Re: Isnt Gravity Perpetual Energy?

Dear Jason:

Every scientist, old, young, going-to-be, should be skeptical about "scientific statements" that the majority of scientists believe to be "true." I agree with you that the duty of scientists is, as you stated, "to push the envelope . . ." It turns out that for the majority of situations, scientists publish their theories and the results of their research efforts in what are called "peer-reviewed journals." These are publications, often sponsored and paid for by the members of scientific societies (such as the American Chemical Society, the Journal of Physics, and the like) in which the submitted papers are first thoroughly reviewed and critiqued by a small committee of scientists who work in the relevant area. If the majority of them agree that the paper is "publishable" (which means it has enough merit to be "made public"), it is then published in the journal for the rest of the scientific community to see and comment on.

After a period of time (it could be a year, a decade, or other time frame), the ideas of the published scientist become accepted by the great majority of the scientific community to the point where those ideas are classified as being "important breakthroughs," or maybe "crucial additions to the original theories," or ultimately become called "laws of physics" (or chemistry or other discipline).

The point is that scientific ideas are put to an extremely tough test (by a "jury of their peers" of the persons who submit papers) before they are considered to be valid or acceptable. It is also the responsibility of scientists to use those "well-established" ideas as springboards to the discovery of new theories, hypotheses, or laws. These folks don't have the time to �re-invent the wheel� in the sense that they don�t have time to repeat the old experiments (unless there is a controversy as to the results of the old experiments that led up to the theories), but start with the assumption that the "old ideas" are correct, and they perform new experiments to come up with new insights into their disciplines.

One of the ultimate goals of scientific theories is to try to explain how the universe works. These theories have to explain phenomena that we can easily observe and measure (the macroscopic universe) as well as phenomena that cannot so easily be observed or measured (the microscopic universe). In fact, some modern scientists are trying to develop what has been called "the theory of everything!" Under certain circumstances very complicated theories can be simplified by making some simplifying assumptions about how the universe "behaves" that allow the simpler versions of the theories to be applied to the macroscopic world. For example, the modern (Einsteinean) theory of gravity (which you brought up in your inquiry) states that gravity is not really a force (force is an idea developed by Isaac Newton in the 17th century), but is in fact a "curvature of space," i.e., it is a theory of the geometrical nature of the universe. However, for everyday machines, for the motion of the planets and stars, for the current state of space travel, the old Newtonian idea of force (in terms of the equations relating force to mass) are quite adequate in predicting how machines should be built, predicting where planets will be located at any time, and how spaceships should be designed. These don't need the more sophisticated theories of Einstein to be useful. On the other hand, when cosmologists try to comprehend how the universe was created, and how it will evolve, the Einstein theories are needed to get a complete picture.

Finally, you suggested that gravity is some sort of energy. You also mentioned the term "perpetual generator." I think you might rather have called the last term perpetual machine." Some physicists suggest that the reason that gravity "works" is that objects send out gravity waves that allow them to interact in such a way that there appears to be an attraction created between the objects. Waves (that's a whole other area of physics) are said to be transmitters of energy, so perhaps gravity is some sort of energy, but it is not, I think, analogous to a machine. One view of what constitutes a machine is that it is a "force multiplier" (you can exert a small force which the machine transforms into a larger force). One puts energy into a machine, and one gets energy out of it. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (currently one of those "well- established ideas" that I spoke of earlier) states you can't get more energy out of a machine than you put in. In fact, the Second Law says that you will get less "useful" energy out than you put in. The energy you put in is transformed to a different type of energy (so the machine can operate) but some of the input energy is dissipated in the form of what some people call "heat" (a.k.a. "useless energy"). If you could get more "useful" energy out than you put in, you could use that excess energy to operate the machine, so in time the machine will operate forever, without your having to input any energy at all! So far no one has found an exception to the Second Law. If the Second Law is found to be untrue, then "the sky is the limit!"

Your humble discussant,

Peter M. Fichte
Coker College
Hartsville, SC