A Perpetual Machine?

Actually, Newton should have been more careful with his words. Don't you dare assume I ever wish to retract one of my statements. I meant what I said, an object can NEVER be in the absence of gravitational influence. NEVER!

Correct statements are correct, regardless of the theatrics involved. Theatrics make the correct statements more inviting to false replies, such as yours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't talking about a machine, I was talking about motion, perpetual motion. Don't confuse your misunderstanding with the meaning of the words I stated. A misunderstanding on your part doesn't constitute an error on my part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MD has reading comprehension problems.

Dave, you should know that MD does not inhabit the same universe as the rest of us. In his universe, there is an absolute frame of reference, an observer will measure light travelling at varying speeds, and MD can detect 'absolute motion' in an inertial frame.

In other words, he doesn not inhabit an Einsteinian universe.

We're not sure where he lives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gotcha. Newton was wrong and you are right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is 20 points on the crackpot index:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
(see item 22.)

And, if you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I agreed with that. Please go back and check for yourself. No wait, let me do it for you:

What you're failing to comprehend is that it doesn't invalidate Newton's law, nor does it invalidate the concept of perpetual motion.

The scientific method is quite capable of looking at principles absent other confounding principles. That's the point of a principle.

A spurious example: in the absence of air friction, a body will fall to Earth with an acceleration proportional to the square of its distance from the Earth's centre. The fact that it won't happen (because the Earth is surrounded by atmo) does not invalidate the principle - even for bodies falling from a height of less than 100km. This allows us to separate the principle of falling bodies from the reality of air resistance.

Likewise, despite the fact that all bodies are under the influence of gravity, Newton's first Law applies - after an initial shove, the brick will perpetually move away from the point of origin.


And seriously, theatrics don't make a case stronger.

 

i think I said that.

;-)

 

Dave, your response is substandard. Please answer the questions I asked you. Are you intentionally avoiding them and being intellectually dishonest? You're fooling nobody. Answer my questions or I won't waste my time responding to you.

 

@Dave --

My advice would be to not answer his questions.

 

Yes

No

Yes

Don't need to do that. A brick, if given sufficient impetus, could orbit a distant body forever.

 

After declaring that you know better than Newton, even you can't expect anyone will take you seriously.

I am OK with you not responding to me. It is better for the OP too.

But feel free to read AlexG's or billvon's responses if you wish to learn about Newton's Laws.

 

rohIT: this has gotten side-tracked by some misinformation, so I will bring it back on track.

Momentarily, I simplify your design to a single gear so as it remove friction.

If you start the gear spinning, it will indeed continue spinning perpetually. If you could set up your 4 gears so that there was no friction (you can't) and you could keep them aligned (you can't), then they could spin perpetually.

What you cannot do is extract any useful amount of energy from it. The moment you apply a load to the wheel or wheels, it will come to a stop.