Perpetual Motion is not a Myth.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Butcher guy, perpetual has never meant forever, as forever is nonsense. Nothing is "forever" not even space or time.


How do you know this?

By definition, perpetual motion lasts forever unless an external force is applied to it.


Lets apply Occam's razor. The definition of perpetual has several meanings. You choose to use one of these meanings - the one which means forever. You use this to bolster your argument. Fine, I'll do the same yet apply the razor.

I choose to use the definition of perpetual that means self sustaining instead of forever. Which using the razor is more scientifically logical? My definition is. It is way more plausible and possible for something to be self sustaining than it is for something to exist forever. Infinity, is an unproven theory. Self sustainability, is proven in many technologies. Therefore you are using bad science, You cannot use that unscientific argument to "prove" perpetual motion is impossible.
edit on 24-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
So then I assume that anyone who flagged or starred the OP will removving them then? Also would be nice if they put this in the hoax bin, since it is obviously a hoax!



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
So then I assume that anyone who flagged or starred the OP will removving them then? Also would be nice if they put this in the hoax bin, since it is obviously a hoax!


I starred your post but now that I think about it.. the title could still be valid and true, only the Op didn't produce a device as promised..



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Thank you for agreeing to not argue semantics, I appreciate that, as it takes away from the intent of the discussion.

No I do not have an example of either, as neither has been invented yet, as far as I have seen.

That is not the same as saying neither is possible though, which is what you were implying. Just because someone hasn't figured it out yet, doesn't make it impossible. It just means it is still waiting to be found.

Much like all the other discoveries and inventions of human history. All I am saying is that closed minded thinking" it is impossible because blah blah blah" has been stated and proven wrong about every single invention ever made or thought of, history is full of closed minded types trying to say "that's impossible it can't be done" yet we still do. ( not saying your closed minded though, I just took your statement to be at least a little clsed minded, that doesn't make me right though)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dontlaughthink
 




You will not find this on youtube or at any patent office.


Actually...




Reidar Finsrud is today counted by many as one of the worlds most versatile artists. He works within the majority of thinkable formats and techniques. Painting, drawing, graphic and sculpturing. He does lectures at many topics, and has held his own art school since 1975. He's been thorough the fields of new and modern thinking, especially around technical inventions and industrial design. The technical insight of Mr. Finsrud is shown throughout machines like his handmade grand scaled graphic printing press, and all the machinery in context with his own techniques of casting. The now world known Finsrud Perpetual Mobile from 1996, came as a climax in the line of his numerous technical constructions. With "work years" at about 5000 hours, from the age of 16, Reidar Finsrud is today in possession of a broad experience basis at whole 110 normal annual works. If you count the "work years" and take them to consideration, Reidar Finsrud would be a 128 years old man. This may give him a little "head start".


and here's his website.
www.galleri-finsrud.no...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Agreed, I am interested to see what he has got going on, I think though from his lack of any actual detail or even a attempted prototype, that we are just trolling ourselves.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jaden_x
 

Ah yes, I had forgotten that one, I saw it 2 weeks ago in another perpetual motion thread. Very very good video, it has been running for years now, only needing rare maintanence to replace the resin at the base if I recall correctly.

Very interesting indeed, as a proof of concept, if only we could figure out how to harness energy from it now.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Thank you for agreeing to not argue semantics, I appreciate that, as it takes away from the intent of the discussion.

No I do not have an example of either, as neither has been invented yet, as far as I have seen.

That is not the same as saying neither is possible though, which is what you were implying. Just because someone hasn't figured it out yet, doesn't make it impossible. It just means it is still waiting to be found.

Much like all the other discoveries and inventions of human history. All I am saying is that closed minded thinking" it is impossible because blah blah blah" has been stated and proven wrong about every single invention
ever made or thought of, history is full of closed minded types trying to say "that's impossible it can't be done" yet we still do. ( not saying your closed minded though, I just took your statement to be at least a little clsed minded, that doesn't make me right though)
Cool.
I won't say never. We all know the scientific thought that prevailed until the Wright brothers actually managed a powered flight.... it can't be done.

That said, I have seen these characters (the OP) before on ATS, and this one looks like more of the same. All he/she has to do is show us, it's that simple.

What if the Wright bros had just released a statement "we know how to build a flying machine, but we don't want to show it to anyone." ?
edit on 24-9-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Although I have a REALLY hard time believing in this, I'm never saying anything is impossible again. I understand our physic and natural laws but if there's one thing we do better then science and making laws is finding loopholes in it. There is literally an infinity of "stuff" (for lack of a better word) to be discovered and invented.

And if someone think that we reached the apex of knowledge and there's nothing else to find and discover, this person is an idiot.

No more than 2 weeks ago FTL travels were absolutely impossible and just a fools hope. Then THIS happens.

Now warp drive is not just a topic discussed in ATS skunk works. It's now being researched for people who probably doubt it's own possibility.

Bottom line is; who knows what we will discover next week? Maybe someone will figure out how gravity works in the atomic level and find a loophole in our natural laws.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Thebel
 

perpetual motion is possible , planets rotate don't they , is that not a form of perpetual motion ?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theiceone
No more than 2 weeks ago FTL travels were absolutely impossible and just a fools hope. Then THIS happens.


Alcubierre's ideas data back to 1994, what does "2 weeks" have to do with anything

Wiki link

There is so much weirdness in General Relativity that even that outstanding idea does not stand out too much. If you read further, you'll discover that although a correct solution, it's doubtful that it can exist in the Universe we inhabit.

Just saying "who knows what's next?" doesn't achieve much. In the context of non-conservation of energy, we simply don't have any indications that the energy is not conserved somewhere, somehow. And that's that.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaden_x
and here's his website.
www.galleri-finsrud.no...

Don't you like this one better? It doesn't even waste any energy on pendulums:

Finsrud Perpetual Motion Machine Revealed?



Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by Thebel
 

perpetual motion is possible , planets rotate don't they , is that not a form of perpetual motion ?
Nobody disputes that, it's low friction apparent perpetual motion. The problem is that if you try to get any work out of it, it slows down. The friction on the Earth isn't so low, as it's losing 3.75 terawatts as it rotates, so it's slowing down. A day will eventually be 50 hours long. But we may be able to put some of that 3.75 terawatts to use with tide power generators.
edit on 24-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The friction on the Earth isn't so low, as it's losing 3.75 terawatts as it rotates, so it's slowing down. A day will eventually be 50 hours long. But we may be able to put some of that 3.75 terawatts to use with tide power generators.


Very good point. For very much same reasons, the Moon is becoming more distant from Earth, by about an inch a year, if memory serves me right.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nobody disputes that

 


I dispute it, you know I do, and I know you know better. You shouldn't encourage these guys. The definition of perpetual is infinity:


per·pet·u·al/pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/
Adjective:
Never ending or changing.
Noun:
A perpetual plant, esp. a hybrid rose.
Synonyms:
everlasting - eternal - perennial - constant - permanent


Source: Google.

-

Let's be clear with them on the fact that the planets will stop spinning one day, I know you said that in other terms but just to clarify for the rest of them. Making them not perpetual, never were they perpetual. If they were spinning perpetually we would be working on a different physics model. And unless I wake up on the ceiling tomorrow when I get out of bed, I won't expect any perpetual motion machines anytime soon.

Good seeing you arb...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I remember a big debate when the academic paper came out on here. Something about the moon slipping away or some other nonsense. (Hitting us?) But as you said, it was approximated to something of inches or the like..

There are only two members off the top of my head that can actually read the math in some of those papers.


...for the rest of us, there's sources like weekly world news.



Earth will stop spinning in 1 year.

Bring on the levity since this thread isn't going to produce anything else.

edit on 24-9-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by Thebel
 

perpetual motion is possible , planets rotate don't they , is that not a form of perpetual motion ?


Good question. Science says, ( if you choose to believe the theology of science) that planets spin because once when they were formed out of interstellar clouds of er.. Stuff, that got so heavy with gravity they collapsed on themselves and became dense balls of.. er.. Stuff. Those clouds when collapsing must have had some slight spin to them and as the Stuff collapsed the spin got faster. This they say is much like when a skateboarder pulls his arms in to go faster. They say the planets keep spinning because there is nothing in space acting on them to stop them.

Yes, it sounds like hocus pocus to me too. So, if we believe Science, Gravity, or the gravity of the cloud of Stuff was the cause of all this. This is just a theory and has not been shown to be a proven fact nor has this process ever been observed. In short, it's their best guess.

Now, if this is true, you would expect a giant gyroscope in space once you start it spinning, will continue to spin forever or at least until it's parts wear out. oddly enough, I can't find any articles that talk about this ever having been tried. They could have put one on the Moon. That would have been cool.

I did find this cool article about harnessing the kinetic energy of the Earth through.. mb-soft.com... One day this might be doable.
edit on 24-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Star for you sir!

You are quite right after all, the OP kinda did a hit and run, hit than run again, then one more hit and ran off for hours?!?!? Without one shread of anything, not even a concept for us to play around with. This is of course not even mentioning his list of.....materials? His material list. Sounded more akin to a model paper airplane project or somthing.

I love thought experiments about the as of yet unknown or thought improbable, he hasn't given us anything to do but bicker between ourselves though, as his only remarks were, less then fulfilling.

I will come back again later to see what if anything he has to offer.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Thebel
 




energy doesn't spawn from nothingness


Not so fast. You can say that at our present knowledge and at this state in our universe energy doesn't spawn from nothingness. That would be a correct affirmation but since the creation of the universe seems to contradict the affirmation and we do not have any answer to how it happened, one should be open as not to be surprised if it is proven false. We should start by defining nothingness, at present there is no such thing in our universe...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 




But telling everyone about it and actually doing it are two different things. Just because you believe perpetual motion is possible doesn't mean you have to side with Anyone who claims they've achieved it.


Not siding with anyone, I just don't feel it's my duty to give this guy a hard time...
Even if he's making all this up, I'm not going to get my BVDs in a bunch over it.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
They say the planets keep spinning because there is nothing in space acting on them to stop them.


It's called "conservation of angular momentum". Your point?


Yes, it sounds like hocus pocus to me too.


Yes, science may at times sound like voodoo to people who don't have proper education.


This is just a theory and has not been shown to be a proven fact nor has this process ever been observed.


Wait, I heard this some place else... That's right, about Evolution.


Now, if this is true, you would expect a giant gyroscope in space once you start it spinning, will continue to spin forever or at least until it's parts wear out. oddly enough, I can't find any articles that talk about this ever having been tried.


Oddly enough, this thread does contain mention of energy being dissipated in the Moon and Earth themselves, due to internal friction (tidal effects and deformation of the crust).






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join