If you ignore the laws of physics, sure.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

physics has been proved wrong thousands of times in history...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Until the current theories present in physics are proved wrong, perpetual motion is impossible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, it isn't. NEAR perpetual is, however. It's plausible that someone will devise an energy source so efficient, for all intents and purposes, it is perpetual, but it won't be.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i mean, yeah. the energy efficiency of the thing you're propelling is a factor to consider. when i first read this though i thought it meant an object without a fuel source. THAT would be impossible, at least in natural conditions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, theoretically wouldn't you need a "kick-start" to the perpetual motion, ie a source of fuel once, then the hypothetical perpetual motion?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You do realize that the earth is in perpetual motion, right?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then why did you disagree?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh wow... I thought it said impossible. That's embarrassing...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Until the sun dies out. Not perpetual motion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

um, the planet would keep moving

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Until its kinetic motion was lost.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

how would it be lost? space is a vaccuum, and even with small amounts of friction caused by collisions of space dust and rocks would be neglected by gravity of surrounding bodies?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

not to mention the unvirse is constantly expanding, which is perpetual motion?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Space is not a complete vacuum. There are still atoms floating around even in deep space. The temperature is around 2-3 Kelvin, so there must be matter; if there was no matter, the temperature would be absolute zero. And who says the universe won't eventually collapse upon itself? Also, we don't know enough about the expansion of the universe to conclude that it is not losing any energy as it expands.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure I mentioned the small particles in my last comment for the friction.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You mentioned dust particles. I'm talking about atoms. Individual atoms are not affected the same by large masses the same way larger particles are.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And either way, there still IS friction, no matter how little. And because there is friction, there is a transfer of energy. Something must lose energy and something must gain energy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

exactly. The earth would lose ennergy due to friction but gain it due to gravity of far off celestial bodies. You seem to be ignoring the actual points I'm making and just making you're own random ones.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's funny cause I feel like you're doing exactly what you just said that I'm doing... I'm just going to stop here and finish this fucking English essay, so here are some copy-and-paste definitions: 1. Also called perpetual motion of the first kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. It is impossible in practice because of friction 2. Also called perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Perpetual+energy Or just go there ^^

by Anonymous 13 years ago

actually i reffered to the points you made several times. You ONCE AGAIN just brought up another point while ignoring my own. And I'm pretty sure every science book in the 1400's also spoke about geocentricity, so don't bring literature that actually gets proved wrong from time to time in history, I'd rather take facts.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You know, I was just thinking about this the other day. The ocean currents run in perpetual motion. The Earth revolves around the sun in perpetual motion. Hell, most of the universe is in perpetual motion. So now I'm kind of confused by the statement that perpetual motion is impossible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the universe just loses energy at a lower rate than a man made machine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No. Please read "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku. generally, he explains that perpetual motion is impossible, but other things like time travel and teleportation are theoretically and physically possible. perpetual motion, however, defies all laws of physics.

by Anonymous 13 years ago