Oh, that perpetual motion

[Anonymous No.1542490]

So here's the situation: you have a 1Kg mass at sea level on earth, and a machine that converts all of it into energy by the equation E=mc^2. That energy drives a laser aimed at a photocell 1 Km above sea level. The energy from the photocell is put into a machine that converts the energy into a 1Kg mass, and the mass is dropped back to sea level- and from that fall, you would be able to get energy from the system without putting any in. Why doesn't this work? And you are assuming the wires, the E=mc^2 machine (no, it doesen't exist), and laser are 100% efficient. A perpetual motion machine made with completely efficient parts is dumb, but this seems like it would generate energy, so how would the energy be lost?

[Anonymous No.1542509]

>>1542490

[Anonymous No.1542513]

Gravity redshifts the laser, reducing its energy.

[Anonymous No.1542521]

>>1542513
Does that mean that the wavelength of light emitted from any source (say, a star) provides us with valuable information regarding the mass of said source?

[asd No.1542533]

wire have resistance faggot

[Anonymous No.1542534]

I guess so if you also know the relative speed of the star

[Anonymous No.1542539]

>>1542521
Yes, if they're massive enough to detect the redshift.

[Anonymous No.1542545]

>>1542534
Yes, I think in most stars the velocity shift would be dominant. Super-massive or dense stars, I know the gravitational shift is significant.

[Anonymous No.1542565]

If you can convert from energy to matter and vice versa with 100% efficiency, why bother with stupid schemes like this?

[RoboMendel !!BJTz0OTwQdf No.1542573]

That is called using GRAVITY TO DO WORK. KIND OF LIKE A DAM.

[Anonymous No.1542666]

>>1542565
It was a good question. He was wondering where the extra energy was coming from.

[Anonymous No.1542670]

>>1542565
Because that still doesn't get you energy for free, whereas OP's scheme does (or appears to).