As I'm sure you realize (especially since you did bring at least one of the laws of thermodynamics), building a physical version would require discarding some well-established laws of physics, and replacing them with new ones - which is a tough sell. If you really believe that you may have somehow uncovered a perpetual energy machine, and you think that your theoretical framework could be experimentally verified in the real world, the absolute first thing you should be doing is assuming that you probably made an error somewhere, and then either publish to something like Arxiv, and then be asking those in the field to falsify your claims. Unless I'm incorrect about what I think you're implying - that whatever you seem to have uncovered in the digital/mathematical world could be built/manifested in the physical world - then the scientific method would dictate that you provide extraordinary (and in the case of unlimited energy - overwhelming) evidence before you even seriously consider that what you have here is something. The epistemologically diligent thing to do here is to assume that you are mistaken. And if the laws of thermodynamics don't deter you from exploring this path further on their own, then you would need to be rigorous about trying to figure out why/where you're wrong. Only if/when you and others have exhausted reasonable efforts to falsify your claim would it make sense to even consider that you may have something here. I think you're doing some excellent work, and I very much support and commend you on your motivations and aspirations, and your ethical reasons for doing your work. I also want to be transparent and say that I am not, and can not falsify what I'm assuming are your implications here - I do not have the advanced enough mathematics or physics education to do that. I do, however, have a solid understanding of the scientific method and its applications. I'm communicating my $0.02 to you because I think I would want that feedback if things were reversed, and even though I don't know you personally or beyond the few videos that I've watched here, I care, and I respect what you're doing in general, so I hope this feedback doesn't come across as shootdown in any way. Keep doing the amazing work and sharing your ideas my dude - and thanks for all you do!
Perpetual motion existing in the physical world would in fact 100% break the laws of relativistic physics. You are not wrong and the math in that is not wrong! There exists two, as yet not unified frameworks to physics though. If perpetual motion were to exist in the physical world, I would imagine it would exist in the same way that I am able to experiment with it in the digital realm. I rely on quantum mechanics to do it in the digital realm, not relativistic physics. To do this in the physical realm would involve an understanding of being able to control dimensions. Therefore, it is only physically impossible as long as you do not know how to control dimensions. Sadly, I do not know how to control dimensions lol.
As I'm sure you realize (especially since you did bring at least one of the laws of thermodynamics), building a physical version would require discarding some well-established laws of physics, and replacing them with new ones - which is a tough sell.
If you really believe that you may have somehow uncovered a perpetual energy machine, and you think that your theoretical framework could be experimentally verified in the real world, the absolute first thing you should be doing is assuming that you probably made an error somewhere, and then either publish to something like Arxiv, and then be asking those in the field to falsify your claims.
Unless I'm incorrect about what I think you're implying - that whatever you seem to have uncovered in the digital/mathematical world could be built/manifested in the physical world - then the scientific method would dictate that you provide extraordinary (and in the case of unlimited energy - overwhelming) evidence before you even seriously consider that what you have here is something. The epistemologically diligent thing to do here is to assume that you are mistaken. And if the laws of thermodynamics don't deter you from exploring this path further on their own, then you would need to be rigorous about trying to figure out why/where you're wrong. Only if/when you and others have exhausted reasonable efforts to falsify your claim would it make sense to even consider that you may have something here.
I think you're doing some excellent work, and I very much support and commend you on your motivations and aspirations, and your ethical reasons for doing your work. I also want to be transparent and say that I am not, and can not falsify what I'm assuming are your implications here - I do not have the advanced enough mathematics or physics education to do that. I do, however, have a solid understanding of the scientific method and its applications.
I'm communicating my $0.02 to you because I think I would want that feedback if things were reversed, and even though I don't know you personally or beyond the few videos that I've watched here, I care, and I respect what you're doing in general, so I hope this feedback doesn't come across as shootdown in any way.
Keep doing the amazing work and sharing your ideas my dude - and thanks for all you do!
Perpetual motion existing in the physical world would in fact 100% break the laws of relativistic physics. You are not wrong and the math in that is not wrong! There exists two, as yet not unified frameworks to physics though. If perpetual motion were to exist in the physical world, I would imagine it would exist in the same way that I am able to experiment with it in the digital realm. I rely on quantum mechanics to do it in the digital realm, not relativistic physics. To do this in the physical realm would involve an understanding of being able to control dimensions. Therefore, it is only physically impossible as long as you do not know how to control dimensions. Sadly, I do not know how to control dimensions lol.