Perpetual motion

[Guadalupe]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

:xx: :) It was a good thing I took my :xx: brake.

 

Seriously adjective, wasn't Kepler's laws that help with Newton's law of motion? Second, Newton's 1st law of motion suggest the absence of external forces. Correct? Third, I do agree with you when it comes to the "Big Bang". :xx:

 

To quote Albert Einstein, "The important thing is not to stop questioning."

[adjective]

Seriously adjective, wasn't Kepler's laws that help with Newton's law of motion?

 

Elaborate on what you mean by this.

 

Second, Newton's 1st law of motion suggest the absence of external forces. Correct?

 

I do not see how you can make this claim. Let's look at Newton's first law: A body's center of mass remains at rest, or moves in a straight line (at a constant velocity, v), unless acted upon by a net outside force. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion)

 

I fail to see how that suggests a lack of external forces. It says that without external forces something will have no acceleration. It says nothing about whether or not said forces exist--it says that if there are none, there will be no acceleration.

[C1ay]

Second, Newton's 1st law of motion suggest the absence of external forces.

lefthttp://hypography.com/forums/images/smilies/umno.gif[/img]Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

[Guadalupe]

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.

 

I said, "Seriously adjective, wasn't Kepler's laws that help with Newton's law of motion?" and you ask.

 

Elaborate on what you mean by this.

 

I found this at Wikipedia website on the subject: "Kepler did not understand why his laws were correct; it was Isaac Newton who discovered the answer to this more than fifty years later. Newton, understanding that his third law of motion was related to Kepler's."

 

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Newton developed calculus to derive his laws of motion but geometry. Correct?

[Guadalupe]

lefthttp://hypography.com/forums/images/smilies/umno.gif[/img]Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

 

Hi! C1ay. Let me understand this correctly, the object is already in motion and will remain in motion unless its acted upon by an external force. (Better known as friction). Correct?

 

O.K. What I was trying to point out was that the object was already in motion, suggesting that the object was in motion without having an external force to set it in motion from a ground state. That the object in motion is in a state of infinite. (Object in motion without a beginning).

 

Understanding of anything is dependent on definition and this may be an important note to make, because unlike Newton's 1st law of motion, the word perpetual suggest the use of an external force in order for something from the beginning to be set in motion. Correct?

[adjective]

I found this at Wikipedia website on the subject: "Kepler did not understand why his laws were correct; it was Isaac Newton who discovered the answer to this more than fifty years later. Newton, understanding that his third law of motion was related to Kepler's."

 

Ok. And this bears on Newton's laws....how?

 

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Newton developed calculus to derive his laws of motion but geometry. Correct?

 

Incorrect. Geometry (Euclidean geometry, at least) had been known for thousands of years by Newton's time. Newton's major math contribution was calculus.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus

[Guadalupe]

Ok. And this bears on Newton's laws....how?

 

 

 

Incorrect. Geometry (Euclidean geometry, at least) had been known for thousands of years by Newton's time. Newton's major math contribution was calculus.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus

 

Hi! adjective. The thing I'm trying to point out is this, we may have being confusing Perpetual Motion Machines with Newton's 1st Law Motion. Knowing this, could help us better understand what Perpetual Motion Machines really is. Looking for a better understanding thats all. :shrug:

[nkt]

The object is already in motion and will remain in motion unless its acted upon by an external force. (Better known as friction). Correct?

It can be any force - EM field, magnetic, photons, friction, impact, gravity, centripetal, etc.

[Guadalupe]

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.

 

Are this the reasons why a Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics?

 

1. Is it because the word “Perpetual” means infinite?

2. Is it because “Infinite” violates the laws of thermodynamics?

3. Is it because a Perpetual Motion Machine claims to run indefinitely?

4. Is it because a Perpetual Motion Machine claims to produce infinite energy?

 

Are this the reasons or can you add to this? ;)

[Erasmus00]

Incorrect. Geometry (Euclidean geometry, at least) had been known for thousands of years by Newton's time. Newton's major math contribution was calculus.

 

Actually, he is partially correct. Newton's method for doing calculus (which he called fluxions) was of a very geometrical nature, much more so then modern calculus or that of Leibniz. In fact, it is the British stubbern clinging to Newton's geometrical methods that gave French natural philosophers the edge in the early development of physics.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

Thermodynamics doesn't really rule it out. Dissipation can be made arbitrarily small.

 

If you hope to produce energy, that's a different kettle of fish.

[Guadalupe]

I made a call to Merriam-Webster to see if I could get a better understanding of the word, “Perpetual” and based on the information from someone in the Editing Department. They said, “The word “Perpetual”, could be used as Infinite or as Finite. I guess if one were to wait a few years, words begin to change their meaning.

 

If I understood correctly from our conversation, there may be two types of Perpetual Motion Machines. One that violates laws of physics and the other does not.

 

The First Perpetual Motion Machine is classified as Infinite, because its claims to have no beginning and no end.

 

The Second Perpetual Motion Machine is classified as Finite, because its claims to have a beginning and an end.

 

I could see why the First Perpetual Motion Machine could not exist in a universe that is Finite. But, the Second Perpetual Motion Machine could. Correct?

 

I’m still waiting to hear from Oxford. :)

[Qfwfq]

To say that something is perpetual means that it doesn't exhaust itself. This means that it won't end spontaneously. It isn't a claim of indestructibility, even less one of lasting longer than the universe.

 

The two species of PM are that which has an output of power without any input, violating the well-established principle of energy conservation, and that which simply undergoes no dissipation, this doesn't violate any laws of physics but is an ideal limit case. An example is a hydrogen atom in it's ground state.

[Dark Mind]

I like this thread :). It just sort of appeals to me for some reason ;).

[Guadalupe]

I like this thread :rant:. It just sort of appeals to me for some reason :eek:.

 

 

Great Post! It brought back memories when I too tried to invent a PMM. But, only as a hobby, to see if I could invent a toy that would just imitate perpetual motion. When I double check my schematics, I noticed that I would be the one to put it forward into motion, thus, giving it a point of origin, a ground state, a beginning.

 

Realizing this, made me understand that any attempt in designing a PMM would mean that one would have to create such a machine. And when someone creates a thing, one gives it a beginning. Just food for thought :circle:

[Dark Mind]

Doesn't necessarily mean it can't continue on forever more... :circle:

[Guadalupe]

Doesn't necessarily mean it can't continue on forever more... :rant:

 

Hi Dark Mind. If PMM has no outside intervention, it will eventually come to a grinding halt. Otherwise, it will go on forever and you would be correct. :circle: