Perpetual motion does exsist

[Overdog]

It depends on which way the Universe will end. There are a number of theory's as to how the universe might end, but the answer right now is we don't really know.

 

Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

What is your extraordinary evidence?

[Mercedes Benzene]

**Moved to Strange Claims Forums**

[C1ay]

Anyway, according to the scientific perspective motion is still constant. And you say it runs into things and stop. Untrue, it merely bends around something. Further explain what you mean by all light coming to a complete stop and give a very long explanation without quoting me because I would be really interested to see exactly where you get your information and why you go against the laws of Sir Isacc Newton and Albert Einstein.

 

It's actually Newton's 1st law, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." that you're referring to but it is because this law is true that the motion of everything stops eventually. If a body traveling through interstellar space never encountered any dust or other matter, any gravity or any other external forces then Newton's law of motion says that body will remain in motion. The fact is that nothing can move for eternity through the universe without encountering other matter or the resulting forces of other matter and it is this external force that eventually halts a body in motion.

 

As for "all light" you must consider that all light is comprised of individual photons and each comes to rest as it encounters matter. Even a photon striking a mirror comes to rest and another is emitted in its place.

 

In short, no one thing remains in motion for eternity, perpetually, because everything encounters external forces. Some things may seem perpetual on the scale of our lifetime but on the time scale of the Universe it just isn't so.

[ryan2006]

Yes, motion won't change if acted on by another force, but are you considering that everything is in motion. My interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton had in mind objects not large bodies such as the universe. Scientific evidence is needed to make this claim extroadinary not a "strange claim" I was reprimanded two point for not backing up my claim with evidence. Now you say that light stops. No it doesn't. It bent around the sun when gravity proved to bend light, it refracts and it bounces off object, but it is always moving. Where do you get your information? I got mine from school both k-12 and college of which I spent 3 and 1/2 years. No, I am no expert and I realize that you folks don't like when someone comes along and tells you something different. My simple evidence has been that light speed is constant at 186,000 m/sec2 and light motion is a constant speed which means that perpetual motion exists. However, if the future can not be explained then is it perpetual if the future can not be proved to exist? My explanation; does a tree in a forest make a sound if their is no one around to here it. Well, plenty of stars have exploded light years away from us. The light won't reach planet earth until light years later so the stars we see now were born light years ago. We weren't their to see the explosion but we are now. I am a thinker, first of all I need to come up with a hypothesis to reach some kind of investigation to see wether or not it is true. So, now that I am working on a workable hypothesis I just need to investigate a little more perhaps a lifetime. If I am creating a new law here don't brush this thread off as "strange claims" because it is science I went to a religious college that studied science so please forgive me if I include God in my work.

[Moontanman]

Yes, motion won't change if acted on by another force, but are you considering that everything is in motion. My interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton had in mind objects not large bodies such as the universe. Scientific evidence is needed to make this claim extroadinary not a "strange claim" I was reprimanded two point for not backing up my claim with evidence. Now you say that light stops. No it doesn't. It bent around the sun when gravity proved to bend light, it refracts and it bounces off object, but it is always moving. Where do you get your information? I got mine from school both k-12 and college of which I spent 3 and 1/2 years. No, I am no expert and I realize that you folks don't like when someone comes along and tells you something different. My simple evidence has been that light speed is constant at 186,000 m/sec2 and light motion is a constant speed which means that perpetual motion exists. However, if the future can not be explained then is it perpetual if the future can not be proved to exist? My explanation; does a tree in a forest make a sound if their is no one around to here it. Well, plenty of stars have exploded light years away from us. The light won't reach planet earth until light years later so the stars we see now were born light years ago. We weren't their to see the explosion but we are now. I am a thinker, first of all I need to come up with a hypothesis to reach some kind of investigation to see wether or not it is true. So, now that I am working on a workable hypothesis I just need to investigate a little more perhaps a lifetime. If I am creating a new law here don't brush this thread off as "strange claims" because it is science I went to a religious college that studied science so please forgive me if I include God in my work.

 

Well then, that explains why your scientific expertise exceeds everyone else here. I bow to the inevitable and concede defeat.:Exclamati:D:naughty:

[ryan2006]

Oh please, Mr. Moontanman! I merely think about things. Just like everyone else I am trying to come up with something new. In this case it is a hypothesis. I feel since what I am writing is being copyrighted however that all I have to do is word it differently when I take it to the copyright office in some book. However, I felt like I wanted to share. Like and kid in class everyone wants to share and that is how I look at the world. Now, my hypothesis may or may not be a valid one. It mean there synthesis of two hypothesis'. First Newton Gravity with Newtonian physics and then Einstein came along and proved otherwise. Now don't bow yourself although I know you were kidding just try and work on disproving my hypothesis and don't throw this in the trash can.

[ryan2006]

Thanx a lot for putting this in the strange claims even Ludwig had a vehicle that turned out to fly!

[modest]

Yes, motion won't change if acted on by another force, but are you considering that everything is in motion. My interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton had in mind objects not large bodies such as the universe.

 

Ryan, many of the people with whom you are conversing are expertly qualified on this subject. It would benefit you to put more effort into understanding their explanations. Doing so could only help you refine your ideas and give them a good foundation.

 

You seem to be either unwilling or unable to separate different concepts or apply a concept only where it's appropriate. It has been pointed out many times that Newton's first law of motion as you keep describing is different from perpetual motion such as you envision with your rotating spheres.

 

Newton's laws say that an object in motion will tend to stay in motion until a force acts on it to change its motion or stop it. You give examples such as the Earth and Moon and claim those are examples that support a perpetual motion machine or eternal power generation. However, "staying in motion" and "generating power" are not the same thing. Generating power is a force that acts against the motion creating the power. This has been explained to you many times and I don't think I would be able to do a better job of explaining it. I just want to stress that what people are saying is very well established. It has been tested again and again and it is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.

 

You also seem unwilling to distinguish between things in the universe and the universe itself. The idea that a satellite will tend to stay in orbit until forces bring it down doesn't lead to an eternal universe. Just like perpetual motion doesn't lead to God. You are making huge jumps in inductive reasoning.

 

I know this sounds very critical, but I say it in hopes that you can adjust the way you approach physics giving more realistic and useful answers.

 

Now you say that light stops. No it doesn't. It bent around the sun when gravity proved to bend light, it refracts and it bounces off object, but it is always moving. Where do you get your information? I got mine from school both k-12 and college of which I spent 3 and 1/2 years.

 

Photon's don't bounce. If you want to understand what really happens when a photon interacts with a mirror you're going to have to learn some quantum mechanics. Here is an online video lecture on the quantum mechanics of photons and mirrors that would get you started:

 

The Vega Science Trust - The Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures - Science Video Lectures.. - Freeview Video

 

No, I am no expert and I realize that you folks don't like when someone comes along and tells you something different. My simple evidence has been that light speed is constant at 186,000 m/sec2

 

The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second or 299,792,458 meters per second. When you say "m/sec2" it reads "meters per second squared" There is no "squared" in a speed.

 

and light motion is a constant speed which means that perpetual motion exists.

 

Jumps or leaps in logic like this are the problem. It's like saying gold is yellow in color so leprechauns exist. The link that Buffy gave for inductive reasoning would be helpful. If you were to work hard at curtailing your inductive reasoning and try to think in terms of deductive reasoning I believe it would really help you draw better conclusions.

 

So, now that I am working on a workable hypothesis I just need to investigate a little more perhaps a lifetime. If I am creating a new law here don't brush this thread off as "strange claims" because it is science I went to a religious college that studied science so please forgive me if I include God in my work.

 

Having your thread moved to strange claims is not a reflection upon you. This just means your idea is outside the norm and lacks a proper scientific approach. I believe these are things you can work on which is why I gave you the advice above. Besides, you say yourself: "I am creating a new law here". So, this is the correct forum to discuss this.

 

I also hope you don't dismiss my post here as offensive. I believe if you adjusted your approach to science a bit as I've tried to describe above you would have much better success.

 

~modest

[ryan2006]

I thank you for your advice it is helpful and I look at it as constructive and definetly not offensive. I guess it is because I am growing older.

 

I would like to know how Newton would say that motion stops? To me that is impossible given my viewpoint from the religious college I attended which would probably support eternal world, at least a non-physical one.

 

My idea of an eternal cosmos could never be proved we just don't have the technology now in in any kind of future. Eternal faith is how I overcome this. So as a matter of science no I could not prove that Newton is wrong nor could you prove me wrong either. But I disagree with Newton that the world will come to a stop based on physics I believe the physical and spiritual world are intertwined and theirfore based upon faith I am convinced that motion won't stop.

[Moontanman]

I thank you for your advice it is helpful and I look at it as constructive and definetly not offensive. I guess it is because I am growing older.

 

I would like to know how Newton would say that motion stops? To me that is impossible given my viewpoint from the religious college I attended which would probably support eternal world, at least a non-physical one.

 

My idea of an eternal cosmos could never be proved we just don't have the technology now in in any kind of future. Eternal faith is how I overcome this. So as a matter of science no I could not prove that Newton is wrong nor could you prove me wrong either. But I disagree with Newton that the world will come to a stop based on physics I believe the physical and spiritual world are intertwined and theirfore based upon faith I am convinced that motion won't stop.

 

If you were taught this view point as science in college then the educational system is in more trouble than I thought. Let me guess, Intelligent Design is real science?

[questor]

What about the movement of electrons around a nucleus of an atom. If the life of the atom is infinite, isn't the movement of the electron also in ''perpetual motion''?

[InfiniteNow]

What about the movement of electrons around a nucleus of an atom. If the life of the atom is infinite, isn't the movement of the electron also in ''perpetual motion''?

 

I think you're mistakenly looking at this under the old Bohr model. Electrons behave quantum mechanically, and it's not really accurate to suggest they are "moving around the nucleus."

[questor]

I understand the electron cloud around the nucleus. What powers them and why would they stop moving?

[InfiniteNow]

Huh? Are you looking for a god answer or something?

 

Also, electrons don't stop moving, so I'm just totally confused, and I'm pretty sure it's your fault. ;)

[questor]

If the electrons are moving, what makes them move, and what would make them stop? If they do not stop, would this not be perpetual motion?

[freeztar]

If the electrons are moving, what makes them move, and what would make them stop?

 

Electrons are charged particles in an electric field. This creates the motion.

 

If they do not stop, would this not be perpetual motion?

 

That's a very good question. I'm sure someone else can answer this better than I, but I'll give it a go.

 

Inertia. Electrons can bump into other particles or nuclei and transfer momentum/energy. I'm not sure if you would say that they "stopped", but energy and mass are conserved in any case.

[InfiniteNow]

If they do not stop, would this not be perpetual motion?

 

IIRC, No. Electrons are not an isolated system. They do require energy to move, and that energy comes from elsewhere. The very idea of perpetual motion is that no energy inputs are required.

 

What you've done is equivalent to asking if the planets orbits around the sun are perpetual motion or if the suns motion around the galaxy is perpetual. They are not, and it does require the transformation of energy to make them move. That is an input to the system that defeats the misappropriation of the term perpetual.