Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Depends on your definition of perpetual motion, whether or not a_______________________________________________
machine is involved, and which class of perpetual motion machine.
Newton's first law seems to insist that something _could_ move
forever...
some interesting web references:
<http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/frame1.htm>
<http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html>
Scott
**********************************
Scott Goelzer
Physics Teacher
Coe-Brown Northwood Academy
Northwood NH 03261
603-942-5531e218
sgoelzer@coebrownacademy.com
**********************************
On Dec 22, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Carl Gaither wrote:
Hello to the group--
I came across a very interesting quotation:
"Physics proves to us the impossibility of perpetual motion among
visible,
tangible bodies, at the same time that it reveals to us a world where
perpetual motion is the rule--the world of molecules and atoms."
Burroughs, John
The Breath of Life
Chapter IX (p. 190)
I was just wondering how one would go about explaining why this
statement
must be false.
Carl Gaither