It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


REAL Perpetual Motion

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:10 AM
A scientific law seeks to describe nature, while a theory seeks to explain nature. All the laws of thermodynamics do is describe nature. So the word law is really quite valid in this context.

You keep speaking of alternatives, so other then “no its wrong,” what alternatives are there to the laws of thermodynamics?

The modification of theories is done because the old theory may not be completely wrong. But there have been many cases in the history of science where the old theories were discarded completely, and if any part of them still remained it was only as an approximation.

Is it so hard to imagine implosion instead of explotion?
How does the laws of thermodynamics deal with issues such as anti matter?
How does the laws of thermodynamics relate to how everything is "glued" together from the smallest imaginable scenario to the large scale of the universe?
How does the laws of thermodynamics relate to magnetism and electricity?

I’m not quite sure what your asking here, or what kinds of answers you are looking for, though it may just be because I’m tired right now.

I would go as far as to, rely on the laws of thermodynamics, only when dealing with todays established heat engines.

The use of the laws of thermodynamics extends beyond heat engines.
The zeroth law is used whenever temperature is relevant.
The first is always used.
The second law is used in many areas, such as which chemical reactions are favored for one example. And it makes it quite clear that you always get less energy out then you put in, as the rest is wasted as heat. This isn’t limited to heat engines.
The third law however is mostly useless, especially in heat engines. Though ironically it does come into play with the article in the OP, since it deals with Bose-Einstein condensates.

Scientific law
Laws of thermodynamics
Second law

Well anyway, I’m tired and am going to bed. If this thread continues, I’ll respond sometime after I wake up.

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:23 AM
reply to post by Lethys

I'm tired too, this seems to just end up in the defending and the attacking of the whole subject anyway.

But thank you for your very intelligent participation, I always enjoy a good disgussion.

The future will tell us the outcome of all this eventually, until then we both have to continue our ways of life.

Thanks for the "battle"

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by Lethys

There really is no point. Like I said: Hexagram 4 describes the condition perfectly.

Imagine you were trying to describe the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami to someone who had never seen the sea. Would they even believe you? Trying to argue thermodynamics with the scientifically illiterate is just as futile.

The OP wasn't really a 'misrepresentation': perpetual motion is a theoretical property of a frictionless substance. There is nothing here to contradict the second law, any more than there is in Brownian motion or, for that matter, Newton's First Law of Motion. Maximum entropy is not the same thing as stasis; well, not quite. It may be better conceived as an absence of potential gradients; there's energy in there, it just can't do any more work.

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:58 PM

The OP wasn't really a 'misrepresentation': perpetual motion is a theoretical property of a frictionless substance.

While what you are saying is true, perpetual motion does come with certain connotations that imply a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thus, the use of such a word tends to be misleading, as can be seen here.

Anyway, what is written in the article is actually similar to how an electric current can continuously flow through a superconductor. In superconductors, current flows with no resistance. In this case, it is a superfluid flowing with no viscosity. The significance of this experiment is the fact that the environments BEC’s are created in don’t tend to be stable enough to allow for this. This research even has practical uses such as the creation of ultra-precise gyroscopes for navigation.

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:09 AM
did I waste my time replying to this thread earlier only to get no response or oppinion. Go ahead argue about old science and math theories. I got a legit question. plz some input

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Young minded old soul]

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by Young minded old soul

I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say, but a constant force is not perpetual motion. No energy is transferred unless work is done, which means that an object moves parallel to a force that is applied to it. If it is moving perpendicular, no work is done, only the direction of the velocity changes.

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Young minded old soul
If you want to look towards perpetual motion one should look to magnets.

Nope. Magnets are not perpetual motion / free energy.

Magnetism is a field. It may be possible for the field to exist in perpetuity, but when you make it do work, you will eventually weaken the magnet.

Yes the concept goes against the laws of thermodynamics, but hey the world was flat too!

I hate that argument. Science never held that the world was flat. It was just a common assumption. And when science began to prove it false, it still remained a common belief.

I’ll repeat: “The world is flat” is NOT a scientific belief.

I thought about it and realized the power of magnetic repulsion is somewhat unstopable when the disatnce between magnetic poles is held at a constant.

No, it isn’t.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by MurderSmurf

thanks peeps appreciate it I was just lookin for some input on a thought I had!

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:50 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in