Science Forums

# Perpetual motion

## Recommended Posts

Curious, Newton’s 1st Law of Motion suggests to be Infinite (with no beginning and no end). But the word Perpetual, by definition, suggests to be Finite (to have a beginning, a ground state, a point of origin, etc). Is this correct?

• Replies 336
• Created

#### Posted Images

On a planet where almost every bit of energy produced is done so by chemical means, and everyone believes the availability of energy to be finite, how can people overlook the conservation of energy laws - did we not once use the prevailing wind to sail ships around the world? And does not the permanence of a string of energy allow us to believe in perpetual motion. My mother-in-law's constantly moving jaw, for example.

Seriously, motion IS perpetual, once begun, other forces acting on it being the only limit.

Vertigo makes the world go round (brianthepoet)

##### Share on other sites

Curious, Newton’s 1st Law of Motion suggests to be Infinite (with no beginning and no end). But the word Perpetual, by definition, suggests to be Finite (to have a beginning, a ground state, a point of origin, etc). Is this correct?

Incorrect. Infinite basically means that no value can be assigned to it--it is too large. This does not necessitate that it has no beginning. Think of a number line. Now pick any point x. From that point, x can increase without bound to infinity. Finite suggests that a value can be assigned. That is, x can increase to y and y - x == some number z. There is a beginning and an end.

This is a gross simplification of mathematical manifestations of infinite and finite quantities, but it gives a general idea.

##### Share on other sites

On a planet where almost every bit of energy produced is done so by chemical means, and everyone believes the availability of energy to be finite, how can people overlook the conservation of energy laws - did we not once use the prevailing wind to sail ships around the world? And does not the permanence of a string of energy allow us to believe in perpetual motion. My mother-in-law's constantly moving jaw, for example.

Seriously, motion IS perpetual, once begun, other forces acting on it being the only limit.

(brianthepoet)

I'm very curious to know brianthepoet. When you say, "motion is perpetual, once begun, other forces acting on it being the only limit." Does this mean that an object can only be in a perpetual state only when it's set in motion?

##### Share on other sites

I'm very curious to know brianthepoet. When you say, "motion is perpetual, once begun, other forces acting on it being the only limit." Does this mean that an object can only be in a perpetual state only when it's set in motion?

No, a body at rest remains at rest until acted on by an outside force. See Inertia.

##### Share on other sites

Incorrect. Infinite basically means that no value can be assigned to it--it is too large. This does not necessitate that it has no beginning. Think of a number line. Now pick any point x. From that point, x can increase without bound to infinity. Finite suggests that a value can be assigned. That is, x can increase to y and y - x == some number z. There is a beginning and an end.

This is a gross simplification of mathematical manifestations of infinite and finite quantities, but it gives a general idea.

Thanks Adjective for the math but, I was really looking for was more in a literary sense. Can you help?

##### Share on other sites

No, a body at rest remains at rest until acted on by an outside force. See Inertia.

Thanks C1ay for the 411 but, was brianthepoet use of the word "Perpetual", as Infinite or Finite?

##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by a "literary sense." Merriam-Webster online defines infinity as:

1 a : the quality of being infinite b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : BOUNDLESSNESS

2 : an indefinitely great number or amount <an infinity of stars>

There are additional definitions. Check the link. None of them, however, necessitate that infinity have no beginning.

I can think of some manifestations of infinity in the realm of literary theory and literature, but these are either similar principles as I've previously discussed or dismal misinterpretations. Derrida's notion of differance, for example, relies on an infinite regression of meaning (i.e. words are defined by words which are defined by words, etc.). There are a finite set of words but, Derrida argues, this deferring continues infinitely. This is about analogous "finite yet unbounded"--which I believe someone mentioned previously.

These have no real impact on reality, however, and should probably be ignored. Mathematics has shown vastly more successful at describing reality than postmodern drivel.

##### Share on other sites

Thanks C1ay for the 411 but, was brianthepoet use of the word "Perpetual", as Infinite or Finite?

From Oxford:

1 never ending or changing.

2 occurring repeatedly; seemingly continual.

From Dictionary.com:

1. Lasting for eternity.

2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.

3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.

4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.

5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

From Webster:

per·pet·u·al

Pronunciation: p&r-'pe-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; -'pech-w&l

1 a : continuing forever : EVERLASTING b (1) : valid for all time (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time

2 : occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued

3 : blooming continuously throughout the season

It looks to me that infinite is implied....

##### Share on other sites

From Oxford:

1 never ending or changing.

2 occurring repeatedly; seemingly continual.

From Dictionary.com:

1. Lasting for eternity.

2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.

3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.

4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.

5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

From Webster:

per·pet·u·al

Pronunciation: p&r-'pe-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; -'pech-w&l

1 a : continuing forever : EVERLASTING b (1) : valid for all time (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time

2 : occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued

3 : blooming continuously throughout the season

It looks to me that infinite is implied....

Thanks you C1ay. I too felt that it was used that way. For a long time I didn't quite understand whether perpetual motion machines have always being in existence or where they created from the foundation up. (Manufactured). Infinite or Finite. To be one or the other makes a big difference. Is this correct?

##### Share on other sites

Thanks you C1ay. I too felt that it was used that way. For a long time I didn't quite understand whether perpetual motion machines have always being in existence or where they created from the foundation up. (Manufactured). Infinite or Finite. To be one or the other makes a big difference. Is this correct?

I don't think it's a big difference. No perpetual motion machines exist now so none could have already been running indefinitely. If someone built one it would have a starting point, but run indefinitely by definition. OTOH, it's kind of silly to talk about it since thermodynamics rules out such machines anyhow.

##### Share on other sites

I think it can be put this way -

When a force is applied to an object, it becomes part of that object and adds to its mass.

This is to say, the strings of energy, which make up the force, are transferred - imagine a bat hitting a ball - in a vacuum the ball keeps on going - the strings keep it going without losing any of their energy. In our gravity/atmosphere limited environment, the ball falls to earth and slows down, because the ball hitting air re-directs strings to the air, moving it in turn, and the gravity of the planet pulls more strings. But I wonder if they go right to the centre? This requires more thought.

Thank God there is only one infinity. BB

##### Share on other sites

After reading many postings, I realized I wasted a couple of hours screwing around with magnets. Perpetual motion is a fantasy, but here is what's real...

The sun is the ONLY indefinite source of perpetual energy we've got. I consider it indefinite because if we lost it, everything would die on earth. Harnessing solar power is the closest to perpetual motion we can come.

##### Share on other sites

The sun is the ONLY indefinite source of perpetual energy we've got. I consider it indefinite because if we lost it, everything would die on earth. Harnessing solar power is the closest to perpetual motion we can come.

Actually the Earth will die before our sun does, as a result of our sun.

##### Share on other sites

Actually the Earth will die before our sun does, as a result of our sun.
Good point C1ay, as the sun transforms itself into a red giant, it will grow large enough to envelope the earth burnig it to a cinder.
##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by a "literary sense." Merriam-Webster online defines infinity as:

1 a : the quality of being infinite b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : BOUNDLESSNESS

2 : an indefinitely great number or amount <an infinity of stars>

There are additional definitions. Check the link. None of them, however, necessitate that infinity have no beginning.

I can think of some manifestations of infinity in the realm of literary theory and literature, but these are either similar principles as I've previously discussed or dismal misinterpretations. Derrida's notion of differance, for example, relies on an infinite regression of meaning (i.e. words are defined by words which are defined by words, etc.). There are a finite set of words but, Derrida argues, this deferring continues infinitely. This is about analogous "finite yet unbounded"--which I believe someone mentioned previously.

These have no real impact on reality, however, and should probably be ignored. Mathematics has shown vastly more successful at describing reality than postmodern drivel.

Hi! adjective, Newton’s was one who was able to created his 1st & 3rd law without math. It was his 2nd law that he applied math to. (F=ma). I did more google search and found no record that suggest a beginning to Newton's 1st law of motion.

First example to define Finite: In a game of baseball, the pitcher throws the ball, thus setting the ball in motion, to the catcher where the ball comes to rest. (A beginning, a middle, and an end).

Second example to define Infinite: Newton’s 1st law has the ball in motion but without a pitcher and no catcher. (Only the middle)

Without the pitcher, the ball can not be set in motion, much less come to rest. Correct? So, how is it possible for an object to be in motion much less come to rest? I do hope Infinite’s definition has not changed, otherwise my examples are all wrong.

I hope this helps.

##### Share on other sites

First example to define Finite: In a game of baseball, the pitcher throws the ball, thus setting the ball in motion, to the catcher where the ball comes to rest. (A beginning, a middle, and an end).

Second example to define Infinite: Newton’s 1st law has the ball in motion but without a pitcher and no catcher. (Only the middle)

Without the pitcher, the ball can not be set in motion, much less come to rest. Correct? So, how is it possible for an object to be in motion much less to rest? I do hope Infinite’s definition has not changed, otherwise my examples are all wrong.

What in the world are you saying? I can hardly derive any meaning from this, much less be certain of the meaning.

You reference Newton's laws. What these have to do with infinity I will probably never know. Moreover, you do not define by example. You illustrate by example.

Newton's first law says nothing like what you're trying to claim it does. Infinite's definition has not changed--rather your flawed understanding of it makes your examples wrong.

Hi! adjective, Newton’s was one who was able to created his 1st & 3rd law without math. It was his 2nd law that he applied math to. (F=ma). I did more google search and found no record that suggest a beginning to Newton's 1st law of motion.

This claim is just wrong. Newton developed calculus to derive his laws of motion. And whatever your statement about "a beginning to Newton's 1st law of motion" means makes no sense. If you're wondering what put everything into motion, that's called the Big Bang.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.