God's Set plan for Me

That bitch is ugly.

Even though the scientific laws we have now won't allow perpetual motion, doesn't mean it can't be achieved. Laws can always be rewritten

Bull. The laws of the universe don't change on a whim, and can't be rewritten. You can argue that our understanding of those laws is incomplete, and you would certainly be correct in some cases. However, there are things that we have apodictic evidence for. Our understanding of those aren't going to be simply overturned.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics prevent a perpetual motion machine from being feasible. These laws specifically show that perpetual motion can not be achieved. If you think you know better, please publish it and win the Nobel.

So, without any explanation and any actual proof you automatically write it off because the laws say it is impossible? Or are you saying that laws cannot be rewritten? You saying either one is suprising given your extensive knowledge on it, but your imagination may be lacking.

I will present you this question: How would you go about operating outside of those laws?

So, without any explanation and any actual proof you automatically write it off because the laws say it is impossible?

Do you think those laws were based off the maniacal ejaculations of some buffoon? There is nearly 200 years of research backing those findings. If I laid out all of the evidence that has ever been gathered in support of those findings you would probably not be able to read it in the course of your natural life.

I will present you this question: How would you go about operating outside of those laws?

You can't.

Do you think those laws were based off the maniacal ejaculations of some buffoon? There is nearly 200 years of research backing those findings. If I laid out all of the evidence that has ever been gathered in support of those findings you would probably not be able to read it in the course of your natural life.

Obviously not. You would not be able to lay out all of the evidence that has been ever been gathered in your lifetime, so clearly that hypothetical situation would never even happen.

You can't.

That is not true, use some imagination and try again. Where would the laws of thermodynamics not be applied?

Obviously not. You would not be able to lay out all of the evidence that has been ever been gathered in your lifetime, so clearly that hypothetical situation would never even happen.

You missed the point of my post entirely, and responded with a nit-pick.

But in response to your nitpick, I could lay out enough evidence that you would not be able to read it through the course of your life. In fact, I would only have to go up three flights of steps for this to be done.

That is not true

Based on what?

use some imagination and try again. Where would the laws of thermodynamics not be applied?

Nowhere in the universe. Perhaps in the land of fairies and gods you can have your perpetual motion machine.

Based on what?

Based on not being able to prove a negative. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it won't, or can't.

You are relying too much on the definition of what thermodynamics says cannot be done. You do not have to achieve 100% efficiency to have a machine that could possibly outlive our entire human race. This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in. It would only need to create enough efficiency to create more energy than is put in, not to become 100% effective and efficient.

Based on not being able to prove a negative.

You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.

You are relying too much on the definition of what thermodynamics says cannot be done.

Right. I have a tendency to side with sound science.

You do not have to achieve 100% efficiency to have a machine that could possibly outlive our entire human race.

You're conflating two unrelated ideas. Are we talking about a perpetual motion machine or a machine that can outlive the human race? They are not the same.

This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in.

This is impossible.

It would only need to create enough efficiency to create more energy than is put in, not to become 100% effective and efficient.

You're asking it to be more than 100% efficient. You can't create energy. Again, this is impossible.

You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games. Right. I have a tendency to side with sound science. You're conflating two unrelated ideas. Are we talking about a perpetual motion machine or a machine that can outlive the human race? They are not the same. This is impossible. You're asking it to be more than 100% efficient. You can't create energy. Again, this is impossible.

Sounds like the usual responses to D3V's ideas.

Some Mormons gave me a card last night. Awkward...

You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.

I disagree.
I've been doing it since I was born. Infact, I'll do it right now.

You are worthless, MJ. Without imagination your life is going to remain boring. Newton's law wasn't even correct the first time around, it had to be corrected by Einstein.

What good would it do to create an energy source that outlives the universe? Nothing, we need small-term, short term solutions as of right now, and creating a machine that would create more energy than is used. What you are trying to say that if this hypothetic machine doesn't outlive the universe then it isn't perpetual. You know as well as anybody that the Universe itself isn't going to last forever, it could all be gone instantly. So why do you bother dampering thought processes of this nature and creative ideas for the sole fact of being able to say you are right?

Instead of saying: "Energy cannot be created" why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?

You are worthless, MJ. Without imagination your life is going to remain boring. Newton's law wasn't even correct the first time around, it had to be corrected by Einstein. What good would it do to create an energy source that outlives the universe? Nothing, we need small-term, short term solutions as of right now, and creating a machine that would create more energy than is used. What you are trying to say that if this hypothetic machine doesn't outlive the universe then it isn't perpetual. You know as well as anybody that the Universe itself isn't going to last forever, it could all be gone instantly. So why do you bother dampering thought processes of this nature and creative ideas for the sole fact of being able to say you are right? Instead of saying: "Energy cannot be created" why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?

You're going to resort to ad hominem because I keep proving e-bitch-slapping your horrific logic? Nice.

If you're going to talk about perpetual motion and "free energy" pick up a fucking book and learn some terminology. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Nice dodge of the question, why are you so mad? I thought Indians were supposed to be nice people, or are the dots different than the feathers? I'm not even arguing the possibility of a device that could sustain maintainability forever, I know at our point in time in history that is impossible. What you are saying is that it will never be possible, where I am saying it is completely still possible.

If you're going to talk about perpetual motion and "free energy" pick up a fucking book and learn some terminology. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Can you give me a better word than perpetual that would better suit a machine that could run beyond the existance of our own human race? I never even said energy could be created. I said 'free energy' back in 2003, which was about the first time that I had ever even heard the term.

My whole original purpose was saying a machine could be created that would produce more energy than is used. The arguments you are making are out of the context of the actual idea based in this thread.

Nice dodge of the question, why are you so mad? I thought Indians were supposed to be nice people, or are the dots different than the feathers?

I see the racism still courses through your veins. Unfortunately, people don't change.

I'm not even arguing the possibility of a device that could sustain maintainability forever, I know at our point in time in history that is impossible. What you are saying is that it will never be possible, where I am saying it is completely still possible.

And what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.

Can you give me a better word than perpetual that would better suit a machine that could run beyond the existance of our own human race?

I don't know of a word. But a machine that can outlive the human race is not what a perpetual motion machine is. And perpetual motion is what you were originally talking about. If you don't know of a simple term to describe your idea, then describe your idea, don't simply substitute a completely different term for it.

I never even said energy could be created.

This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in.

My whole original purpose was saying a machine could be created that would produce more energy than is used.

why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?

Self-ownage for the win. Or are you too incompetent to realize that you've contradicted yourself multiple times?

Now, you want me to answer the question why I'm not saying "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet?" But in fact, I have answered it. Multiple times. But I'll do it yet again. It's because anyone who knows the first thing about physics knows that this is impossible. Not technologically impossible, based on what we have today. But impossible because universe does not permit it.

God, I love knowing that I get at you, D3V. It's fun watching you squirm. Pissing out school-girl insults while neg-repping me. Watching you change the entire subject of your thread just to defend your ill-conceived position. You're a tool. And I'm not talking about the kind of tool girls go crazy about. That would be too good for you. You're the annoying, loud, grating tool used for menial jobs at 8 AM in the morning. But actually, even they serve a purpose, so maybe I'm being too nice.

Anyway, I've said all that was there to be said. I'll come back next time I feel like banging my head against a ridiculously dense wall. I'm out.

D3v, you're wrong. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. Whatever you put into a system, you'll get back out, minus whatever you lose to friction and other unavoidable inefficiencies. You will never get out more than you put in, and it's currently not possible to retrieve ALL of the energy put into a system. There's always some loss, and even if you did find a way to create a "perfect" machine that had NO loss, you still wouldn't be creating energy or getting "free energy".

i think i know how to make a near perfect source for energy

There is one word that will fix all of D3V's arguements.
Paradox.
Create an energy Paradox, and you're fine.

If you create a machine that generates electricity more-so than it uses, would that not create 'free energy'?

I see the racism still courses through your veins. Unfortunately, people don't change. And what you are saying is blatantly incorrect. I don't know of a word. But a machine that can outlive the human race is not what a perpetual motion machine is. And perpetual motion is what you were originally talking about. If you don't know of a simple term to describe your idea, then describe your idea, don't simply substitute a completely different term for it. Self-ownage for the win. Or are you too incompetent to realize that you've contradicted yourself multiple times? Now, you want me to answer the question why I'm not saying "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet?" But in fact, I have answered it. Multiple times. But I'll do it yet again. It's because anyone who knows the first thing about physics knows that this is impossible. Not technologically impossible, based on what we have today. But impossible because universe does not permit it. God, I love knowing that I get at you, D3V. It's fun watching you squirm. Pissing out school-girl insults while neg-repping me. Watching you change the entire subject of your thread just to defend your ill-conceived position. You're a tool. And I'm not talking about the kind of tool girls go crazy about. That would be too good for you. You're the annoying, loud, grating tool used for menial jobs at 8 AM in the morning. But actually, even they serve a purpose, so maybe I'm being too nice. Anyway, I've said all that was there to be said. I'll come back next time I feel like banging my head against a ridiculously dense wall. I'm out.

Getting to me? I'm just throwing out ideas in a bullshit thread and you're writing a volume about how you've owned me. If I don't care, you don't own? Fun watching me squirm? You must be really bored, MJordan2nd. Why did you leave Zelaron again? Paranoid?