A friend and I are studying biology at college. One of our modules this year is called Perceptions of Science - it is what the name implies. For our assignment, we are meant to choose a scientific topic, such as a theory, and evaluate the theory itself, the evidence, the perception (what the average, non-scientific person thinks of the topic), and the same for the popular counter-argument.
I'm doing evolution. As for my friend, we're considering perpetual motion, a theory which I did not even know existed until last year (as in, I didn't know that people believed in it). What I want to know is; what's the argument for perpetual motion? Creationism has God to 'back up' its claims - and please, I don't want this to turn into an evolution vs creationism thread, but frankly I find the entire concept of creationism to be absurd, so you know where I stand.
As for perpetual motion... there's nothing at all to back it up. Not even straw men. So, how can people believe in it so strongly? What do they back up their ridiculous ignorance of thermodynamics with? It seems that people only support it 'just because'!
Disclaimer: I do not believe in perpetual motion, don't be silly.
What is the merit to this assignment? What is its value to your future career?
For that matter, what is your proof that there *are* people who believe in perpetual motion? I find it difficult to believe anyone of serious intelligence would put forward such an idea.
Someone I know once talked about trying to get a perpetual motion machine to work. I was too stunned to get into it with him. Of course, the same guy also invited me to a Tea Party rally.
Perpetual motion ideas result from people not understanding basic physics. Such devices break the laws of thermodynamics; you can't totally conserve energy, and changes of energy are not perfect and absolute. It's slightly different to creationists who have an actual belief they insist is more correct than established facts, but frequently attempting to justify their belief displays an appalling grasp of science all the same.
There is a concept, and perhaps even a few hypotheses, but there are no theories.
"Theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in common language. A lack of understanding of this distinction is one of the foundations of Intelligent Design, wherein its proponents -who are not part of the scientific community- do not understand that a scientific theory is not a shaky guess about how things work; it is a median point between a hypothesis and a law. That's why the Intelligent Design people always tout the idea that "evolution is just a theory": because their grasp of science is so poor that they do not even understand what it means to be a theory.
Evolution is the bedrock concept underlying the biological sciences. There's more evidence for it than there is for the Theory of Gravity. It's about the most powerful and documented scientific theory there is.
I once tried to do a science fair project on various designs for perpetual motion/why they didn't work.
The only viable one (not perpetual) was based on energy provided by the Earth in its rotation.
It involved a pendulum (with its mass being a magnet) being suspended from a ceiling, but capable of free movement (it doesn't rotate with the Earth/ceiling, it just sits there, never moving in any way).
Around the pendulum, was a series of wire coils, which would rotate with the Earth.
Thus, gradually, electrical energy would be produced through the Earth's rotation.
Of course, it was an INCREDIBLY low amount of energy and many would be needed to power a lightbulb, but it was possible
Dr.what, that's pretty cool. Now if only we had several million of those set up in an array! Think of the ridiculous amount of space that would require
Evolution? I won't even get into that. There's nothing to argue about evolution anymore. It just makes sense.
Phototoxin wrote: Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.
Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.
Hell, the conservative creationnist nightmare ; Climate changes helping to prove evolution.
Whenever I'm challenged by a creationist about Evolution just being a theory, I point out that Gravity also is a theory, and to prove his faith he should jump off a cliff.
Phototoxin wrote: Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.
Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.
Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?
Phototoxin wrote: Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.
Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.
Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?
I'm really not the best one to defend the thesis. But I remember the change had occured over 4 years, and had resulted in one additionnal reproduction cycle a year (I think it was 2 then 3). There was genetical evidence provided with it, the researchers had been taking material for a few years, and noticed a change in the genetical makeup of the population.
Testify wrote: What is the merit to this assignment? What is its value to your future career?
For that matter, what is your proof that there *are* people who believe in perpetual motion? I find it difficult to believe anyone of serious intelligence would put forward such an idea.
It's an assignment. I have to complete it, as part of my course. I also have to do other non-biology things as an essential part of my course, sadly. As for "anyone with serious intelligence"; I never said that they were intelligent, but they exist. As to the proof of their existence I have none; I've simply heard that it's far more popular than it should be.
There is a concept, and perhaps even a few hypotheses, but there are no theories.
"Theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in common language. A lack of understanding of this distinction is one of the foundations of Intelligent Design, wherein its proponents -who are not part of the scientific community- do not understand that a scientific theory is not a shaky guess about how things work; it is a median point between a hypothesis and a law. That's why the Intelligent Design people always tout the idea that "evolution is just a theory": because their grasp of science is so poor that they do not even understand what it means to be a theory.
I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!
@Dr.What: That sounds pretty cool.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Perpetual motion ideas result from people not understanding basic physics. Such devices break the laws of thermodynamics; you can't totally conserve energy, and changes of energy are not perfect and absolute. It's slightly different to creationists who have an actual belief they insist is more correct than established facts, but frequently attempting to justify their belief displays an appalling grasp of science all the same.
This is what I want to see! I want to see an attempt made by perpetual motion supporters to justify their belief through an appalling grasp of science. I'm sure it'd be hilarious.
This is what I want to see! I want to see an attempt made by perpetual motion supporters to justify their belief through an appalling grasp of science. I'm sure it'd be hilarious.
Gonna play Devil's Advocate here: Perpetual motion is possible. How? Deus vult!
azazel the cat wrote:
"Theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in common language. A lack of understanding of this distinction is one of the foundations of Intelligent Design, wherein its proponents -who are not part of the scientific community- do not understand that a scientific theory is not a shaky guess about how things work; it is a median point between a hypothesis and a law. That's why the Intelligent Design people always tout the idea that "evolution is just a theory": because their grasp of science is so poor that they do not even understand what it means to be a theory.
I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!
No.
Just, NO.
Political correctness and factual science are mutually exclusive. You no more have to take Intelligent Design seriously due to political correctness than you do the hypothesis that prayer will stop a bullet; and even suggesting that you should is an insult to the scientific community.
And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.
Phototoxin wrote: Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.
Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.
Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?
Exactly.
With epigenetics coming into its own now, what has been thought of as 'evolution' might not be so. I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.
I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!
No.
Just, NO.
Political correctness and factual science are mutually exclusive. You no more have to take Intelligent Design seriously due to political correctness than you do the hypothesis that prayer will stop a bullet; and even suggesting that you should is an insult to the scientific community.
And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.
This. Political correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Quick aside though, what's Russell's Teapot?
I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!
No.
Just, NO.
Political correctness and factual science are mutually exclusive. You no more have to take Intelligent Design seriously due to political correctness than you do the hypothesis that prayer will stop a bullet; and even suggesting that you should is an insult to the scientific community.
And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.
This. Political correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Quick aside though, what's Russell's Teapot?
I'm with Az and Bran with this...
Crack pot ideas and especially PC has no place in Science... all it does is distort it.
But it does! It's why the whole prospect of intelligent design is still a 'debate' and evolution is still 'a theory'. It's unfortunate, but enough people abuse the term to give their argument credence. Not as in, 'it makes sense'. Just that we have to entertain the poor misguided fools. :'c
As for evolution - it is proven. Artificial selective breeding to produce different variations on an animal is a proven fact, for example. What, Scottish Folds used to scamper derpily in the wild? They were bred by humans, by creating artificial conditions and selection. Same as the Belgian Blue - a breed of cow. Over a very long time, farmers have been selecting only the bulkiest stock to breed, and this has led to very bulky cows.
What, this just so happened to occur? This breed materialised from nowhere, meanwhile the artificial selection procedures were totally useless?
Phototoxin wrote: Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.
Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.
Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?
Exactly.
With epigenetics coming into its own now, what has been thought of as 'evolution' might not be so. I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.
The proof of evolution lies in the fact that the general makeup of an entire population shifted to adapt to different conditions. It doesn't matter that the characteristics were already in some part of the population (logically, it's a requirement), what matters is that the entire population a few generations later expressed those traits.
Phototoxin wrote: I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.
So, basically, you struggle with the concept of spontaneity.
Frozen Ocean wrote: But it does! It's why the whole prospect of intelligent design is still a 'debate' and evolution is still 'a theory'.
No. They are both theories, with different amounts of evidence to support either.
Only if you misuse the word "theory".
In a colloquial sense, Intelligent Design MIGHT qualify as a theory, as in someone out there might think "maybe it happened this way". I say they might think that, because it's been demonstrated that in practice, in the real world, Intelligent Design is just a code phrase to mean creationism without saying the word "creationism". Anyway, you could possibly say that Intelligent Design meets the colloquial definition of a theory. But in the colloquial sense, evolution isn't a theory, any more than gravity is. They're both facts of life, supported by every experiment and test we've been able to apply to them.
In the scientific sense, Evolution is a Theory, which is defined as a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". By the scientific definition, Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as a theory, because it has no substatiation and no experimental or observational data supporting it. ID is, at best, a hypothesis. But in reality, even that is questionable, as there have been no real studies or tests put forward to be used on it. So it doesn't even meet the standards of a scientific hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A 'scientific theory' should be a model designed to fit established facts, so as more facts emerge the theory of evolution may have to be altered. Some subjects have more than one theory proposed, as the set of facts could suggest either. However 'Intelligent Design', or more truthfully 'Creationism', doesn't account for current observations but is contrary to them. It simply isn't a scientific theory, it doesn't even try.
Phototoxin wrote: Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.
Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.
Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?
Exactly.
With epigenetics coming into its own now, what has been thought of as 'evolution' might not be so. I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.
Simply, four years in higher organisms doesn't seem enough time... it appears to demonstrate the power of selection, but you can see that in many examples of species from a shared ancestor. It could be that the environment is the sole cause and that genetic background is largely unchanged, or that traits previously in the population are being selected for, and that nothing 'new' has been generated in the population, merely their relative frequencies. A previous rare gene is now in the majority. A demonstration of evolution would best be shown by an entirely new trait appearing, most likely through random mutation, then that trait becoming widespread in the population, and then becoming fixed in the population. But all that takes a long time... yet when you demonstrate similar changes in bacteria over a short period of time (but with many generations) it is seized upon by creationists as a reason to dismiss it. Though that isn't logical, the creationists refuse to accept evidence for evolution over millions of years because scientists 'can't see the changes occurring in front of them', yet when you have bacterial evolution of resistance they dismiss it because it's too fast and they are too simple an organism. They always seem to have an excuse...
Four years in higher organisms isn't likely enough to show that you have more than a piece of genetic variation that is being selected for more frequently in very recent history. Even if you claim that it is 'new' in the population, your data stands upon the sample size from the population, so obviously rare genes coming to the forefront could seem to appear from nowhere. I'm not saying that is what the academic work described shows, but it's an obvious problem.
Epigenetics is another bag entirely and could explain why you are seeing new traits appearing and new genetic code apparently being transcribed, yet the underlying genetic code is unchanged. If you were to move the animals back to a region similar to conditions of decades ago, they would appear to lose this. None of this should cause you to 'struggle' with the underlying concept that evolution allows for the development of single cells to fish, etc. Though the theory of evolution doesn't actually cover ' the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures' as that is Abiogenesis which is reliant on completely different ideas and processes. Evolution is only the process ongoing from the point at which life was formed, conflating the two doesn't help.
Howard A Treesong wrote: A 'scientific theory' should be a model designed to fit established facts, so as more facts emerge the theory of evolution may have to be altered. Some subjects have more than one theory proposed, as the set of facts could suggest either. However 'Intelligent Design', or more truthfully 'Creationism', doesn't account for current observations but is contrary to them. It simply isn't a scientific theory, it doesn't even try.
I agree wholeheartedly! I know, it doesn't fit into the definition of a theory. What I'm saying is; it's so often called a theory by its backers (creationists/many religious people) that we can't simply be like "Pft, no evidence, moving on", like we really should have done a long time ago. Just to appease the Waaagh!-sized group of creationists, it's widely referred to as a theory, and in many contexts, referred to in such a manner as to imply it's a serious contender for an alternative to evolution. Which, you know, it isn't.
I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Because its a seductive idea, much like cold fusion. In fact its basically the layman's version of cold fusion.
That's actually what I believe to be, if not the very origin of religion, the cause of its longevity - seductive false concepts. Life would be so much better if an all-loving, all-powerful being was looking out for us. Things would seem so much better if we knew that we, and everyone we like, are going to paradise and everyone we don't like is going to anti-paradise. I'd love that to be true. Unfortunately, fantasy and reality are separate things.
Well, I'm not sure. We're definitely fortunate that WHFB is separate from reality.
It's a long enough time when we're not applying our temporal frame to it. For us it's 1/5 of a generation. For squirrels, it was 8 20 years ago, and now it's 12. You can tract hereditary traits in shorter spans of time than this.
It could be that the environment is the sole cause and that genetic background is largely unchanged, or that traits previously in the population are being selected for, and that nothing 'new' has been generated in the population, merely their relative frequencies.
Reproductive cycles are genetically determined. If you observe an added reproductive cycle, you've observed a different genetic makeup. Selection is 9/10th of evolution.
A demonstration of evolution would best be shown by an entirely new trait appearing, most likely through random mutation, then that trait becoming widespread in the population, and then becoming fixed in the population.
That's much to heavy a requirement. We have observed stable mutations (cats losing the ability to taste sugar, for example). If we can join this observation to one of selection of hereditary traits, then we have proven evolution. It doesn't matter that the traits were dormant, what matters is that they became prevalent in the entire population once their expressed character was required.
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Isn't that how I referred to it? Intelligent Design is the politically more palatable form of Creationism, at its heart it's the same bunkum.
Not really. ID at least attempt to use scientific data to inductively support the idea of a Creation. There's miles of differences between a thesis defending the anthropic principle and one trying to defend Old-Earth creationnism.
Some arguments of the anthropic principle are actually quite interesting.
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Isn't that how I referred to it? Intelligent Design is the politically more palatable form of Creationism, at its heart it's the same bunkum.
I don't mean at heart, I mean entirely, completely synonymous!
Howard A Treesong wrote: However 'Intelligent Design', or more truthfully 'Creationism', doesn't account for current observations but is contrary to them. It simply isn't a scientific theory, it doesn't even try.
This confused me! Because you said "more truthfully 'Creationism'". More truthfully how, if they're both exactly the same? S'all I meant. <3 I see them as being interchangeable.
That's actually what I believe to be, if not the very origin of religion, the cause of its longevity - seductive false concepts. Life would be so much better if an all-loving, all-powerful being was looking out for us. Things would seem so much better if we knew that we, and everyone we like, are going to paradise and everyone we don't like is going to anti-paradise. I'd love that to be true. Unfortunately, fantasy and reality are separate things.
Its part of it, but unlike perpetual motion religion has the advantage of being able firmly place itself outside "normal" reality because it deals explicitly with things that cannot be observed.
Well, most of them do anyway. There are a few exceptions.
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Isn't that how I referred to it? Intelligent Design is the politically more palatable form of Creationism, at its heart it's the same bunkum.
I don't mean at heart, I mean entirely, completely synonymous!
They're not synonymous though. Broadly, creationism follows from any Abrahamic faith. If you're talking to a Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Bahá'à you're talking to a creationist. Young Earth creationism is a particular form of creationism that involves a literal interpretation of the Bible and, concurrently, the rejection of large amounts of scientific data. Intelligent Design is basically a riff on the teleological argument for God's existence that is used to reject evolution by way of presenting a supposedly simpler explanation.
When I was a kid, I had no idea how there were monkeys on both sides of the world, and wolves, and bears, and most particularly, trees of the same species. It boggled my mind. Teachers never gave me a straight answer either. Being a kid was hard when the only questions you ever asked were the hardest ones.
And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.
It's still a theory, albeit an unproven one.
@Testify: I think you should look up the term "scientific theory" and then read my post again.
The fine-tuning argument, based on the anthropic principle, can be used to support ID. In as such, it can be considered a scientific theory.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I suspect that you're talking about a different anthropic principle.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I suspect that you're talking about a different anthropic principle.
Well, depends, the authors on the AP sure didn't make the subject easy to discuss. And in fact, any takes on the AP (except Bostrom's) could be used to support an Intelligent Design position, since it's basically the modern version of the aristotelico-thomist argument that for intelligence to exist in the world, it must have existed at it's inception.
And as far as evidence goes, since it's an argument based on the starting conditions of the universe, it'd be hard to provide some sort of evidence 'outside of broad theorizing'.
Anyhow, it's not like it's a position I care much to defend.
To take this back to Perpetual Motion. I see ideas for perpetual motion machines all the time, proposed by smart people who don't realize that what they are talking about is a perpetual motion machine. Most of them "invent" better-than-perpetual-motion machines and don't seem to realize it.
I talked to a guy on a plane a couple months ago that is designing a windmill using what sounded like a ducted fan system and then a system of gears to run an alternator to produce power. He was really excited because the different gears could be used to speed up the alternator to whatever speed he needed for optimal efficiency/power output, so any wind at all would turn the blades, and produce power. "You could even put the thing in your garage and run it with a box fan!". Where do you get the power for the box fan? Well from the power produced by the windmill, of course! I don't know a lot about windmills and the latest designs, so the ducted fan idea may be a great idea for windmills. I know it helps produce more thrust as a fan, so maybe it will produce more power as a windmill. However, I know a perpetual motion machine when I see it.
By far, my favorite is the electrolysis system in your car, converting water to hydrogen gas, that you inject into your engine to increase the power. I have seen this on the news, I have heard very intelligent people talk about this and get excited. This system is supposed to burn less gas because the hydrogen is burning too and gives you more power, so your car will go farther on a tank of gas and burning the hydrogen produces water, so better emissions. All you have to do is add water to the water reservoir when it's running low. This can't be a perpetual motion machine, because you are adding water into the system, that's where the power comes from. True, but you had to use power to break up the water, then you put the hydrogen and oxygen back together to extract power, then you put water back out. So, you have setup a perpetual motion machine inside the system, power in to break up the water, power out to put the water back together, you can't get more power out of the system then you put in and in practice you put a lot more power in then you take out. That excess power has to come from somewhere, so it will either drain your battery or use more gasoline to keep the battery charged. So best case, your MPG goes up but your battery is dead (have to disconnect your alternator, probably) but more likely you burn more gas, so MPG goes down.
Now, is a perpetual motion machine possible? Yes, I think it is. Is it probable? No. In order to create a perpetual motion machine, you have to remove all loss from the system, which means conditions that allow super-conductors, etc. It's like cold-fusion, possible in ideal conditions but unlikely here.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I suspect that you're talking about a different anthropic principle.
Well, depends, the authors on the AP sure didn't make the subject easy to discuss. And in fact, any takes on the AP (except Bostrom's) could be used to support an Intelligent Design position, since it's basically the modern version of the aristotelico-thomist argument that for intelligence to exist in the world, it must have existed at it's inception.
And as far as evidence goes, since it's an argument based on the starting conditions of the universe, it'd be hard to provide some sort of evidence 'outside of broad theorizing'.
Anyhow, it's not like it's a position I care much to defend.
I don't blame you. The AP argument ultimately reduces down to a faith-based argument as it attempts to explain why things are as they are, in contrast to basic principles of probability. However, as the core element is a faith-based argument, it cannot be considered a true scientific theory as it cannot give evidence leading to its principles being posited.
Well, calling it 'faith-based' isn't entirely correct. Yes, it seems pretty obvious that most of the fine-tuning proponents are scientists which aims at finding some compatibility between their beleifs and the scientific facts they have available. But the argument behind AP&fine-tuning is more along the line ''Look, amongst all possible outcomes to the universe, the chances that the randomly generated result supports life is actually infinitely small/only this model. Isn't it reasonnable to entertain the possibility that it wasn't a randomly generated result?''
Like I said, it's induction, so it'll never please any scientist. But it's not exactly faith-based either, since it's basically an 'which is more reasonnable' type of argument.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, calling it 'faith-based' isn't entirely correct. Yes, it seems pretty obvious that most of the fine-tuning proponents are scientists which aims at finding some compatibility between their beleifs and the scientific facts they have available. But the argument behind AP&fine-tuning is more along the line ''Look, amongst all possible outcomes to the universe, the chances that the randomly generated result supports life is actually infinitely small/only this model. Isn't it reasonnable to entertain the possibility that it wasn't a randomly generated result?''
Like I said, it's induction, so it'll never please any scientist. But it's not exactly faith-based either, since it's basically an 'which is more reasonnable' type of argument.
I'd call that a faith-based argument: the probability is so astronomical that it's easier to believe a wizard did it.
But between "a wizard did it" and sheer probability, no scientific argument would ever allow the former without direct evidence.
oki, well, I'll agree to that. That it's bad scientific form is absolutely sure.
Anyhow, I only read that book because I thought cool all the info on the initial conditions of the universe, and how it was much more likely that we ended up as a universal ball of iron...
My Natural Philosophy teacher had a hardon for Davies's.
Not quite Barrow and Tipler's. I didn't explain myself well, I learned AP as the notion that the universe must allow all things we perceive to exist to, in fact, exist. So in effect we can't live in a universe that doesn't support the existence of tables.
dogma wrote: Because its a seductive idea, much like cold fusion. In fact its basically the layman's version of cold fusion.
This. It's an appealing concept, and a lot of people want to think that they know better than those ivory tower intellectuals and their dusty old theories of how the universe works. They want to be the hero who solved the energy crisis and started a complete revolution in physics. After all, who wouldn't?
So, let's say you come up with a random idea one day, and you get that awesome feeling of discovery. And then you see that your invention is impossible, but you don't really like that, so it must be that all the scientists are conspiring against you to protect the oil companies from the threat of unlimited free energy. And then maybe you even build a prototype and it "works", except since engineering is part of the conspiracy you never bothered to learn about thermodynamics and realize that your prototype isn't a closed system and you're just drawing energy from somewhere outside the box. And then there's two ways it can go:
The smart inventor realizes that there are a lot of other people like them in the world, so they offer to sell the plans for their new invention and make a lot of money off gullible morons.
The stupid inventor never has this realization, and ends up wearing a tinfoil hat and spending all their money on buying perpetual motion machines from other people.
Kovnik Obama wrote: The fine-tuning argument, based on the anthropic principle, can be used to support ID. In as such, it can be considered a scientific theory.
Except the standards for a scientific theory are MUCH higher than that. You need way more than a single bad argument, you need empirical evidence and good arguments. ID has neither.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Well, calling it 'faith-based' isn't entirely correct. Yes, it seems pretty obvious that most of the fine-tuning proponents are scientists which aims at finding some compatibility between their beleifs and the scientific facts they have available. But the argument behind AP&fine-tuning is more along the line ''Look, amongst all possible outcomes to the universe, the chances that the randomly generated result supports life is actually infinitely small/only this model. Isn't it reasonnable to entertain the possibility that it wasn't a randomly generated result?''
Except that argument is nonsense. The chances of us being in a universe that meets all those conditions are 100%, because if those conditions weren't met we wouldn't be here to observe the universe. If the universe had been slightly different, we would have evolved differently and be talking about how THAT universe was so perfectly suited to our existence and what are the odds of that. Or, if the universe had been completely hostile to live, we wouldn't be here at all. In fact, who knows how many universes existed before (or parallel to) the current one in which the conditions weren't right and we didn't ever exist.
I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
Mr Nobody wrote: I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
You haven't. Either it's an isolated system and will eventually slow down and stop as friction slowly removes energy from the balls (and the video is just too short for this to happen), or it's drawing energy from outside (for example, a moving electromagnet hidden under the ball track and plugged into the wall socket).
Mr Nobody wrote: I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
You haven't. Either it's an isolated system and will eventually slow down and stop as friction slowly removes energy from the balls (and the video is just too short for this to happen), or it's drawing energy from outside (for example, a moving electromagnet hidden under the ball track and plugged into the wall socket).
Fine, it was a role around for a very very long time machine.
Mr Nobody wrote: Fine, it was a role around for a very very long time machine.
Which is not even close to a perpetual motion machine. It's trivially easy to build something with low friction so that it can move for a long time (especially where "long" is defined by the length of a youtube clip), but the result is just a pointless toy. You can't ever take energy out of the system (or it stops moving), so the only useful thing it can do is be some kind of sculpture that you can display in a gallery with no wall sockets available.
A perpetual motion machine, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It actually goes forever, and, ideally does so with a surplus of energy so you can get free energy out of the machine. The difference is the difference between living 100 years (which feels like a really long time) and living forever.
Mr Nobody wrote: Fine, it was a role around for a very very long time machine.
Which is not even close to a perpetual motion machine. It's trivially easy to build something with low friction so that it can move for a long time (especially where "long" is defined by the length of a youtube clip), but the result is just a pointless toy. You can't ever take energy out of the system (or it stops moving), so the only useful thing it can do is be some kind of sculpture that you can display in a gallery with no wall sockets available.
A perpetual motion machine, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It actually goes forever, and, ideally does so with a surplus of energy so you can get free energy out of the machine. The difference is the difference between living 100 years (which feels like a really long time) and living forever.
Well, he claimed it had been moving for a half decade, but there is some good in trying to break perpetual motion. It could lead to more efficient systems that keep their momentum longer. Mostly I think it's just a crazy hobby for old engineers.
Mr Nobody wrote: Well, he claimed it had been moving for a half decade, but there is some good in trying to break perpetual motion.
At least you found the key point there. It's very easy to claim anything you like, especially when you're trying to sell something.
It could lead to more efficient systems that keep their momentum longer.
Except you can't DO anything with it, since the moment you try to do anything with it the machine slows down and stops. I don't really see much of a market for "machine that spins for a really long time as long as nothing is connected to it". And then you have the problem that the idiots trying to build perpetual motion machines probably aren't using a sensible test program, so the chances of them discovering some new breakthrough in friction reduction faster than a professional engineering department dedicated to the subject are pretty laughably small.
Mostly I think it's just a crazy hobby for old engineers.
A crazy hobby for incompetent engineers, since the laws of thermodynamics are one of the first things you learn as an engineering student. And the laws of thermodynamics pretty clearly state that perpetual motion machines are literally impossible. Not impossible in the sense that it's a difficult engineering challenge, but impossible as in "no matter how hard you try you can not build one". Because of this little fact any sensible engineer has nothing to do with perpetual motion machines, so the only people in the hobby are either idiots or scammers.
Disclaimer: I do not believe in perpetual motion, don't be silly.
I do, tthere is an argument to suggest we have already achieved it.
No there isn't.
Mr Nobody wrote:I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
No you haven't.
Mr Nobody wrote:Well, he claimed it had been moving for a half decade, but there is some good in trying to break perpetual motion. It could lead to more efficient systems that keep their momentum longer. Mostly I think it's just a crazy hobby for old engineers.
People say all sorts of things that are not true. Perpetual motion is the dream of engineers the same way cold fusion is the dream of chemists and the fountain of youth is the dream of, uh, ...conquistadors?
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Creationism was the first idea, and was structured basically that there's parts of evolution we don't understand yet* and therefore the whole thing doesn't work, and therefore God made us, and therefore we should be able to teach the bible in school.
Over time it become clear the 'therefore God' part was problem in achieving their final aim - getting this stuff taught in schools alongside evolution. So they changed it to 'therefore something which may or may not be God (but is totally God)' and renamed it intelligent design.
*Being a really shonky pseudo-science, they didn't even bother to update their list of problems when we actually figured those bits out. When you get into a debate with a creationist/intelligent design advocate, they'll inevitably recite problems with evolution that were figured out decades ago.
Tye_Informer wrote: I talked to a guy on a plane a couple months ago that is designing a windmill using what sounded like a ducted fan system and then a system of gears to run an alternator to produce power. He was really excited because the different gears could be used to speed up the alternator to whatever speed he needed for optimal efficiency/power output, so any wind at all would turn the blades, and produce power. "You could even put the thing in your garage and run it with a box fan!". Where do you get the power for the box fan? Well from the power produced by the windmill, of course! I don't know a lot about windmills and the latest designs, so the ducted fan idea may be a great idea for windmills. I know it helps produce more thrust as a fan, so maybe it will produce more power as a windmill. However, I know a perpetual motion machine when I see it.
With the enery loss involved in blowing air from the fan to the windmill, that's just not a perpetual motion machine. In fact that can't be anything more than a really inefficient system that will quickly need a power injection from outside.
By far, my favorite is the electrolysis system in your car, converting water to hydrogen gas, that you inject into your engine to increase the power. I have seen this on the news, I have heard very intelligent people talk about this and get excited. This system is supposed to burn less gas because the hydrogen is burning too and gives you more power, so your car will go farther on a tank of gas and burning the hydrogen produces water, so better emissions. All you have to do is add water to the water reservoir when it's running low. This can't be a perpetual motion machine, because you are adding water into the system, that's where the power comes from. True, but you had to use power to break up the water, then you put the hydrogen and oxygen back together to extract power, then you put water back out. So, you have setup a perpetual motion machine inside the system, power in to break up the water, power out to put the water back together, you can't get more power out of the system then you put in and in practice you put a lot more power in then you take out. That excess power has to come from somewhere, so it will either drain your battery or use more gasoline to keep the battery charged. So best case, your MPG goes up but your battery is dead (have to disconnect your alternator, probably) but more likely you burn more gas, so MPG goes down.
At best, at perfect efficiency, combining and taking apart water is a zero sum game. What it takes to combine it you get back when you take it apart.
In your example above you're better off just using the car battery to supplement power usage.
Now, is a perpetual motion machine possible? Yes, I think it is. Is it probable? No. In order to create a perpetual motion machine, you have to remove all loss from the system, which means conditions that allow super-conductors, etc. It's like cold-fusion, possible in ideal conditions but unlikely here.
Well, that's the whole point of the concept. That with a perfectly frictionless environment you could have perpetual motion, but that no such frictionless environment can ever exist.
The best you can hope for is near frictionless environments, so the device will run for a very long time. Either that or have it supplemented by a small amount of power from some clever source.
Pretty much the fact that it started by itself would mean that perpetual motion is possible? However it isn't economical at a large scale?
No. Perpetual motion machines are not possible by basic laws of physics. Period. There is no arguing that point, anyone who claims to have a perpetual motion machine is either trying to scam you with it, or too stupid to find the error in their calculations.
The only remotely interesting thing about a claim to have a perpetual motion machine is figuring out exactly where their math error is and/or how they're cheating in the demonstration.
Pretty much the fact that it started by itself would mean that perpetual motion is possible? However it isn't economical at a large scale?
The trick here is to realise there are actually two objects acting on each other. Magnetism draws the ball to the magnet, but it also draws the magnet to the ball. That the ball is lighter and in a place with less friction makes the effect on the ball more pronounced, but it is still working on each other.
Over time the energy input into the system, the potential energy of the distance between the magnet and the ball will decline as the magnet very, very slowly draws closer to the ball. That loss in kinetic energy is what is used to replace the energy lost in the system through heat and sound as the wheel turns.
Who cares. A perpetual motion machine runs forever, not merely for a very long time. Once you start talking about anything less than forever it's no longer anything special. The laws of physics have no problem with things running for a very long period of time, and we have no problem designing things that will run for a very long period of time.
Who cares. A perpetual motion machine runs forever, not merely for a very long time. Once you start talking about anything less than forever it's no longer anything special. The laws of physics have no problem with things running for a very long period of time, and we have no problem designing things that will run for a very long period of time.
I stand by my premise. because this isn't theory but practice, as the spacecraft exist and are in motion. The Voyager and Pioneer probes will still be in motion long after we are extinct. Were they hypothetical paper designs then your point would have greater validity. Nothing lasts literally forever as far as we know, these probes are fairly a close approximation and built by human hands.
Forever is a speculative word as the universe may itself be finite. If so not only is perpetual motion not possible, but most other defintions of infinity are likewise flawed. Consequently I stand by the ideology of placing a human reference to the word perpetual. Let us look at the hypothetical ideal of a perpetual motion device, running forever due to lack of friction. Assuming we had enough handwavium to remove friction do we also remove atomic decay. Is a perpetual motion machine fulfilled its purpose when it has succumbed to entropy rather than friction? Which particular ideology of forever are you using? Isn't it better instead to see if there is a practical approach as one exists, normally no because we usually lack any practical example, however in this instance we do, we have at least five human made artifacts which are 'perpetually' moving by the human scale of reference, we certainly have no estimates as to when any of the Voyager or Pioneer probes will or even can stop.
Also our definition of 'very long' also varies. There is very long as in the amount of time you can run the engines of a nuclear powered vessel and thats a completely different magnitude of very long for the duration of forward motion of deep space probes.
Succumbing to entropy would, by definition, mean that the machine doesn't work forever. Good job, you just proved what everyone's been saying all along.
If it's supposed to work forever, and it stops, I'd say it's not working.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Succumbing to entropy would, by definition, mean that the machine doesn't work forever. Good job, you just proved what everyone's been saying all along.
I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Succumbing to entropy would, by definition, mean that the machine doesn't work forever. Good job, you just proved what everyone's been saying all along.
I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
Guess it's language confusion on my part, but shouldn't a perpetually moving machine be moving, well, perpetually?
I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
So you're suggesting perpetual motion exists, for significantly small values of perpetuity?
Bringing in the human perspective as a point does not prove anything.
Primitive humans see a man from the future, with fantastic wonders such as electricity and cosmic knowledge at his disposal. To their perspective, he is nothing short of a god - and hey, well, their perspective means that he totally is.
Physics is just mathematics. Mathematics has no perspective.
There's also the problem of a perpetual motion machine not just moving perpetually - it's supposed to generate infinite energy. An object moving through space is using the same kinetic energy it initially had and is simply expending it at a very slow rate.
Helium in air moves upwards forever.Does that mean it has infinite kinetic energy? No.
Helium in air moves upwards forever.Does that mean it has infinite kinetic energy? No.
It would if you had an infinite air column. As for the ball and wheel that I posted earlier, when would it stop? If the magnet nor the ball every actually move closer to each other would that not mean that it will be in motion perpetually? Or at least until the end of the universe? And by that definition wouldn't he universe itself be a perpetual motion machine?
Helium in air moves upwards forever.Does that mean it has infinite kinetic energy? No.
It would if you had an infinite air column. As for the ball and wheel that I posted earlier, when would it stop? If the magnet nor the ball every actually move closer to each other would that not mean that it will be in motion perpetually? Or at least until the end of the universe? And by that definition wouldn't he universe itself be a perpetual motion machine?
The ball and magnet might never move toward each other, but you have friction incurred in the movement of the ball/wheel and also in the axle of the wheel itself. I suspect that eventually the friction will overcome the momentum of the ball, or if not, entropy as such will simply see the breakdown of the ball to the point where it will no longer turn.
Arguably, you're also exploiting external forces (gravity) to make this viable.
Orlanth wrote: What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
Fine, here's a new definition for you: a perpetual motion machine is a machine which runs without losing energy*. A probe in deep space is constantly losing energy to friction, and therefore is not a perpetual motion machine.
*At minimum. The ones that supposedly produce energy out of nothing are even more hilariously stupid.
Orlanth wrote: What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
Fine, here's a new definition for you: a perpetual motion machine is a machine which runs without losing energy*. A probe in deep space is constantly losing energy to friction, and therefore is not a perpetual motion machine.
*At minimum. The ones that supposedly produce energy out of nothing are even more hilariously stupid.
And doesn't take energy from an external source, otherwise a could claim that if i I threw something in a friction-less vacuum then it would be a perpetual motion machine.
The words "reason" and "denigrate" aren't mutually exclusive. If they were, then your choice to call me a troll would be unreasonable.
No reason and denigrate arent mutuially exclusive, but one can be chosen instead of the other, hence the wording 'in lieu of'.
Anyway I identify you as a troll on account to your repeated lack of manners.
Again, you're probably approaching this from a perspective similar to Flat Earthism, and doing a very bad job of it.
While I am indeed aware of Flat Earthism, and what is behind it as shown on another recent thread; it is not to give rise to generate the excuse assume I pratice Flat Earthism. For starters Flat Earthism comes with a set cultural attitude, those who practice it do so openly and generally off the internet.
Guess it's language confusion on my part, but shouldn't a perpetually moving machine be moving, well, perpetually?
Yes, in the same way immortality refers to living 'forever' and vacuum indicates nothingness.
However what is perpetuity?
Foreverness? How do we sell bonds known as 'perpetuities' on the grounds that they offer ongoing payments ostensibly forever, are we to assume there will always be a stock exchange?
Preserved in perpetuity is a legal term refering to setting up of monuments, particularly parkland again ostensibly forever. Will these parks survive all time?
Perpetuity and perpetual are human terms. In this respect deep space programs can be seen as practical examples of perpetual motion.
This is not to assume absolute.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Bringing in the human perspective as a point does not prove anything.
Is avoiding the absolute non scientific? Perhaps, but then we need to explain vacuum. Can we make vacuum , scientists say practically yes, we can also make machine that can experience vacuum, deep space probes being one of many. However a total absense of matter doesn't exist anywhere that we know of, there are particles in deep space, which is what may eventually slow a deep space probe. So if we make a machine that includes a vacuum tube are we deluded or liars for not having real vacuum? No, because that would be useless pedantry. We have a good enough vacuum for the job is referred to as vacuum. Likewise if a deep spacwe probe is going to carry onwards long after we and our planet have likely succumbed then haven't we got a practical value of perpetuity.
Physics is just mathematics. Mathematics has no perspective.
This is where you make your mistake. Physics is not just mathematics, mathematics can be abstract, physics deals with the material and energy states and is not abstract.
Also mathematics can deal with infinity, physics in may regards can't.
When you understand that you will notice that concepts like perpetual motion can only be taken in relative terms, because in absolute terms its a non concept. Even if perpetual motion could be achieved perpetuity in a raw sense cannot as the universe is finite, ultimate forces other than friction would cause the perpetual motion engine to cease to function. Thus the term perpetual doesn't and cannot refer to what you think it does. So if perpetual is not a literal eternity why not accept applications that are effectively perpetual to a human reference as perpetual. After all we do in other fields so why not this one.
There's also the problem of a perpetual motion machine not just moving perpetually - it's supposed to generate infinite energy. An object moving through space is using the same kinetic energy it initially had and is simply expending it at a very slow rate.
A classic perpetual motion machine refers sorely to the elimination of friction. So that if moved it would continue moving. The entirely of human efforts on space exploration work on a 'can-do' expression of this concept.
Orlanth wrote: So if perpetual is not a literal eternity why not accept applications that are effectively perpetual to a human reference as perpetual. After all we do in other fields so why not this one.
Oh FFS, this really isn't complicated. A perpetual motion machine is defined by the fact that it never loses energy. It will run forever, until some outside force disturbs it, because its energy state is never changing. This violates the laws of physics, and is impossible. Therefore, inherent to the claim of creating a perpetual motion machine, is the claim that you have found the secret to how the universe worked that every scientist and engineer has failed to discover.
A machine which merely has low friction is not at all the same. Even if it will run "forever" relative to human scales, the energy stored in the machine is gradually decreasing in perfect obedience to the laws of physics. If left undisturbed forever it will eventually slow down and stop, even if "left undisturbed forever" will never actually happen.
If you can't see the difference between these two concepts then you need to go read a basic physics textbook and stop posting until you do.
Orlanth wrote: I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
No we don't. We have perfectly useful terms and concepts for machines that run a long time without losing energy.
Whereas the concept communicated by the impossibility of perpetual energy machines - that such a thing is impossible because you cannot conserve all energy within a moving machine - is just fine as it is.
No reason and denigrate arent mutuially exclusive, but one can be chosen instead of the other, hence the wording 'in lieu of'.
Anyway I identify you as a troll on account to your repeated lack of manners.
The way your comment was presented it seemed you were implying that using denigration made reason impossible, or that denigration could not be used by way of reason.
I suspect what you were really attempting to do was deflect an attack on your position. I gave you direct criticisms of the argument you made. I also suspect that what you're doing in this thread is trolling because the argument you're making is absurd.
While I am indeed aware of Flat Earthism, and what is behind it as shown on another recent thread; it is not to give rise to generate the excuse assume I pratice Flat Earthism. For starters Flat Earthism comes with a set cultural attitude, those who practice it do so openly and generally off the internet.
I didn't say you actually practice Flat Earthism, I said your approach to this conversation is very similar. I said this because your use of terminology is very similar in its deliberate ignorance and flexible mode of interpretation.
Perpetual motion is impossible, and the examples of "perpetual motion machines" you have given are not perpetual motion machines. It is really that simple.
Under current mathematical models we can say with some degree of certainty that the universe is indeed infinite or at least expanding infinitely at rate faster then the speed of light
Oh FFS, this really isn't complicated. A perpetual motion machine is defined by the fact that it never loses energy. It will run forever, until some outside force disturbs it, because its energy state is never changing. This violates the laws of physics, and is impossible. Therefore, inherent to the claim of creating a perpetual motion machine, is the claim that you have found the secret to how the universe worked that every scientist and engineer has failed to discover.
It isn't complicated at all. We have different values of forever, we can take it literally or practicality. Taken literally its a non-issue, end of. Because we cannot fathom a perpetual motion device, or anything else that can survive entropy.
We can however look at this practically. You are confused because you cant see beyond the literal concept to the practical, so let me help you.
What does immortality mean. 'Live forever'? How anal do you want to be over the concept of forever. We have a concept of immortality and that concept is expressed in our fiction and even as a hard science research goal. Some credible scientists believe that if we master cellular regeneration technology we have clinical immortality.
So are you now going to turn around and say 'its not immortality because you wont live forever'. That would be a joke, we have a concept of immortality which despite the literalist meaning is not absolute.
If you can't see the difference between these two concepts then you need to go read a basic physics textbook and stop posting until you do.
The same practical interpretation we use for the concept of immortal can and is used for perpetual. I gave examples where something ongoing and intended never to end is known as perpetual. Are you now going to whine 'why don't all these lawyers and park administrators read physics books like I do'.
Reading a book is not enough, you need also to think.
Many forms of space travel include a non-literal practical application of perpetual motion, because it does. Aeroplanes drop out the sky if not frequently refuelled, satellites don't.
We don't actually know that the universe is finite. It may well be infinite.
Dimensionally we are not sure, possibly that will end in a Big Crunch.
But we can also succumb entirely to entropy known as the Big Freeze.
Either places an end to all things material. A machine built with a literalist interpretation of perpetual characteristics will eventually succumb to one fate or the other.
In this respect all things have a finite end, though the dimensions of the universe may well extend forever, literally.
So are you now going to turn around and say 'its not immortality because you wont live forever'. That would be a joke, we have a concept of immortality which despite the literalist meaning is not absolute.
I like how you're pretending that there is a fixed concept of immortality.
Guess it's language confusion on my part, but shouldn't a perpetually moving machine be moving, well, perpetually?
Yes, in the same way immortality refers to living 'forever' and vacuum indicates nothingness.
Actually, no. First of all - there is no such thing as immortality, either. Before I get into fantasy, I'd like to point out that perpetual motion, along with everything, is possible or impossible entirely at the discretion of the author of whatever media you happen to be watching/reading/etc. Did you know that 'elf' indicates elves? Oh my!
Immortal beings in fiction are always shown to be just that - immortal. In a similar way to perpetual motion, they will simply last forever. However, for drama's sake, these beings often die or are otherwise destroyed. Elves, for example, are immortal but are susceptible to wounds. It could be stated, then, that the meaning of immortality is similar to that of perpetual motion - an immortal will live forever assuming it is not acted upon by an external force capable of destroying it.
We don't call particularly tough tank armour 'invulnerable', not unless we're adding artistic flair and are being non-scientific. We don't call diamonds that, either. Absolute concepts exist as concepts - indestructibility, infinity, immortality. Many concepts exist that are nothing more than concepts (like perpetual motion, lol).
However what is perpetuity?
Foreverness? How do we sell bonds known as 'perpetuities' on the grounds that they offer ongoing payments ostensibly forever, are we to assume there will always be a stock exchange?
Preserved in perpetuity is a legal term refering to setting up of monuments, particularly parkland again ostensibly forever. Will these parks survive all time?
Perpetuity and perpetual are human terms. In this respect deep space programs can be seen as practical examples of perpetual motion.
This is not to assume absolute.
Legal terms are not physics terms. Physics does not deal with 'good enough'. I mean, come on.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Bringing in the human perspective as a point does not prove anything.
Is avoiding the absolute non scientific? Perhaps, but then we need to explain vacuum. Can we make vacuum , scientists say practically yes, we can also make machine that can experience vacuum, deep space probes being one of many. However a total absense of matter doesn't exist anywhere that we know of, there are particles in deep space, which is what may eventually slow a deep space probe. So if we make a machine that includes a vacuum tube are we deluded or liars for not having real vacuum? No, because that would be useless pedantry. We have a good enough vacuum for the job is referred to as vacuum. Likewise if a deep spacwe probe is going to carry onwards long after we and our planet have likely succumbed then haven't we got a practical value of perpetuity.
Avoiding the absolute? Avoiding anything is non-scientific. Science doesn't just say "Eh, good enough" and move on. That's stupid. We attempt at vacuum. We don't just say that life on Earth has been around for eternity because it's easier than saying "a really long time". And actually? There's a difference between vacuum and total vacuum, just like there is a difference between cold and total cold. Or what, shall we say that liquid nitrogen is at absolute zero, because it's easier than saying "really freaking cold"? I mean, it's so cold that it'd kill you, so why not just say it's infinitely cold. Why not say that a star has infinite heat while we're at it.
Physics is just mathematics. Mathematics has no perspective.
This is where you make your mistake. Physics is not just mathematics, mathematics can be abstract, physics deals with the material and energy states and is not abstract.
Also mathematics can deal with infinity, physics in may regards can't.
When you understand that you will notice that concepts like perpetual motion can only be taken in relative terms, because in absolute terms its a non concept. Even if perpetual motion could be achieved perpetuity in a raw sense cannot as the universe is finite, ultimate forces other than friction would cause the perpetual motion engine to cease to function. Thus the term perpetual doesn't and cannot refer to what you think it does. So if perpetual is not a literal eternity why not accept applications that are effectively perpetual to a human reference as perpetual. After all we do in other fields so why not this one.
And here you cite reasons as to why perpetual motion cannot exist, while simultaneously saying that it can? It can because it can't, is your reasoning. Lol. And physics is still just maths.
There's also the problem of a perpetual motion machine not just moving perpetually - it's supposed to generate infinite energy. An object moving through space is using the same kinetic energy it initially had and is simply expending it at a very slow rate.
A classic perpetual motion machine refers sorely to the elimination of friction. So that if moved it would continue moving. The entirely of human efforts on space exploration work on a 'can-do' expression of this concept.
Did you know that turtles can live like, 200+ years? Wow! That's a lot. As a biologist, I will say that turtles can live forever, because 200+ years is so long that I'll be dead by the time the turtle gets a free travel pass!
So if perpetual is not a literal eternity why not accept applications that are effectively perpetual to a human reference as perpetual.
You heard me, everyone. The official scientific opinion is that turtles are totally immortal. How cool is that? Meanwhile, the Earth is infinitely large and I have an infinite number of cells in my body. Cells are so small that they don't even exist! They have zero mass, for real. Also, I don't think it's dogma who is the troll, here...
So are you now going to turn around and say 'its not immortality because you wont live forever'. That would be a joke, we have a concept of immortality which despite the literalist meaning is not absolute.
I like how you're pretending that there is a fixed concept of immortality.
I am pretending nothing, I am instead reasoning. Do we have a concept of immortality without looking at the immortal necessarily transcending all time, except in religion.
The answer is we do. We also have concepts of people who are classifiable as immortal and yet still killable.
You should read the post more carefully I am actually stating that the concept of immortality is not fixed. Yet it has a literal application, amongst others. The concept is perpetual is likewise not fixed, and there are extant uses of perpetual that are definitely not literal. As it can be taken literally and non literally I am applying a non fixed concept of perpetuity as well as immortality.
therefore In terms of real world (or off world) machines a real world (non literal) application is best.
I am pretending nothing, I am instead reasoning. Do we have a concept of immortality without looking at the immortal necessarily transcending all time, except in religion.
The answer is we do. We also have concepts of people who are classifiable as immortal and yet still killable.
You should read the post more carefully I am actually stating that the concept of immortality is not fixed. Yet it has a literal application, amongst others. The concept is perpetual is likewise not fixed, and there are extant uses of perpetual that are definitely not literal. As it can be taken literally and non literally I am applying a non fixed concept of perpetuity as well as immortality.
Well... personally, I've never died. Therefore, I am immortal.
wat
We don't have people who are immortal. We've had leaders who have claimed themselves to be so, and their followers have believed them so because they worshipped them as gods. Are they still alive? No!
I understand what you mean, but you're being ridiculous about it. It's science - terms mean what they mean. There's no "ah, but in the practical sense". We mean words as literally as literal comes.
EDIT: Why does my quote button not work for you? D:
How about posting a video where they actually watch it long enough for it to stop instead of just a few seconds? I found the "perpetual train" one especially amusing, of course you can get it to roll "uphill"* on the diverging track, but how exactly are you going to keep it moving? Unless your idea of "perpetual" is "reaches the end of my short track" you're going to need to bring the tracks back together, at which point you lose all the energy you gained rolling "uphill" and stop.
*The end points of the cones are rolling uphill, but the center of gravity of the weight is moving downward allowing potential energy to be converted into kinetic energy.
Orlanth wrote: It isn't complicated at all. We have different values of forever, we can take it literally or practicality. Taken literally its a non-issue, end of. Because we cannot fathom a perpetual motion device, or anything else that can survive entropy.
We can however look at this practically. You are confused because you cant see beyond the literal concept to the practical, so let me help you.
No, we take the concept as what it is. Perpetual motion is a comment on entropy. That concept is 'because there is entropy, no system can run forever without an energy input from some other source, and so there cannot be perpetual, self-sustaining motion'.
The concept is perpetual is likewise not fixed, and there are extant uses of perpetual that are definitely not literal. As it can be taken literally and non literally I am applying a non fixed concept of perpetuity as well as immortality.
So literal is literal when you want it to be literal?
I understand what you mean, but you're being ridiculous about it. It's science - terms mean what they mean. There's no "ah, but in the practical sense". We mean words as literally as literal comes.
Except that we don't. We use non literal versions of the same terms frequently, especially where the literal terms have no meaning. Perpetual motion is a non concept when taken literally because of entropy, entropy will stop a perpetual motion device without having to use friction to do it, therefore the device doesn't have infinite duration therefore it is not perpetual. Consequently we have to look at the wording of perpetual for the concept to remain scientific. Supposed scientific concepts that don't stand up to logic are not scientific concepts. therefore to even discuss perpetual motion you have to take the literal forever out of the equation. Doing so puts us in good company, we can discuss vacuum as a scientific concept, and a practical concept both and neither demands a total absence of material in the volume. We don't get anal over the word vacuum, we can discuss vacuum in a scientific milieu without having to envision a literal vacuum, why should we get anal over the word perpetual.
As for trolling. Trolling is based on lack of manners, not whether one agrees over the content. Disagreeing with you doesn't make one a troll.
The concept is perpetual is likewise not fixed, and there are extant uses of perpetual that are definitely not literal. As it can be taken literally and non literally I am applying a non fixed concept of perpetuity as well as immortality.
So literal is literal when you want it to be literal?
Yes indeed, but not as you imply personally by me alone on a whim.
I have given plenty of examples when concepts that can be taken literally and non literally both are take one way or the other by people in the scientific and non scientific fields alike.
Where the literal definition has no meaning or no value a non literal version is preferred and used.
Orlanth wrote: Perpetual motion is a non concept when taken literally because of entropy, entropy will stop a perpetual motion device without having to use friction to do it, therefore the device doesn't have infinite duration therefore it is not perpetual.
Except we HAVE defined "perpetual" in other terms. A perpetual motion machine is a machine which operates without losing energy or drawing energy from outside the machine. It's called a "perpetual" motion machine because, in the absence of damage to the machine or any other kind of disturbance, it will run forever. The eventual end of the universe is "damage to the machine", so it doesn't count.
By that definition, the deep space probe is NOT a perpetual motion machine because it is slowly losing energy due to friction. Even if the universe ends (or the probe crashes into a star) before its kinetic energy reaches zero it is still declining in perfect obedience to the laws of physics.
Orlanth wrote: Except that we don't. We use non literal versions of the same terms frequently, especially where the literal terms have no meaning. Perpetual motion is a non concept when taken literally because of entropy, entropy will stop a perpetual motion device without having to use friction to do it, therefore the device doesn't have infinite duration therefore it is not perpetual.
You realise at this point your argument is 'when perpetual motion uses the actual meaning of perpetual then perpetual motion can't exist, therefore it is best to use some other meaning for perpetual'.
Dude, you posted a picture of a satellite and said it was something it was not. That's all. It's okay. No need for all this nonsense that's followed.
Orlanth wrote: Perpetual motion is a non concept when taken literally because of entropy, entropy will stop a perpetual motion device without having to use friction to do it, therefore the device doesn't have infinite duration therefore it is not perpetual.
Except we HAVE defined "perpetual" in other terms. A perpetual motion machine is a machine which operates without losing energy or drawing energy from outside the machine. It's called a "perpetual" motion machine because, in the absence of damage to the machine or any other kind of disturbance, it will run forever. The eventual end of the universe is "damage to the machine", so it doesn't count.
By that definition, the deep space probe is NOT a perpetual motion machine because it is slowly losing energy due to friction. Even if the universe ends (or the probe crashes into a star) before its kinetic energy reaches zero it is still declining in perfect obedience to the laws of physics.
Then explain why we have vacuum experiments without vacuum.
Shouldn't they be called something else, like ultra low density pressure or some such. No, we use 'vacuum', its a perfectly good word even though its a literal scientific description.
Sometimes close is good enough.
You realise at this point your argument is 'when perpetual motion uses the actual meaning of perpetual then perpetual motion can't exist, therefore it is best to use some other meaning for perpetual'.
A point, not the only point. And guess what, we do.
Many things are listed as 'perpetual' that are not literally so. I gave examples in previous posts.
This thread is about the scientific idea of perpetual motion.
We have so-called vacuum experiments because it is possible to achieve a vacuum good enough for experimental purposes, and scientists describe them as such.
That doesn't validate the use of "perpetual motion" for a machine that only runs down very slowly, when the scientific definition of perpetual motion is a machine that doesn't run down at all.
If you take words and apply them differently to the way that scientists use them, it isn't surprising that you come up with different meanings.
If you take words and apply them differently to the way that scientists use them, it isn't surprising that you come up with different meanings.
You are assuming there is a standard set definition of perpetual motion where in fact there isn't. It has multiple definitions and multiple classifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Why not add one more, for real life objects which appear to have the characteristics of perpetual motion within a human societal timeframe. If the deep space probes will still run when we are extinct why not add that as a form of practical perpetual motion in the same way that a near vacuum is considered good enough to be considered vacuum.
Flat Earthism is being exhibited here. You are trolling.
You tell me how is this Flat Earthism and I will tell you why its not trolling.
Trolling is about ill manners and deliberate personal offense not disagreement over content. I don't troll Dakka, I like to argue on the issues respectfully and without resorting to namecalling. It would be nice if you tried the same.
Flat Earthers believe that deep space probes are lies anyway, so it would be odd indeed for my argument to be Flat Earthism.
Orlanth wrote: Why not add one more, for real life objects which appear to have the characteristics of perpetual motion within a human societal timeframe. If the deep space probes will still run when we are extinct why not add that as a form of practical perpetual motion in the same way that a near vacuum is considered good enough to be considered vacuum.
Because it's not a useful definition.
The concept of a "perpetual motion machine" inherently includes the idea that it's a new discovery that does something previously thought impossible. Broadening the concept to include things everyone agrees are possible completely contradicts that part of the definition. You can make your special definition of "perpetual motion machine", but you're no longer saying anything useful with it, and there's no reason to make the change except that you want to win a forum argument.
You tell me how is this Flat Earthism and I will tell you why its not trolling.
The point is you're taking an obvious devil's advocate position on a stupid subject and defending it to the death by re-defining terms to suit yourself. Just like 99% of flat earth "believers" are just doing it to see if they can win a forum argument.
Orlanth wrote: A point, not the only point. And guess what, we do.
Many things are listed as 'perpetual' that are not literally so. I gave examples in previous posts.
Lots of words have lots of different meanings in different contexts, but when you have specific context you use that meaning.
In this context the meaning of the word 'perpetual' is well known, well understood, and effectively explains a key scientific principle about entropy.
You tell me how is this Flat Earthism and I will tell you why its not trolling.
You are clearly and purposefully misusing words and concepts in order force into existence a definition of perpetual motion that is consistent with the laws of physics. You are doing this only because you want the phrase "perpetual motion" to be a useful descriptor with respect to reality*. Flat Earthers, in a very similar way, attempt to revise terminology so that the Earth can be correctly referred to as flat. The distinction between you and them is that they do this as a matter of sport within a group of people that understand what they're doing as sport.
*Or you're trolling, which is a more flattering behavior.
Trolling is about ill manners and deliberate personal offense not disagreement over content. I don't troll Dakka, I like to argue on the issues respectfully and without resorting to namecalling. It would be nice if you tried the same.
No, trolling is an attempt to elicit a particular response from someone else by being disingenuous. Making a deliberately ridiculous argument in order to annoy people is trolling.
Flat Earthers believe that deep space probes are lies anyway, so it would be odd indeed for my argument to be Flat Earthism.
The method of argument you are employing is essentially the same one employed by Flat Earth members, many of whom do not actually believe the premises they begin with but instead argue for the enjoyment of argument. Another descriptive term for this behavior would be "sophism".
You tell me how is this Flat Earthism and I will tell you why its not trolling.
You are clearly and purposefully misusing words and concepts in order force into existence a definition of perpetual motion that is consistent with the laws of physics. You are doing this only because you want the phrase "perpetual motion" to be a useful descriptor with respect to reality*. Flat Earthers, in a very similar way, attempt to revise terminology so that the Earth can be correctly referred to as flat. The distinction between you and them is that they do this as a matter of sport within a group of people that understand what they're doing as sport.
Redefining concepts so that they make sense within the laws of physics and are useful is a laudable goal. We do this all the time its part of how language evolves.
Flat Earther's methodology is a denial of evidence under the mantle of conspiracy and manufactured counter-evidence.
No, trolling is an attempt to elicit a particular response from someone else by being disingenuous. Making a deliberately ridiculous argument in order to annoy people is trolling.
Except that my argument is not deliberately ridiculous, its to make a turn an extant nonsense definition and reuse it in a manner that makes sense. We do this before with 'vacuum' and 'immortality', I am doing so here.
Were I to flatly deny the friction drag effects of deep space in contradiction of the evidence that might be annoying, but I dont do so. Even you admitted that I was trying to make good use of a term that has no scientific value under its prior meaning.
Flat Earthers believe that deep space probes are lies anyway, so it would be odd indeed for my argument to be Flat Earthism.
The method of argument you are employing is essentially the same one employed by Flat Earth members, many of whom do not actually believe the premises they begin with but instead argue for the enjoyment of argument. Another descriptive term for this behavior would be "sophism".
You could catch anyone here on that. Why do we have these discussions but because we enjoy being here.
Orlanth wrote: Redefining concepts so that they make sense within the laws of physics and are useful is a laudable goal. We do this all the time its part of how language evolves.
Except the current definition works just fine. It refers to a class of inventions which make a specific claim, but don't work for a specific reason. The fact that it's primarily used to describe how something fails does not change the fact that it's a very useful concept with a clear definition.
All your change does is remove all meaning from the term by applying it to an entirely different class of objects, for the sole purpose of being able to apply the term more broadly. It's like saying we should broaden the term "white" to include "dark gray" because it would include more things.
Except that my argument is not deliberately ridiculous, its to make a turn an extant nonsense definition and reuse it in a manner that makes sense. We do this before with 'vacuum' and 'immortality', I am doing so here.
Except we didn't do it with those terms. Immortality still has the exact same definition (you will live forever until something external kills you, whether that "something" is a gun or the end of the universe), and vacuum only has a "different" meaning because it's easier to just say "vacuum" instead of "almost vacuum but close enough for this purpose". Everyone still understands that it's not true vacuum, and nobody would ever argue that a true vacuum is possible because we used a 'vacuum' for an experiment.
You could catch anyone here on that. Why do we have these discussions but because we enjoy being here.
Because we actually believe the points we're arguing?
Your argument seems exactly like flat earthism in that you only care about winning the forum argument, no matter how many terms you have to redefine for the sole purpose of winning.
I redefined one term, the others were already redefined, or more accurately softened for use.
Were space probes hypothetical then there would be no excuse to soften the terms, but as they are real objects moving at with no appreciable deceleration compared to the lifespan of our species.
You choose to accept practical vacuum, and practical immortality as terms but not practical perpetual motion. Fine, fair enough, but it's an arbitrary distinction as a precedent has been made.
My argument differs from Flat Earthism on a number of ways. Flat Earthism is about a culture of scientific denial, I am not denying physics. As for wishing to win the argument, you can throw this back at yourself also, is it not why you reply. I have a reason to stand my ground though. It was not only my premise that was under attack but my personality by comments many of which were intended to denigrate the person not the argument. That is not acceptable behaviour, but in addition as I actually have a rational argument, just one that you don't agree with, I consider it best to reiterate it so that it is seen in fair light.. Others such as yourself have argued your point of view in a more acceptable manner, rather than responding with insults and accusations. Your input is welcome and respectfully received.
Orlanth wrote: Were space probes hypothetical then there would be no excuse to soften the terms, but as they are real objects moving at with no appreciable deceleration compared to the lifespan of our species.
Except we have a perfectly good way of describing those space probes, and have no need to redefine "perpetual motion machine" to include them.
You choose to accept practical vacuum, and practical immortality as terms but not practical perpetual motion. Fine, fair enough, but its an arbitrary distinction.
No I didn't. Try looking more carefully at who you're talking to when you post?
You choose to accept practical vacuum, and practical immortality as terms but not practical perpetual motion. Fine, fair enough, but its an arbitrary distinction.
No I didn't. Try looking more carefully at who you're talking to when you post?
I was replying directly to your post. You accept practical vacuum:
because it's easier to just say "vacuum" instead of "almost vacuum but close enough for this purpose".
Thus to take an absolute concept and turn it into a practical achievable one in a scientific milieu.
Thus the precedent has been set to take unachievable absolute values and redefine them to fit accomplishable goals. This is a flat fact.
The decision to accept a loosening of other absolute scientific terms is arbitrary. You choose to reject a softening of perpetual motion, I do not on the grounds that were have a material example of a something 'close enough for this purpose'.
I am not saying your wrong, it isn't a right or wrong issue, it's a semantic issue, like the softening of the word vacuum is a cultural choice not a scintific one, but one accepted as covering various scientific realities based on whether a valuie is close enough to the absolute value for human observation or utility. Deep space probes have a similar dynamic, after a fashion they touch the eternal in a way absent from anything else but mathematics and religion.
Hence my call for a practical definition.
Orlanth wrote: I was replying directly to your post. You accept practical vacuum:
because it's easier to just say "vacuum" instead of "almost vacuum but close enough for this purpose".
Thus to take an absolute concept and turn it into a practical achievable one in a scientific milieu.
Thus the precedent has been set to take unachievable absolute values and redefine them to fit accomplishable goals. This is a flat fact.
Oh FFS. Why is this so hard for you?
1) There is absolutely no changing of the term to redefine an unachievable absolute into an accomplishable goal. All scientists are doing with 'vacuum' is recognizing the obvious fact that it's easier to say 'vacuum' instead of 'almost a vacuum but not really, but still close enough for this purpose' when you have to refer to the concept a hundred times in a paper. Everyone knows that they're really saying the latter, they just say it with fewer words. If it makes it easier for you, think of 'vacuum' as really being two words: 'vacuum' and 'v4cuum', except written with a keyboard with no '4' key and scientists are smart enough to recognize which is which.
2) No scientist would ever claim that a true vacuum is possible based on that "redefinition", while you are redefining "perpetual" for the sake of making perpetual motion machines "possible".
The decision to accept a loosening of other absolute scientific terms is arbitrary. You choose to reject a softening of perpetual motion, I do not on the grounds that were have a material example of a something 'close enough for this purpose'.
Except there is no "close enough" in this case.
A perpetual motion machine is impossible because it claims to ignore (or worse, reverse) friction/entropy/etc. It isn't close enough to put a probe into an area where those factors are low because it's operating under entirely different physical principles from a true perpetual motion machine. The probe does not in any way ignore friction, it merely experiences very little of it.
Here's an analogy for you: psychic levitation is impossible. However, I can jump, which is "close enough" to levitation. Should we now say that levitation is possible?
1) There is absolutely no changing of the term to redefine an unachievable absolute into an accomplishable goal. All scientists are doing with 'vacuum' is recognizing the obvious fact that it's easier to say 'vacuum' instead of 'almost a vacuum but not really, but still close enough for this purpose' when you have to refer to the concept a hundred times in a paper. Everyone knows that they're really saying the latter, they just say it with fewer words.
2) No scientist would ever claim that a true vacuum is possible based on that "redefinition", while you are redefining "perpetual" for the sake of making perpetual motion machines "possible".
1. The term changes because the term changes.
2. I am on the same seat as the scientist who understands the word 'vacuum' doesn't mean literal vacuum. I am not advocating that practical perpetual motion is literal perpetual motion.
Actually 'close enough' is what we count on.
we rely on close enough vacuum to work a laser in an experiment.
We rely on close enough perpetual motion for the deep space probes.
On an engineering level when a factor is negligible its ignored. A physicist may not like calling the vacuum tube a vacuum tube at first, but on an enginerringing level its a vacuum.
Space probes are close enough in this case, they had one large input of kinetic energy in the 1970's, yet they are still moving, and are projected to still be moving long after we are extinct. Why is that so hard for you?
Here's an analogy for you: psychic levitation is impossible. However, I can jump, which is "close enough" to levitation. Should we now say that levitation is possible?
Only if you sustain the jump, then it would be 'close enough' to be levitation.
Orlanth wrote: 1. The term changes because the term changes.
Except the term ISN'T changing. Like I said, think of it as two separate terms that just happen to be represented using the same letters, and scientists are smart enough to know which is which from context.
2. I am on the same seat as the scientist who understands the word 'vacuum' doesn't mean literal vacuum. I am not advocating that practical perpetual motion is literal perpetual motion.
Then that makes it even more pointless. If were doing that you'd be wrong, but at least you'd have a goal. All you're actually doing then is expanding "perpetual" to cover something new just for the sake of making "perpetual" cover more things.
Actually 'close enough' is what we count on.
Read again, I didn't say we never use 'close enough', I said this isn't a case of 'close enough'.
A perpetual motion machine claims to generate energy out of nothing to offset friction losses (since the endless varieties of 'spinny wheel with extra bits on it' don't claim to have a frictionless wheel) and maintain (or, worse, increase) its energy state.
An object moving in a near-vacuum does NOT create energy out of nothing, does not maintain its energy state, and is not a perpetual motion machine.
They are two entirely different concepts, and the only purpose in combining them is to make "perpetual" cover more things.
Only if you sustain the jump, then it would be 'close enough' to be levitation.
But I sustained it for long enough. And since 'levitation' is a useless term that can't be achieved we should redefine it to include something achievable, right?
Kilkrazy wrote: "Practical" perpetual motion involves an engine that can be used to do work without an energy input.
That's what the term means to a scientist or engineer.
Not quite, an initial energy input may be required. I suppose you can theorise a perpetual motion engine that starts off moving. However working with this
in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.
Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt.
Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt.
Practical perpetual motion is achieved.
Anyway we are going round in circles. Unless you have something new this one is done.
Orlanth wrote: in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.
No it can't. Please go review physics 101 before posting again.
Please review the differences of practical and literal and learn some manners. I know my 'physics 101', my prior posts acknowledged such.
Second law of thermodynamics is understood, which is a negligible factor not a non factor in the continued motion of the space probes due to lack of mass to provide noticable friction.
For real life applications, as this is because the probes are real, negligible factors can be ignored in engineering.
They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Practical" perpetual motion involves an engine that can be used to do work without an energy input.
That's what the term means to a scientist or engineer.
Not quite, an initial energy input may be required. I suppose you can theorise a perpetual motion engine that starts off moving. However working with this
in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can. Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt. Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt.
Practical perpetual motion is achieved.
Anyway we are going round in circles. Unless you have something new this one is done.
The key point of a perpetual motion engine is that you can get out more work than you put in. It doesn't matter whether the energy input happens at start up or during the performance of the work. It is the excess energy which is the perpetual motion.
The key point of a perpetual motion engine is that you can get out more work than you put in. It doesn't matter whether the energy input happens at start up or during the performance of the work. It is the excess energy which is the perpetual motion.
A perpetual motion infers a negation of friction. Unlimited output is something else. If you put 10 joules of energy into a literal perpetual motion engine you can draw out 10 because it loses no energy to friction, if you don't draw those ten joules out they stay there 'perpetually', if you can draw out 11 then you make a mess of physics there and then.
Redefining concepts so that they make sense within the laws of physics and are useful is a laudable goal.
We don't redefine concepts. We redefine words.
Sorry, that is incorrect. The redefinition of the words redefines the concepts directly reliant on the words. Hence by redefining the word vacuum to include extremely low pressure densities then you redefine the working concept of a vacuum.
Better examples than this lie in politics. There are myriad examples of political usage of redefining words to redefine concepts, we even have a term for its its called the political dialectic.
Flat Earther's methodology is a denial of evidence under the mantle of conspiracy and manufactured counter-evidence.
I like how you've constructed a definition of Flat Earthism that excludes yourself.
Actually I gave a fair description of Flat Earthism, not my own construction. That is not acceptable to you for the sole reason that you like to misrepresent my words in order to misdirect my argument. Its your modus operandi. You try a new jibe on each page. First you flatly deny, then you call the arguments faith based, then you don't back that up when I call you out on it, you then just call it Flat Earthism, without understanding what Flat Earthism is or what it stands for. Then you come back on this same attack trying to imply that I should include my own thinking under the Flat Earth mantel when in fact it doesn't fit that mantle.
Why dont you grow up and learn some manners. Repeated acts of trolling and ad hominem attacks do not a reasoned argument make.
Sorry, that is incorrect. The redefinition of the words redefines the concepts directly reliant on the words. Hence by redefining the word vacuum to include extremely low pressure densities then you redefine the working concept of a vacuum.
You have it backwards. Words refer to concepts. We redefine a word to include a new concept when a new concept is created.
Why dont you grow up and learn some manners. Repeated acts of trolling and ad hominem attacks do not a reasoned argument make.
I've not trolled you in this thread, or used invalid ad hominem. I have, however, trolled you in the past, though probably not when you thought I was.
I have, in this thread, had to explain to you what trolling is and used valid ad hominem along with pointing out where you have made mistakes, and made comparisons to your arguments where appropriate.
Sorry, that is incorrect. The redefinition of the words redefines the concepts directly reliant on the words. Hence by redefining the word vacuum to include extremely low pressure densities then you redefine the working concept of a vacuum.
You have it backwards. Words refer to concepts. We redefine a word to include a new concept when a new concept is created.
We create a word to define a new concept, though that word may have a prior meaning, when we redefine a word (seperate from giving it additional meaning) we redefine the concept to which the word relates.
Motives in doing so can vary, from simplifications like the concept of vacuum changing from an absolute value to a practical one. Yes this can be dishonest, as with many forms of political dialectic. This is best and most clearly covered in Orwells 1984, though real world applications surface often enough. Usually over contentious issues, so I would rather avoid derailing the thread by giving further examples.
Why dont you grow up and learn some manners. Repeated acts of trolling and ad hominem attacks do not a reasoned argument make.
I've not trolled you in this thread, or used invalid ad hominem. I have, however, trolled you in the past, though probably not when you thought I was.
You have trolled me many times past and present, and yes I do notice, its hard not to. You aren't as clever as you think you are, if you were you wouldn't need to behave as you do to drive your points home.
I have, in this thread, had to explain to you what trolling is and used valid ad hominem along with pointing out where you have made mistakes, and made comparisons to your arguments where appropriate.
Your misinterpretation of what is trolling is of no surprise to me. Its merely self justification for amoral conduct.
If trolling and being offensive is a 'game' to you that I ask you nicely, find another game.
Playing 'games' with you is a course hazard in the way of conversing with someone else. You make frequent blanket denials, personal attacks and deliberate mis-interpretions, these need be answered in the event that they are cursorily mistaken for a correct analysis of my position.
Still I keep match with you without resorting to the same strategem, thankfully that is beneath most other posters here.
They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.
Wow. Thank you for proving your hilarious ignorance here. Maybe you should go look up what "work" means in the context of a perpetual motion machine before you post any more embarrassing mistakes?
They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.
Wow. Thank you for proving your hilarious ignorance here. Maybe you should go look up what "work" means in the context of a perpetual motion machine before you post any more embarrassing mistakes?
They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.
Wow. Thank you for proving your hilarious ignorance here. Maybe you should go look up what "work" means in the context of a perpetual motion machine before you post any more embarrassing mistakes?
I was aware of multiple definitions of the word 'work' you should have clarified your question, especially when you were passing comment on an ongoing conversation.
'Work' can be seen in two contexts here:
1. Does the space probe constantly expend energy relevant to its characteristic of forward motion.
2. Is the space probe a practical construct in its current form and therefore one that is valid to be seen from an engineering point of view as opposed to a raw physics point of view.
The first option didn't make any sense and is obvious to everyone that it doesn't require asking, as the space probes are not continually powered to be moving forwards but are moving onward through inertia.
You see a perpetual motion device doesn't need to expend energy 'perpetually', it just needs to be in motion 'perpetually'. That only applies to an engine that is constantly expending energy, now most people look at perpetual motion ideal as referring to lack of friction not unlimited output. The former requires an elimination or practical elimination of friction, that latter a 'perpetual' internal energy source, an immediate violation of the laws of physics. This is because open system machines with unlimited external input, such as water wheels, do not count as perpetual motion devices even if they can continue moving 'perpetually', only closed systems count only stored energy counts, yet output of that stored energy is not .
The second option is how I answered the question, it was a logical question to ask. One look at the space probe concept will show you that it doesn't expend (noticable) energy perpetually, so I mistakenly credited your question with more insight than I should have and answered the question as an engineering one (2.).
For a construct to be seen in engineering terms first rather than theoretical terms then it must first be practical. So for example if study lasers in vacuum in theory you use an absolute vacuum for the theory, when studying lasers in vacuum in practice we use a non-literal vacuum as the model.
'work' in terms of whether the space probes could therefore be considered practical and thus seen in engineering terms.
Is there any justifaction of seeing it on those terms. Yes there is:
in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.
Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt.
Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt.
Peregrine, this is what you were quoting to gain the word 'work', you were quoting me. Note the context.
in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can. - so its practical and should be looked at with practical engineering defintion Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt.- so its a closed system Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt- acknowledging the second law of thermodynamics, while highlighting its practically unlimited forward motion.
So in a nutshell Peregrine you misread what I wrote, applied a different meaning to my words and then had the ill manners and hypocrasy to call me hilariously ignorant when I used my own words in the way they were originally meant. You have earned this:
We are discussing science and we need to use words as defined in science or we cannot understand what we are talking about.
A rock can be a perpetual motion machine if we define it that a picture having been carved on it -- i.e. a data recording -- is a form of work.
But that isn't how science defines work. Science defines work (broadly speaking) as getting energy out of a system.
From that viewpoint, Pioneer is not doing work simply by moving or holding a recording. It does work when it hits an interstellar particle and transfers some kinetic energy to the particle. At the same time, Pioneer loses the kinetic energy it transferred to the particle, and slows down a tiny bit.
Due to the very small number of the particles in interstellar space, Pioneer will not hit them often, so it will lose kinetic energy at a slow rate. But it will lose energy.
Of course, Pioneer also gets overtaken and hit by particles from behind. When that happens, it gets a bit of kinetic energy from the particle. Since Pioneer is moving away from the Sun, the particles from behind are probably more numerous than the ones from in front, due to the Solar Wind, so it may actually be speeding up from the impacts.
There's nothing special about a probe flying in space, it adheres to Newton's Laws. That a body in motion will not change its velocity unless acted upon by another force. Perpetual Motion devices as the term is intended are machines capable of infinite work, unlike the probe drifting in a vacuum (and this overlooks micro material in space and gravitational fields that would act upon a probe anyway) the devices that people wish to build expend infinite energy because they work against losses of energy.
So while a probe can be in motion perpetually (assuming it never meets any other forces at all) it's not a perpetual motion device as the term is intended. Such devices are supposedly able to keep running even when energy should be lost due to heat, drag, friction, etc. No device can create energy, it has to come from somewhere, you can't have a system putting out more energy than is put in - but that is the goal of such 'inventors'.
Kilkrazy wrote: We are discussing science and we need to use words as defined in science or we cannot understand what we are talking about.
A rock can be a perpetual motion machine if we define it that a picture having been carved on it -- i.e. a data recording -- is a form of work.
But that isn't how science defines work. Science defines work (broadly speaking) as getting energy out of a system.
This is very true, but 'work' has several meanings. Read this:
I travelled to work, then went to work studying work from a book of physics then I was paid for my work.
Even if discussing physics I am still permitted to use work in other contexts in the conversation so long as they are on topic. Peregrine misread me, which is fine, then he got rude about it.
From that viewpoint, Pioneer is not doing work simply by moving or holding a recording. It does work when it hits an interstellar particle and transfers some kinetic energy to the particle. At the same time, Pioneer loses the kinetic energy it transferred to the particle, and slows down a tiny bit.
The Pioneer probes are not doing work (physics term) at all, gyroscopic operations ceased in 1995 and 2003 respectively. The Voyager probes may do work, but only incidentally as a part of equipment operation, the Voyager probes must orientate themselves to send and receive data, to do this requires a small amount of thrust from on board stores. Any benefit gained is purely incidental, intermittent and finite.
Orlanth wrote: Even if discussing physics I am still permitted to use work in other contexts in the conversation so long as they are on topic. Peregrine misread me, which is fine, then he got rude about it.
The comment I quoted was in reply to an explanation which clearly used "work" in the physics sense. So either you're too clueless to know what work is, or you're dishonestly changing definitions again to make them fit your bizarre claim.
Orlanth wrote: Even if discussing physics I am still permitted to use work in other contexts in the conversation so long as they are on topic. Peregrine misread me, which is fine, then he got rude about it.
The comment I quoted was in reply to an explanation which clearly used "work" in the physics sense. So either you're too clueless to know what work is, or you're dishonestly changing definitions again to make them fit your bizarre claim.
No it wasn't, read more carefully next time. I know what I wrote and in the context of how and why I wrote it.
Also it is evident from my posts that I understand the physics involved, I repeatedly explained how i wasn't arguing against canon physics. The only people who couldnt see that are those who did not want to. After all its easier to troll me if you refuse to acknowledge my arguments and instead insist on assuming I am making another completely different argument that is clearly erroneous to myself and others. I get enough to this sort of juvenile idiocy from dogma, don't add to it.
Its ok that you misread what someone writes, its an honest simple mistake. What is not ok is that you grab onto it like a mad dog on someones leg and won't let go even when told that wasn't the point made.
So please, mind your manners if you want to have a civilised adult discussion.
We create a word to define a new concept, though that word may have a prior meaning, when we redefine a word (seperate from giving it additional meaning) we redefine the concept to which the word relates.
No, that's incorrect. A word is given a definition to bring it into accordance with a concept. If you read any academic article you'll find some section that essentially amounts to a list of terminological definitions to be employed in the course reference a concept to be discussed so as to avoid repeatedly explaining the concept.
When we employ a word in a new way, thereby redefining it, we don't change any of the other concepts to which the word relates. If we did the English language wouldn't function. This is also why you see individual words listed with different definitions in dictionaries.
Care to explain how you come to that conclusion. and how do you claim to be deliberately inaccurate.
It was deliberately inaccurate because it necessarily excluded your behavior in this thread, despite well established tradition among various Flat Earth groups which is consistent with what I described; one which you yourself have referenced before. This last part is the key, I'm arguing from a position that you've adopted before and are now rejecting because it does not favor you.
You have trolled me many times past and present, and yes I do notice, its hard not to. You aren't as clever as you think you are, if you were you wouldn't need to behave as you do to drive your points home.
Sure I am. Being clever doesn't mean being subtle, though I can do that too. Being clever has more to do with ingenuity and flexibility, which occasionally means being blunt.
I think part of the problem is that you become annoyed when people cut directly through many of the aesthetic arguments you attempt to make, and cannot support in any way that is not equally aesthetic.
Your misinterpretation of what is trolling is of no surprise to me. Its merely self justification for amoral conduct.
No, its just me describing what trolling is. I didn't say that made my conduct justified, just that it wasn't trolling. The justification you gave for troll in this thread is merely being insulting which, as I said, is not the same thing as trolling.
Calling someone is dick is not being a troll. Its being insulting.
Coming into a thread about someone's death and blathering on about how you don't care is being a troll, albeit a very bad one.
If trolling and being offensive is a 'game' to you that I ask you nicely, find another game.
No, the game is conversing over the internet with people you do not know. Though, really, the game in real life doesn't change much, people still do things like troll and deliberately insult for the fun of it, the stakes and amount of available information simply change.
Orlanth wrote: ...deliberate mis-interpretions, these need be answered in the event that they are cursorily mistaken for a correct analysis of my position.
If you believe I misinterpret your positions, then perhaps you should make them more clearly? One of my general criticisms of your posting style if that you use vague terminology where ever you can, and when called on it appeal to something needlessly abstract like "the human heart". When called on that you repeat your original point without engaging the criticism.
As to the blanket denials: when people are clearly factually inaccurate the only response that does not involve a degree of effort this forum is not worth is a flat denial with a bit of explanation.
Orlanth wrote: I am not advocating that practical perpetual motion is literal perpetual motion.
Yes, that's exactly what you're arguing because you're trying to re-purpose a term with a specific technical meaning, in a thread about that specific technical meaning, in order to make a type of device that might be considered to be in perpetual motion* as one which is in literal perpetual motion. What's more, your argument itself is fundamentally flawed in that it turns on what "perpetual" actually means. In a colloquial sense it means "never ending" but as regards physics it means "never ending insofar as the laws of physics remain consistent", seeing as this a conversation about technical terminology, you are far off base.
*Given a highly flexible, and non-technical meaning of the term.
Separate:
Please outline how you intended to demonstrate that your position was correct. You don't have to prove it, just outline the argument.
