blike Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Here's the actual device in question: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 No, I'm claiming your interpretation of his law is flawed and incorrect. How so? I understand his law to state that the a body in motion stays in motion unless something stops it. Does it say something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 How so? I understand his law to state that the a body in motion stays in motion unless something stops it. Does it say something else? No, but it's a conditional statement. IF there is no external force. But there always is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 No, but it's a conditional statement. IF there is no external force. But there always is. I understand that and never said it didn't contain a condition. That doesn't change the fact that the law effectively says that motion would continue forever, perpetually, unless affected by an external force... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I understand that and never said it didn't contain a condition. That doesn't change the fact that the law effectively says that motion would continue forever, perpetually, unless affected by an external force... Unless affected by a nonzero external NET force, you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvp45 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Read the newspaper story. It says he held the magnet in his hand. “One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come up to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an earful of cider.” Damon Runyan in Guys and Dolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I understand that and never said it didn't contain a condition. That doesn't change the fact that the law effectively says that motion would continue forever, perpetually, unless affected by an external force... So, perhaps we can say that this particular law can never be tested (proven nor disproven) since there's no such thing as an object in motion without the influence of a non-zero external net force. Maybe it's more of a postulate than a law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I understand that and never said it didn't contain a condition. That doesn't change the fact that the law effectively says that motion would continue forever, perpetually, unless affected by an external force... Yes, but that's still not really the same as saying all motion is perpetual — that's not the context of the law. It affirms that motion stopping (or increasing) is due to external influences, and is not an intrinsic property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 So, perhaps we can say that this particular law can never be tested (proven nor disproven) since there's no such thing as an object in motion without the influence of a non-zero external net force. Maybe it's more of a postulate than a law... It can be tested if you calculate what that external force is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 It can be tested if you calculate what that external force is. I still haven't finished my first cup of coffee, so I'm a bit slow presently, but I don't follow your point. How would calculating the external force allow us to test empirically that... without that external force... an object would forever stay in motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I still haven't finished my first cup of coffee, so I'm a bit slow presently, but I don't follow your point. How would calculating the external force allow us to test empirically that... without that external force... an object would forever stay in motion? Anotehr way of looking at it is, without an outside force an object will never move... The point of this law was NOTHING to do with perpetual motion, but was to show that motion is not an intrinsic property of objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Anotehr way of looking at it is, without an outside force an object will never move... The point of this law was NOTHING to do with perpetual motion, but was to show that motion is not an intrinsic property of objects. That would seem to imply that the state of a body, inertia, at motion or rest, is an intrinsic property of matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 That would seem to imply that the state of a body, inertia, at motion or rest, is an intrinsic property of matter.... We call that property "mass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm still of the school that perpetual motion only qualifies as such if it can be placed in a zero g space and it continues to run without fuel. Anything here on the planet would either require gravity to work or would run in spite of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm still of the school that perpetual motion only qualifies as such if it can be placed in a zero g space and it continues to run without fuel. Anything here on the planet would either require gravity to work or would run in spite of it. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, even objects in outer space are subject to friction and other forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 Hydrinos, zero-point, cold fusion, overbalanced wheels, antigravity. I preferred Ed Begley Jr.'s motor than ran on his own sense of self-accomplishment That said, don't forget magical electrolysis and burning water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now