A perpetual machine is impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics

>a perpetual machine is impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics
Dude, how retarded is that?
The first law is simply "You can't", and people who defend that idea say it as if God himself that wrote that down.
I'm not saying that a perpetual machine already exists or that it's going to good enough to be worth the space it uses while generating energy(and it will eventually need maintenance too), but denying the possibility of a perpetual machine ever existing because of that is just dumb to me.

Other urls found in this thread:

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bump

>>a perpetual machine is impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics
>Dude, how retarded is that?
>The first law is simply "You can't", and people who defend that idea say it as if God himself that wrote that down.
>I'm not saying that a perpetual machine already exists or that it's going to good enough to be worth the space it uses while generating energy(and it will eventually need maintenance too), but denying the possibility of a perpetual machine ever existing because of that is just dumb to me.

t. someone who's taken at most high school level physics

please read a book before posting again

Could you actually explain why you think it's dumb rather than just saying it is dumb because it's dumb?

Because I don't see the sense in people who deny the possibility by saying "the first thermodynamics law say it's impossible, therefore it is", when we don't even really know how gravity even exists.

Thermodynamics is a law, so it is something that has been tested over and over again to the point where physicists said "It simply must be true"

If you deny that thermodynamics is true, you must pick one of these:

> You are irrational
> You don't agree with the basic assumptions of science (skeptic)
> You do agree with the basic assumptions of science, but don't agree with thermodynamics (you are a shit scientist)

It's not just because the first law says so. It is impossible for the internal energy of a system to change w/o work or heat being done to/by the system. This is not a man-made concept, it's how nature works.

Things like the solar system are perpetual enough, without being truly perpetual [citation needed]

>perpetual enough

So they're not perpetual at all? Orbits decay too.

In theory, a perpetual motion machine could exist, but you would not be able to "extract" energy from it or it would stop.

>solar systems are perpetual
nigga excuse me?

The only correct answer. If op isn't completely retarded, he'll realize that a perpetual motion machine can run indefinitely after being given a finite input of energy. However, removing energy from that system (the only energy being the initial "amount" used to start the machine and keep it running) would stop the machine, as it would no longer have the minimum energy required to continue its function.

>we can just create energy out of our asses without wasting it.
u r dum aite

Someone made a thread hat made it to page 1 calling this thread out and calling you retarded. Just thought I'd drop by and let you know.

dumb anime poster

What is Noether's Theorem?

This is some Reddit-tier shit-- no, no this is Tumblr tier shit.

They are essentially perpetual, i'm pretty sure the sun dies before we finish falling

Where does the energy required to turn an object like jupiter come from?

>having no knowledge of rotational velocity or orbital velocity equations
literally highschool physics, try again bud.

once something starts rotating it doesn't require energy to keep rotating, infact it requires energy to STOP rotating
ie "An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon blahblahblah"

the energy that started the fucking rotation was the primordial collapse of whatever gaseous mass existed before our planets

> turning the orbit, ie not flying in a straight line

I wonder if there is any orbit jacking due to the complementary sun micro-orbit/wobble, where planets orbits anti-decay

Then why do we have leap seconds?

Stable on the order of billions of years != perpetual. The moon is stealing rotational energy from the Earth and using it to increase orbital velocity. Do you understand how much energy it takes to slow the earth's rotation? That is no where near perpetual enough. Your just rounding down really big numbers from really really bigger numbers to try and make an fairly ridiculous claim

fields extend to infinity

which means all fields interact with one another

this means that work is always done no matter how negligible

with conservation of energy the work has to lead to a change in internal energy for a system

which means that perpetual motion is impossible because you must either have unlimited energy or 0 work, but then you would have 0 displacement as a result because 0=fd implies that displacement is 0 or undefined.

given that unlimited energy is obviously not visible in any system within the universe, perpetual motion is impossible.

orbital velocity -> orbit radius
lager orbit radius of the moon -> smaller circle micro-orbit of the earth
?does going from larger circle micro-orbit to smaller translate back into rotational velocity?

I guess you could probably map the change in the earth's center of gravity with the tides

I meant orbital momentum, rather than velocity. This is because as you pointed out, more orbital energy results in a increases orbital radius, which yields a slower orbital velocity.

I'm unsure of what you mean by small/large circle micro-orbit. Specifically the micro-orbit part.

And as to your final question, technically yes but it is more complicated than that. The mechanism that converts rotational energy into orbital energy is tidal forces. Below geostationary orbit, tidal forces slow the orbiting body down, speeding up the planets rotation. Eventually the orbiting body will drop out of orbit entirely. Beyond geostationary orbit, tidal forces speed the orbiting body up, slowing the planets rotation. This will continue until the orbiting body and the parent are tidally locked, at which point tidal forces cancel out, stabilizing the system.

However, this is complicated by the Roche limit. A body like the moon below the Roche limit, which is likely beyond geostationary orbit (I haven't done the math to verify but I can round it up to there) would get ripped to pieces, which would also stabilize the system as the moon would form evenish rings around the earth.

If the difference in mass is too great, then the tidal forces are negligible.

And finally, the moon wouldn't just suddenly go from a larger orbit to a smaller one. Something would have to "push" the moon, if you will, and that source would then be what would be increasing the earth's rotational energy in that situation.

Basically, if the orbiting body is orbiting faster than the parent is rotating, tidal forces speed the rotation up. If the orbiting body is slower, it will slow the parent down.

A perpetual machine does exist.
You are in it.

"Son, I am a man of the left hand path. My life has revolved around logic all my life. However, I will say this to you. Go left long enough...and you will go right."

Misquote

"Son, I am a man of the left hand path. My life has revolved around logic. However, I will say this to you. If you walk in a straight line and go left long enough...you will go right."

>What is Vacuum Energy

The first rule of science is there's only rules until you break them muhfugga.

That doesn't mean there isn't decay...

>a really efficient machine rusts before it is able to slow to a stop

That doesn't mean it didn't slow down anyways, mate.

The first law of thermodynamics isn't a statement that it cannot happen, it's a description of why it cannot happen.

What a stupid topic, OP
a perpetual motion machine is possible in theory but the limitations of the practical world makes it ALMOST impossible.

But what is the fucking point of those kinds of machines? Just for the sake of it?
Completelt useless. Humanity ahould be focusing on actual important stuff like improving the efficiency of the energy generation/grid/storage and consumption. Not how long can I keep my figet spinner going.

>What's the point of creating more energy than you use?

Are you retarded?

You misunderstood them. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you can create more energy than you produce. The only perpetual motion machines that theoretically could be produced would be incapable to producing work, and would only be a glorified fidget spinner.

It's not even possible in theory that's the point.
A perpetual motion machine is by definition a machine that can do work without an equivalent energy input, which is under no circumstances theoretically possible.
A system with really low energy loss over time is not a perpetual motion machine, even as the energy loss approaches 0.

Words are important.

you are a fucking tampon licking moron, you would have your answer after a 20 second skim of the relevant wikipedia page kys

...

So the 2nd Law it only applies to a closed system.

I wish it applied to an open system.

Like Europe's borders.

>"perpetual motion cannot exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>shoot my cum into space
>it drifts perpetually
if you want more energy from me you can scrape it off of your momma's face, boy

Nice post

Considering the tides, it looks more as though the earth has two distinct centers of gravity, i'd assume they are the earth-moon and earth-sun centers

pic for illustration of a two body orbit & micro-orbit

increasing the orbit radius should decrease the micro-orbit radius + some residual

spinning moons are molten?

Do you even know what the 1st law of thermodynamics is? I'd wager no.

Let me edumacate you then. This law states that energy in a CLOSED SYSTEM remains the same. It may change form (kinetic to heat, for example) but it can never be created nor destroyed. This is called a "law" because it's a definition, an axiom. It cannot be false, as simple as that.

About perpetual motion machines, we know enough about the forces acting on them to be able to assert that they cannot work. If they worked, the whole method of science would be possibly false because reality wouldn't match observations and physical laws could possibly change, which is completely antithetical with scientific principles.

>It cannot be false, as simple as that.

That's not even true, though.
Laws can fall apart at particularly vast or minute scales; they are laws because they are generally reliable, not because they are absolute.

It sort of conflicts with the big bang unless you allow energy to come and go from some other plane, which is a bit of a loophole

I've designed what I believe will be a working perpetual motion machine, problem, it will cost millions I don't have to make, and I don't have a degree nor a patent so I can't share this with the world. sad.

>fields extend to infinity
But what about finite fields?

>it looks more as though the earth has two distinct centers of gravity
just because you can't solve the n body problem doesn't mean there's no singular center of gravity

>fields extend to infinity
what about football fields
ur a idiot dweeb

Just because you can't comprehend two centers of gravity, doesn't mean that the n-body problem cannot be solved

A simple proof might be that if we had two large enough moons orbiting, the centers of gravity could diverge, pulling the earth in two?

Such a thing should be impossible even if you fly between two black holes ?

A proper proof would be to get an accurate enough accelerometer and try to pick up the slight gravity differences between high and low tide, higher tide should be higher grav / slightly closer center of grav, rather than lower (pull of the moon would predict lower)

I think we can just work from intuition here and say that water runs toward higher gravity desu

C'mon sci

lol, the shift in gravity center might just about explain path curvature and acceleration/decel, if the mass tries to center itself

>It sort of conflicts with the big bang
why should it?
Our universe is most likely a closed system. All the energy that currently is in was in it at the big bang.

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm

laws in science are the best guess given the data collected

>the future will resemble the past
How do you know that?
>because in the past the future has resembled the past
Isn't that circular logic?
>no! You're being irrational.

Guys, the only perpetual motion device is human life. Cherish yours.

Why

Can a living being properly function without food or water?

There is your answer