Re: [nanotech] Re: Sci-fi Writers
- Christopher J. Phoenix wrote:
>So, when did we get to the end of the road with physics?
> At 07:20 AM 12/3/00 -0500, Bruce Bombere wrote:
> >Christopher J. Phoenix wrote:
> >> Again, you're trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.
> > I was very impressed the first time that I put red carmine dye
> >in water and observerd Brownian motion. An AC generator would
> >be OK, I guess, if that's the natural tendency.
> OK, try this thought experiment. Take an LED and connect the leads
> together. It will not glow. Not even a little bit. Even though you've
> created an "AC generator" by allowing the natural motion of the electrons in
> the leads to drive them through the diode. That's as much of an AC
> generator as you'll ever get without supplying energy.
> A piston changes
> >direction without a toggle by means of a crankshaft, so, there
> >might be another analogue other than a toggle.
> And sometimes it'll run forwards, and sometimes it'll run backwards... and
> whatever you connect it to will move just as much as it would if you
> connected it to an inert hunk of matter. And you'll still get zero energy out.
> You just can't do it! Before you waste any more of your time, LOOK AT THE
> > Maybe something more
> >like a piezo capillary. But point taken re: Brownian motion and
> >laminar drag, however, this will not end my quest for a perpetual
> >motion machine and the ever elusive "free lunch."
> That's too bad. It really is a waste of time to invent devices without
> checking the physics, and it will blunt your physics intuition. When you
> think you've invented a device, immediately check the physics. After you
> have found that the energy output is precisely zero for every class of
> device you can invent, you will know more physics than you do now.
I am also laboring under the delusion that the speed of light
is not absolute, although I've heard otherwise. Well, maybe.
But signals can't be sent faster than light. Well, maybe
superluminal signals. And bumblebees can't fly. Actually,
the more I learn, the less I know. Sorry if I offend your sensibilities.
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
- Mark Gubrud wrote:
>Andrew Martin said that it doesn't belong on "nanotech", and my judgement
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > Okay, end of thread.
> In your wet electric dreams, robot boy.
is that he's right, unless Gina Miller steps in and says otherwise. If
you want to take this further, we can do it in private, or, if you must
have a public forum, on the Extropian mailing list. I don't know why
you're doing this, but it is not the business of the nanotechnology
discussion list. End of thread.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence