Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 83:
Line 83: + + +
Talk:Perpetual motion machine (view source)
Revision as of 05:57, January 5, 2007
, 05:57, January 5, 2007no edit summary
:But really, once you start talking about whether something can literally go on forever, you're outside the bounds of science. I can't keep track of the number of times the "scientific" narrative of cosmology has changed during my own lifetime, and it shows no signs of settling down. Is the universe closed? Open? Continuously expanding? Oscillating? Obviously, ''if'' physics predicts a ''finite'' lifetime for the universe, then a "perpetual" motion, meaning one that would last longer than the universe, is impossible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:03, 3 January 2007 (EST)
:But really, once you start talking about whether something can literally go on forever, you're outside the bounds of science. I can't keep track of the number of times the "scientific" narrative of cosmology has changed during my own lifetime, and it shows no signs of settling down. Is the universe closed? Open? Continuously expanding? Oscillating? Obviously, ''if'' physics predicts a ''finite'' lifetime for the universe, then a "perpetual" motion, meaning one that would last longer than the universe, is impossible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:03, 3 January 2007 (EST)
:: That's an interesting point of linking observation to entropy. But I do think even a purely closed system would stop without observation. Don't you? Perhaps Newton would not be pleased, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that motion does eventually stop. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 5 January 2007 (EST)