# Perpetual Motion

## Will anyone ever come up with a perpetual motion machine?   1 member has voted

1. ### 1. Will anyone ever come up with a perpetual motion machine?

• Yep!
• No way! It would defy physics as we know it!

## Recommended Posts

On top of what drz said, planets are constantly affected (in very small ways) by other gravitational forces- in many cases moons, but even the occasional comet or asteroid can affect the planet. As such, these gravitational forces act as the equivalent of friction in space- the planet is being pulled in all sorts of weird directions by these forces.

I've heard (never really bothered to truly look into it, because it makes logical sense when you think about it) that the length of Earth's day has been getting consistenly shorter thanks to the moon slowing down its rotation.

And, if this is completely wrong, ignore me

I'm no physicist yet.

• Replies 68
• Created

#### Popular Days

The earth is in perpetual motion relative to the sun...it would seem plausible that in a vacuum some type of machine could be devised, although I haven't a clue what that might be.

##### Share on other sites

The earth is in perpetual motion relative to the sun

No it isn't.

##### Share on other sites

it would seem plausible that in a vacuum some type of machine could be devised

well, get ya a vacuum and start devising.

Na, seriously, if you could develop some type of machine that constantly spins, that is ALL you could acheive.

Assuming we have a giant flywheel in space, and we get it spinning some multiple thousands of RPM's, and have a generator coupled to it via some clutch.

So, with the clutch engaged, the wheel is spinning freely, and no power is being made. There is no (little)gravity nor atmosphere to provide friction. As the clutch is disengaged, the generator will provide resistance to the flywheel.

This very resistance is what produces current (sorta). And the trick, the more and more current you produce, the stronger the resitance to the spinning motion of the flywheel. Without further input energy to the flywheel, it will soon come to a screeching halt.

Or, in short, perpetual motion IS NOT POSSIBLE, give up, quit trying, use your mind for something possible. This doesn't mean free energy is not availible, try to come up with a more efficeint wind turbine, or maybe a better hydroelectric generator.

But take it from someone who wasted a good couple years trying to prove everyone else wrong, it is a waste of time, money, resources, mind power, and other stuff.

##### Share on other sites

undefined Posted by philbo1965uk

carefull....when you use a physics example to contradict physics they dont like it and remove your post.

##### Share on other sites

Short comment;

\

Consider the photon' date=' whether particle or wave, moves for billions of years, can impart energy to an available photo cell. May even continue for who knows how many billions of years into the future. Define eternity, but perhaps from our relative viewpoint; perpetual motion. Note; initial energy input required...[/quote']

"Perpetual motion," colloquially, is a macroscopic notion. Mainly because entropy is a macroscopic notion. A single photon that doesn't interact has no entropy (S=k Log N, and N is 1; but one photon is not in thermal equilibrium, so maybe it's undefined), and no way to increase its entropy.

a

##### Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "accelerating to a slower speed", but the only reason light appears to travel more slowly in a medium like, for example, water or glass is because the atoms and molecules within the medium are absorbing the photons and then emitting them a moment later, which results in a time delay. The photons themselves are still travelling at light speed. The atoms gain energy when they absorb the photon and vibrate more, and then lose that same energy when the photon is emitted. I wouldn't imagine that any additional energy input was required.

a.

##### Share on other sites

Not to get boged down in various "terms" the main point that I was making was that an interaction has occurred with the photons, due to various environmental factors. None the less, motion has continued.

Interactions with virtual states which do not change the entropy of the system. Still no thermal equilibrium. Once you get to real absorptions, you will see entropy increases, and there will be the familiar dissipation of energy.

##### Share on other sites

undefined Posted by philbo1965ukcarefull....when you use a physics example to contradict physics they dont like it and remove your post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##### Share on other sites

It is obvious that some work needs to be done on simple definitions so that scientists and laymen can communicate on these subjects with some hope of accuracy.

It would help if the laypersons would learn the definitions and some of the science.

##### Share on other sites

It would help if the laypersons would learn the definitions and some of the science.

Yes, but once they learned the definitions and some science, they would no longer be laypersons.

##### Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...
Physics; Pertpetual motion is impossible.

Cosmology;The universe is in constant motion.

Cancel out common denominators...

The universe is impossible !

Mystery

Technicaly the universe is possible as it requires gravity to revolve and the expansion of it outputs absolutely no energy whatsoever

##### Share on other sites

that is not true philbo' date=' im not an admin and have not removed any of your posts, however you have said things which directly contradict pyshics without any proof,

physics: agreed

cosmology: the universe is everything, one everlasting or infinite area (if you do not agree with that go to another thread, that is what we as humans as a whole believe). therefore it cannot move, because it would be moving into something else - which would also be the universe.

[i']also, just a related grammar thing, you cannot have more than one universe because universe means one: UNIverse, you can however have several multi-verses[/i]

Q) are planets proof of perpetual motion???

A) i have never though about this and would like to post this as the way forward for the thread. would a planet ever stop? even if it did escape the gravitational field of the thing it orbitted, why would it stop?

are planets proof of perpetual motion???

actually many believe that the universe will wind down and that all the planets will hurdle into the sun

##### Share on other sites

"The" sun? which one in the universe? according to this theory- will the entire universe loose energy - wind down?

##### Share on other sites

"The" sun? which one in the universe? according to this theory- will the entire universe loose energy - wind down?

I dont fully understand this topic myself i was quoting that "some" people believe n this theory. In my opinion the earth wont last long enough to find out wit hglobal warming threatening to flood the earth and burn us to a crisp

##### Share on other sites

I dont fully understand this topic myself i was quoting that "some" people believe n this theory. In my opinion the earth wont last long enough to find out wit hglobal warming threatening to flood the earth and burn us to a crisp

However if the theories are half correct the universe will stop

##### Share on other sites

except alot of those theories postulate that when the universe collapses time will run backwards

##### Share on other sites

In my opinion only I believe our universe's mathematical equation (presently unknown) is a form of eternal motion how else can u explain linear time? Do I make sense lol probly not . But I firmly believe if we can be alive now alot of time was before we were here i mean even more than 16.5 billion years we think our universe is. I lack the mathematical education to explain what I mean but I hope that soon will change.

##### Share on other sites

I too beieve the universe to be old i mean who can trust carbon dating? in the 1990s it registered that a seals fin was about 20 years old and that its head was about 50...... this was a live seal and im not even sure seals live that long. However the universe going forever.... i dont know. However if it is true we will never know in our lifetime lol

##### Share on other sites

I too beieve the universe to be old i mean who can trust carbon dating? in the 1990s it registered that a seals fin was about 20 years old and that its head was about 50...... this was a live seal and im not even sure seals live that long. However the universe going forever.... i dont know. However if it is true we will never know in our lifetime lol

That's the pronblem when you don't understand the process. Carbon dating only works if the object is taking in atmospheric carbon, because C-14 is made in the atmosphere. Organisms that take in non-atmospheric carbon will yield inaccurate dates. Which raises the question of why some idiot would bother to carbon-date a seal?

##### Share on other sites

you can't carbon date the universe

the age of the universe is found by looking at the cosmic background radiation (you do something with redshift rates and get the age of the universe (I don't know how this works other than that))

##### Share on other sites

you can't carbon date the universe

the age of the universe is found by looking at the cosmic background radiation (you do something with redshift rates and get the age of the universe (I don't know how this works other than that))

Can't you carbon date the earth? its as old as eveything in the universe... Im just learning so dont critisize me if the earth doesn't hold carbon...

##### Share on other sites

No, you can only go back about 50,000 years with radiocarbon dating. After that the amount of 14C isotope is too low to be distinguishable from background radiation.

Here's how it all works.

## Create an account

Register a new account