[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

True, but not enough that you could call it approaching perpetual motion.

Certainly not. But the motor on it's own was apparently taking advantage of some heretofore unknown physical phenomenon that allowed it to defy expectations and reach an unexpectedly high efficiency. Words like 'perpectual motion' were thrown around, but that's probably got more to do with the reporter than anything else.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Efficiency is one thing - the def of a pm machine is getting more energy out than you put in - a different kind of a fish.

Perpetual motion machines does not have to produce more energy than you put in, but maintain an equal balance of throughput. Both are of course equally impossible though

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Perpetual motion machines does not have to produce more energy than you put in, but maintain an equal balance of throughput. Both are of course equally impossible though

Yes, but one is a little less impossible.

-t

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Some recent studies (grudgingly supported by Stephen Hawking) suggests that, while there is a singularity at the center of a black hole, the "information" is still retained. If this turns out to be true, then the laws of conservation wouldn't 've been violated in the first place. It's science!

The retention of 'information' and the conservation of energy are separate. The conservation of energy is absolute. When a virtual particle is turned into a real particle at the boundary of an event horizon the energy comes from the mass of the black hole, which decreases.

When a magnet is heated up, it loses its magnetivity. Does this mean, it suddenly releases loads of energy in the form of heat? I dont think so

The Curie point is a second order phase transition meaning. Which means, in the simplest terms I can think of, the change (in field strength) is gradual with temperature. i.e. the magnet doesn't lose it's energy all at once when it hits the Curie point temperature.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

The retention of 'information' and the conservation of energy are separate. The conservation of energy is absolute. When a virtual particle is turned into a real particle at the boundary of an event horizon the energy comes from the mass of the black hole, which decreases.

Isn't there a moment of time between when the particle is consumed, and when the black hole reduces mass?

[SVass]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not at all a physicist, but what law says that there needs to be energy consumed to attract other objects.
Think of gravity, which, in a sense, is attraction due to mass. No energy consumption there either.
-t

Just to provide the Einstein answer to the original question:
If one is in a closed space ship undergoing one g linear acceleration, then one is in a force field that can not be differentiated from being on the Earth in a gravitational field. "An invisible force" is pulling you towards the floor. Said force can be mathematically modeled by various schemes which can be used to predict motion.
sam

[wataru]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Isn't there a moment of time between when the particle is consumed, and when the black hole reduces mass?

You're in relativity country now, cowboy; simultaneity is meaningless. Depending on the frame of reference A could be before B, B could be before A, or they could be at the same time.

Back to magnetism not doing work: I recall one of my physics professors once saying that magnetism is like the rope tying a tetherball to a pole. The ball is spinning around the pole, therefore constantly accelerating inward; the rope is required for this, but it does no work. Magnetism is always like this—it may look like it's doing work, but it's actually only "redirecting" work done by something else.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but one is a little less impossible.

-t

Logical fallacy.

[iMOTOR]