Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: odin on 21 Sep 2005 13:12 What makes you think that perpetual motion is not possible in the limit as friction tends to zero?
From: Randy Poe on 21 Sep 2005 13:18 TomGee wrote: > If no force is present, that constitutes perpetual motion, which does > not exist in our universe. Is that what this is about? Your misunderstanding of the "perpetuum mobile"? That's a common enough misunderstanding. Let me correct your misunderstanding: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) A "perpetual motion machine" is impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. There are two kinds of perpetual motion machine, or perpetuum mobile. a. A perpetuum mobile of the first kind produces at least as much work as it consumes. For instance, it consumes zero energy, but produces nonzero work. This violates the conservation of energy. b. A perpetuum mobile of the second kind is a 100% efficient heat engine, converting heat into work with 100% efficiency. That this is impossible requires more subtle proof, but ultimately has to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yes, it constitutes perpetual motion. No, perpetual motion is NOT impossible in our universe, only perpetual motion which produces work. > How do you overcome that? There's nothing to overcome. > Do you deny that is perpetual motion? Of course not. > Do you claim that it exists in that one instance? I claim that it exists in all instances in which there is motion and no external force acting. > > Do you think an energy supply is needed? What's keeping Voyager > > going, way out there beyond the solar system, now that its fuel > > is gone? > > > Well, it could not be perpetual motion, could it? Of course it could. > As I say above, it's > momentum keeps it going now, but it won't always. Newton's third law, translated into modern terminology, says that momentum only changes when there is an external force. If there are no external forces, the momentum will never change and the "momentum will keep it going" forever. Your misunderstanding of the phrase "perpetual motion machine" is as I said fairly common. See threads such as "is the atom a perpetuum mobile". - Randy
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Sep 2005 13:19 TomGee wrote: > > (Sheesh! What has happened to the quality of readers in this ng?) > Many of them are smarter than you think TomGee!
From: TomGee on 21 Sep 2005 13:29 odin wrote: > What makes you think that perpetual motion is not possible in the limit as > friction tends to zero? > > What makes you think the restrictions against perpetual motion have to do with friction? (Hint: They have to do with entropy.)
From: TomGee on 21 Sep 2005 13:43
Sam Wormley wrote: > TomGee wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > >>TomGee wrote: > >> > >> > >>>My model contends that energy is a force. > >> > >> Force > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Force.html > >> > >> Energy > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html > >> > >> Conservation of Energy > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofEnergy.html > >> > >> TomGee's model is wrong. Force and energy are different entities. > >> > >> > > > > No, it's not. Your model is wrong. > > Not my model, but that which has evolved in the last 300 years and > empirically correct. > > Lie. It is not empirically correct. What experiment was used to prove perpetual motion exists? > > > > You're too stupid to shake off the > > nonsense you have been taught and to absorb new ideas. > > I doubt it. I'm exposed to many new ideas every week. Those that > "make it" are the ones supported of the results of observation and > experiment. > > Not so. The only ones that make it to your brain are those that have been brainwashed into you through classical conditioning. Your life is a series of codewords that determine your kneejerks reactions to new ideas. That is most evident in all that you post. > > > Your ideas, TomGee, have been contracted by observations, > each and every one. > > That's probably the biggest lie you ever told (if you meant to say, "contradicted"). None of my ideas have ever been contradicted in spite of you and your buddies trying their very best to do so. You have mostly invented things I did not say and added claims to my ideas which I did not make and failed to understand their meaning. None of that is my fault, it's yours to bear like a trophy for your stupidity. > > > > In an age where > > unification is the trend, you insist in bucking it. > > > > Unification is where it's at--I'm all for unification supported > by observation and experiment. > > That must be the biggest lie you ever told yourself, Worms. That's how you define your behaviour, but your actions show that your mind is closed to anything that does not concretely agree with what you have been brainwashed. None of my ideas are unsupported by obs. and exp. as they all conform to such analyses. |