist, but that doesn't mean energy is being consumed or work is being done. A boat floats in water because the force exerted on the boat by the water it displaces counteracts the force of gravity trying to sink it. Zero work is done by a floating boat though forces are acting on it to keep it floating.
You are forgetting that in this particular example, we are countering the effects of gravity. To counter the acceleration due to gravity, energy is required. Even your equation is blatantly wrong. If I push on a wall, I am exerting energy and force but there is no displacement.
And in the case of gravity, even a rigid body is exerting energy to keep a mass from accelerating towards the center of gravity. It is just that the expended energy is distributed to the atomic and molecular bonds of the rigid body that is working to counteract gravity (and continuously generating heat in the process, as any compression of a rigid body will do). As I put in another post related to the grandparent, those molecular bonds are also suspect because they appear to be able to exert force that requires energy in perputua. There is something more at work here and it is only subtle if you don't question how it works (e.g. if you memorized your physics from college but never bothered to ask how, for example, electrostatic forces could continue to operate at the same intensity in perpetua without decreasing in effectiveness).
As I said, there be dragons here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my assertion that a rigid body counteracting gravity is quite different than a magnetic field counteracting gravity. If you used an electromagnet to levitate an object, there would be a measurable current drain that directly correlates to the energy required to create the repulsive force that is required to counter the acceleration of gravity. But we blindly accept that a permanent magnet does this without using energy?
As a side note, there is evidence for unusual energy properties even in rigid bodies. When you place a mass on a rigid body in the presence of a gravitational field, the force that counters gravity is distributed to the atomic/molecular bonds of the rigid body itself. These bonds also appear to be able to exert force indefinitely in much the same way as a permanent magnet. So your example is also something that should be examined more closely and hardly can be used to hand-wave this phenomena away.
The fact that two electrons can exert accelerating forces upon one another and yet retain the capacity to exert the same force in the future (e.g. electrostatic repulsion does not diminish with the number of times or intensity of their work) is itself interesting in the same way. As I said before, this particular line of inquiry is filled with subtle dragons, even for the most well trained physisct.
My comment was modded down by someone who blindly accepts that the basic wheelworks of nature have properties that defy the law of conservation of energy. And they do, blatantly so (as in the electron example). Is blindly accepting this without questioning it a valid skeptical approach to science??
It is more than obvious that what we see in the behavior and attributes of electrostatic attraction/repulsion, magnetism, nuclear forces and other basic wheelworks of nature is in fact a coupling to a universal power-source (e.g. Zero-Point Energy). If this were not so, the forces that bind atoms and molecules together would quickly depelete their energy and rigid bodies would simply fall-apart rather continuously.
It is my observation that those who mock such OBVIOUS problems with our understanding of the universe are themselves pseudo-scientists. The real scientists are the ones who have the courage and skeptism (of current scientific understanding) to ask the hard questions and try to really get to the bottom of things.