96
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 236:
Line 236: + + + +
Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics (view source)
Revision as of 15:06, September 29, 2012
, 15:06, September 29, 2012→Perpetual Motion Machine: new section
:The section is correct in stating that free-market economics is ''not'' a zero-sum game, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a great analogy for natural resource economics. However, that does not necessarily mean that there are no limits to economic growth. Also, there is no evidence given that "it has become common in recent years for environmentalists to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to economic growth." (There is no indication that this is a widespread belief.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 21:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:The section is correct in stating that free-market economics is ''not'' a zero-sum game, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a great analogy for natural resource economics. However, that does not necessarily mean that there are no limits to economic growth. Also, there is no evidence given that "it has become common in recent years for environmentalists to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to economic growth." (There is no indication that this is a widespread belief.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 21:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
== Perpetual Motion Machine ==
Mr. Schlafly recently reverted a change I made explaining the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine. I believe saying that "entropy will inevitably reduce the amount of energy available to keep the machine in motion" is a more precise explanation than saying that "entropy will inevitably derail the machine." The reason given for the reversion is "energy issues are not the only reason a perpetual motion machine is impossible." So I am wondering, what are the other issues? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 11:06, 29 September 2012 (EDT)