perpetual motion

If we do an energy balance, we know, from direct observation, only the car received the needed energy for the acceleration. The person at the starting line did not receive any.

This is not true in the reference frame of the car. In that frame, there was a pseudoforce acting on the person at the starting line that caused that person to accelerate and which provided the required kinetic energy.

The relative reference assumption violates the energy balance of each reference, since it takes way energy from one reference and creates it in another reference. This is the beauty of it, since this allows perpeual motion.

Wrong on both counts.

If we assume reference was relative, we can turn the stationary person into a perpetual motion machine; Without any energy, the stationary reference will magically gain teleported energy so we can have a person moving at 100kmsec.

Meaningless nonsense.

We could also make use of hybrid technology to store the X amount of perpetual motion energy into a battery, etc. Or we can convert this to dark energy.

Stop making stuff up. Nobody knows how to convert anything to dark energy - least of all you.

If we needed more energy, all we need to do is get the person in the car to open their eyes wider, beyond the person at the starting line. They need to also look at all the other race cars that are parked nearby. We can multiply the energy in the moving car (real energy balance) into the perpetual motion energy of dozens of moving cars. With this energy amplification we can solve the world's energy problems.

If you insist on posting complete crap like this, I think we may have to ban you from the forum.
 
Read Only said:
In this round you use the term "absolute velocity" - which is stupid because there is no such thing
Oops. Wrong word.
I know there's no such thing and I don't know why I typed that in. But any fool, even you, can see that I meant "the velocity an object is limited to by friction with the atmosphere". You got something to jump on and crow about, didn't you just?
You even managed to conclude that I don't know what terminal velocity is, well done!
But absolutely wrong. Making a mistake like that on a peer-reviewed forum with the status of sciforums--what to do?
Grovel and ask for forgiveness, I see that's the only option.

Nah, fuck it.

Only someone who doesn't understand that formula as well as they think would blithely state it means energy and mass are interchangeable, it means a bit more than that.
It means mass and energy are indistinguishable, for a start.

I'd think about how to learn to be less pedantic, if I were you.
 
Last edited:
Oops. Wrong word.
I know there's no such thing and I don't know why I typed that in. But any fool, even you, can see that I meant "the velocity an object is limited to by friction with the atmosphere". You got something to jump on and crow about, didn't you just?
You even managed to conclude that I don't know what terminal velocity is, well done!
But absolutely wrong. Making a mistake like that on a peer-reviewed forum with the status of sciforums--what to do?
Grovel and ask for forgiveness, I see that's the only option.

Nah, fuck it.

Only someone who doesn't understand that formula as well as they think would blithely state it means energy and mass are interchangeable, it means a bit more than that.
It means mass and energy are indistinguishable, for a start.

I'd think about how to learn to be less pedantic, if I were you.

Phooey on you, your attempts at black humor AND I'll be just as pedantic AND accurate as possible - I know no other way to approach scientific topics! Unlike you, I make a very sincere attempt to keep my terminology and information as factual and accurate as possible. Your sloppy approach is much more telling than you realize.

And if you REALLY think that mass and energy are "indistinguishable" (showing yet another example of your lack of scientific knowledge), I'd like to see how you enjoy eating a few KWH of electrical energy that would be equal to a nice, normal meal!!!
 
Read Only said:
And if you REALLY think that mass and energy are "indistinguishable" (showing yet another example of your lack of scientific knowledge), I'd like to see how you enjoy eating a few KWH of electrical energy that would be equal to a nice, normal meal!!!
But I eat food, which is made of matter, not mass. It "has" mass, and it "has" energy, of course.

Both the total mass and the total energy inside a totally closed system remain constant over time, as seen by any single observer in a given inertial frame.

In other words, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and energy, in all of its forms, has mass. Mass also cannot be created nor destroyed, and in all of its forms, has energy.

According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed nor transformed into the other.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Care to have a try at explaining what the wikipedia author is saying?
 
Last edited:
why do people go for this sort of stuff?
i know a guy that swears perpetual motion is a possibility.
drives me insane.
 
prometheus said:
All particles with mass have energy, but not all particles with energy have mass. The photon and the gluon are examples of this.
I think there is some contention about the mass of "massless" particles, actually.
Unless this is wrong too (or maybe I don't understand what it's saying):

Collisions among sub-atomic particles in which the number of particles is not conserved are not quite so easily explained as merely involving the re-arrangement of particles and re-distribution of energy.

The most extreme example of this sort, and one that is often used in the physics literature, is pair annihilation. Consequently, let us consider a collision between an electron e− and a positron e+, which yields two photons (2γ). Symbolically, the reaction is written as follows:

e− + e+ → γ + γ (6)

According to the currently accepted Standard Model of particle physics, electrons and photons are both “fundamental particles,” by which physicists mean that such particles have no structure, i.e., such particles are not composed of other, smaller particles.

Furthermore, the photons that are the products in reaction (6) have zero rest-mass. Thus, in reaction (6), the rest-masses of the incoming electron and positron seems to “disappear” and an equivalent amount of energy “appears” as the energy of the outgoing photons.

Of course, Einstein's famous equation makes all of the correct predictions concerning the relevant masses and energies involved in reaction (6). So, for example, the total energy of the two photons is equal to the sum of the kinetic energies of the electron and positron plus the sum of the rest-masses of the electron and positron divided by c2.

Finally, although mass and energy seem to “disappear” and “appear” respectively when we focus on the individual constituents of the physical system containing the incoming electron-positron pair and the outgoing photons, the mass and energy of the entire system remains the same throughout the interaction.

Before the collision, the rest-mass of the system is simply the sum of the rest-masses of the electron and positron plus the mass-equivalent of the total kinetic energy of the particles. Consequently, the entire system (if we draw the boundary of the system around the reactants and products—which is, of course, a spatial and temporal boundary), has a non-zero rest-mass prior to the collision.

However, after the collision, the system, which now consists of two photons moving in non-parallel directions, also has a non-zero rest mass (see, for example, Taylor and Wheeler, 1992, p. 232).
--http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#2
 
I think you're assuming conservation of mass. In Newtonian physics this is true, because v << c and p = mv is a good approximation. In relativity mass is not conserved. Energy, of which mass is a form, is conserved.
 
prometheus said:
In relativity mass is not conserved. Energy, of which mass is a form, is conserved.
I think you'll find the Stanford article presents some arguments that contend your assertion.
Mass and energy are two equivalent properties of a system (of particles), if energy is conserved, equivalently mass is conserved. Einstein claimed that energy has inertia, remember?

The Stanford Library article presents several contending arguments (have you read it?). I can remember reading somewhere that Einstein's equation does not mean that energy can be converted into mass, or vice-versa. That's a misconception.
 
Perpetual motion is the concept of an object in motion continuing to exist in time at its current state of motion, without adding any additional influence to keep the motion the same.

The reason why that is a fantasy and not possible is because there is no environment in which an object in motion can continuously maintain a velocity without being acted on by external forces. If an object is acted on by external forces, it will change velocity, period!

So for example, take an object of mass. The object is made of atoms. The atoms are made of smaller objects in motion, which are also made of smaller objects in motion. Atoms in motion are encountering other atoms in motion, resulting in a change in motion. Work is being done at a cost to the motion. The motion is changing, and hence, the motion of the object is not in a perpetual state of motion. The object actually gets less dense over time by means of expansion. Mass can not maintain the same volume continuously, that would mean mass would be perpetual motion. The mass has to get less dense by expanding its volume in order to NOT be in a state of perpetual motion.

I submit this concept as proof that our solar system is actually the sun expanding. The planets as we know them and the core (the "sun") as we know it used to be very very very very close to one in the same. The mass was once very dense, but has since expanded. The planets came from the sun! Mass evolves to space!
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, the voice of reason; swooping in to clear everything up with a load of bovine excrement.:rolleyes:
 
There is a problem in the first sentence in that the law of inertia says that is exactly what occurs. An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Right, and which environment in this universe do you propose is an environment that an object is free of external forces?
 
Right, and which environment in this universe do you propose is an environment that an object is free of external forces?

That really just proves my point. Those external forces do not act to keep the object in a constant state of motion, they act in a way to constantly change an object's state of motion.
 
That really just proves my point. Those external forces do not act to keep the object in a constant state of motion, they act in a way to constantly change an object's state of motion.

Which only proves my point, that there is no environment that an object can be in a perpetual state of motion.

So I ask you again, in which environment would you find an object in motion remaining in motion which isn't affected by an outside force?
 
Which only proves my point, that there is no environment that an object can be in a perpetual state of motion.

So I ask you again, in which environment would you find an object in motion remaining in motion which isn't affected by an outside force?

I had not realized you were redefining the meaning of "perpetual motion" or perhaps I just misunderstood.... In either case without a common definition of terms there can be no reasonable discussion involving those terms.

No use in my continuing in this discussion as it seems there is no common understanding of the basic definitions involved.
 
I had not realized you were redefining the meaning of "perpetual motion" or perhaps I just misunderstood.... In either case without a common definition of terms there can be no reasonable discussion involving those terms.

No use in my continuing in this discussion as it seems there is no common understanding of the basic definitions involved.
I think "perpetual motion" means what express the semantics of the words.
"Perpetual Motion Machine" (Perpetuum Mobile) is a well-defined notion.
 
Back
Top