Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Perpetual motion and the universe.

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine? I guess it's not really a machine, but let's look at it as something that's sort of analogous of a machine. Could we consider it both perpetual, and in motion?

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 4:51:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Depends on how you look at the definitions. A machine implies some goal, as well as a design. If you view a perpetual motion machine as a closed system that does something, yet loses no net energy, then I suppose you could consider the universe such a system.

But regardless, it seems obvious that the universe is not a machine per se...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 5:01:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Friction. Friction converts kinetic motion energy into heat energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy must always increase for spontaneous reactions, so over time, entropy will be maximized and order will collapse.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 5:08:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:51:14 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Depends on how you look at the definitions. A machine implies some goal, as well as a design. If you view a perpetual motion machine as a closed system that does something, yet loses no net energy, then I suppose you could consider the universe such a system.

But regardless, it seems obvious that the universe is not a machine per se...

How can something seem obvious? It's either obvious or it's not obvious.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 5:08:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The general idea of a perpetual motion machine is the lack of friction in a closed system. The closed system usually contains no conversion of mass to energy. The law of conservation of energy shows that the perpetual motion machine cannot exist because some energy will be lost as heat due to friction.

The Universe on the other hand involves conversions between mass and energy in stars and galaxies. The interconversion makes it more complex than the general idea of what people call "perpetual motion machine."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 6:29:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine? I guess it's not really a machine, but let's look at it as something that's sort of analogous of a machine. Could we consider it both perpetual, and in motion?

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

No. Entropy is increasing.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 8:30:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:

I'll answer this to the best of my knowledge.

Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine?

Yes.

I guess it's not really a machine, but let's look at it as something that's sort of analogous of a machine. Could we consider it both perpetual, and in motion?

Yes.

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

Yes.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 9:31:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine? I guess it's not really a machine, but let's look at it as something that's sort of analogous of a machine. Could we consider it both perpetual, and in motion?

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

What I don't understand is that the universe continues to expand and does so at an accelerating rate... doesn't that mean it is making energy? In a sense that makes it perpetual. Personally I think someone has it wrong somewhere!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Realthinktank
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 7:34:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine? I guess it's not really a machine, but let's look at it as something that's sort of analogous of a machine. Could we consider it both perpetual, and in motion?

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

If you accept that the universe expands and contracts infinetly then yes it is example of perpetual motion.
Being ignorant of the science, I have to ask why does the universe have to contract? I understand a finite amount of energy implies an end to the expansion, but for what reasons should I expect the contraction and subsequent rebirth?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 2:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine?

No, it's running down,

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

That's not the issue. A brick contains energy. Is a brick a perpetual motion machine?

Let's define a perpetual motion machine as something that does work without running down, without increasing entropy. If that's the test, then the universe fails the test; it is not a perpetual motion machine.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 2:52:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 2:32:57 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine?

No, it's running down,


Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

That's not the issue. A brick contains energy. Is a brick a perpetual motion machine?

Let's define a perpetual motion machine as something that does work without running down, without increasing entropy. If that's the test, then the universe fails the test; it is not a perpetual motion machine.

I don't think that is the traditional definition of perpetual motion.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 10:09:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From Wikipedia:
----
Perpetual motion describes motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.[2] This is impossible in practice because of friction and other sources of energy loss.[3][4][5] Furthermore, the term is often used in a stronger sense to describe a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, a "hypothetical machine which, once activated, would continue to function and produce work"[6] indefinitely with no input of energy. There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[4][5]

Cases of apparent perpetual motion can exist in nature, but such motions either are not truly perpetual or cannot be used to do work without changing the nature of the motion (as occurs in energy harvesting).[7] For example, the motion or rotation of celestial bodies such as planets may appear perpetual, but are actually subjected to many forces such as solar winds, interstellar medium resistance, gravitation thermal radiation and electro-magnetic radiation.[8][9]
----

If all we want is motion, then I have no problem calling planetary orbits perpetual. Nothing is going to stop most of them from going on forever.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:44:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If all we want is motion, then I have no problem calling planetary orbits perpetual. Nothing is going to stop most of them from going on forever.

They aren't perpetual though, as perturbations with other planets/other celestial bodies, along with the eventual change in gravity from the parent star in combination with centrifugal force makes planets not perpetual. For example, the Moon will escape the Earth's gravity in a few billion years.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:48:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:42:52 PM, innomen wrote:
Is the universe an example of a perpetual motion machine? I guess it's not really a machine, but let's look at it as something that's sort of analogous of a machine. Could we consider it both perpetual, and in motion?

Does it create or contain energy that will never deplete, and will always be part of the dynamics of matter?

You are stepping into the bounds of cosmological theories, like the multi-universe theory, and how information/energy is treated in black holes.

Going off of the most widely accepted view, the universe won't run out of energy, but you can't gain any energy from it, so while it is perpetual in that all energy is preserved, you can't do all that much with it, as it doesn't create energy. (Law of conservation of mass and energy)
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown