+95

Perpetual motion is possible, amirite?

82%Yeah You Are18%No Way
thatguyss avatar
Share
0 24
The voters have decided that thatguys is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

If you ignore the laws of physics, sure.

@Friday_Night_Lights If you ignore the laws of physics, sure.

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

thatguyss avatar thatguys Yeah You Are 0Reply
@thatguys physics has been proved wrong thousands of times in history...

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

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

ali_ds avatar ali_d Yeah You Are +3Reply
@WryVendor Then why did you disagree?

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

ali_ds avatar ali_d Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Friday_Night_Lights Until its kinetic motion was lost.

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?

thatguyss avatar thatguys Yeah You Are 0Reply
@thatguys not to mention the unvirse is constantly expanding, which is perpetual motion?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

@Friday_Night_Lights And either way, there still IS friction, no matter how little. And because there is friction, there is a transfer...

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.

thatguyss avatar thatguys Yeah You Are 0Reply
@thatguys exactly. The earth would lose ennergy due to friction but gain it due to gravity of far off celestial bodies. You...

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.thefreedic...rpetual+energy

Or just go there ^^

@Friday_Night_Lights 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...

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.

thatguyss avatar thatguys Yeah You Are 0Reply

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.

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

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.

Anonymous +1Reply

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.

@scrantoncity No, it isn't. NEAR perpetual is, however. It's plausible that someone will devise an energy source so efficient...

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.

Anonymous 0Reply
@i mean, yeah. the energy efficiency of the thing you're propelling is a factor to consider. when i first read this...

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

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.