Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:ShikamaBlue

2007-03-22T08:22:15Z

ShikamaBlue:

Hi all Conservative americans working on this site. My aim for now is to extract as much amusment you as possible as you attempt to reconcile the blatant flaws in your various arguments, with the much less significant flaws of the greater scientific community, who has provided virtually everything in your everyday lives which you rely on, other than the Bible, quite possibly the greatest contender for least historically accurate history book of all time.

As I really have no right to interfere with your own failings, i will attmept to stop myself from editing your pages and restrict myself to discussion pages as much as possible. I do however, make no apology for my British spelling. The only american spelling which is correct is aluminum, and it sounds bad anyway.

Personal information - Goes to a church school but is essentially aetheist, though technically agnostic. Favourite hobbies include parousing sites such as this - it never grows old watching people use the bible as a historical source, or even more amusingly, saying the bible is the word of the lord, or even greater than that, immediately assuming christian literature is correct. Whilst I acknoledge that many scientific theories have serious matters to be attended to, i have the utmost confidence that with time they will be solved, or another theory put in place that fits the parameters better. The inability of conservative christians to look at things objectively amazes me.

User:ShikamaBlue

2007-03-22T08:21:55Z

ShikamaBlue: New page: '''Bold text'''Hi all Conservative americans working on this site. My aim for now is to extract as much amusment you as possible as you attempt to reconcile the blatant flaws in your vario...

'''Bold text'''Hi all Conservative americans working on this site. My aim for now is to extract as much amusment you as possible as you attempt to reconcile the blatant flaws in your various arguments, with the much less significant flaws of the greater scientific community, who has provided virtually everything in your everyday lives which you rely on, other than the Bible, quite possibly the greatest contender for least historically accurate history book of all time.

As I really have no right to interfere with your own failings, i will attmept to stop myself from editing your pages and restrict myself to discussion pages as much as possible. I do however, make no apology for my British spelling. The only american spelling which is correct is aluminum, and it sounds bad anyway.

Personal information - Goes to a church school but is essentially aetheist, though technically agnostic. Favourite hobbies include parousing sites such as this - it never grows old watching people use the bible as a historical source, or even more amusingly, saying the bible is the word of the lord, or even greater than that, immediately assuming christian literature is correct. Whilst I acknoledge that many scientific theories have serious matters to be attended to, i have the utmost confidence that with time they will be solved, or another theory put in place that fits the parameters better. The inability of conservative christians to look at things objectively amazes me.

Debate:Why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?

2007-03-22T08:14:24Z

ShikamaBlue:

==Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time==

*The phrase "perpetual motion" is old-fashioned language. It does not mean simply something that stays in motion forever. This might be theoretically possible—it at least does not violate conservation of energy. But the phrase "perpetual motion" uses "motion" in an older sense to mean motor or engine, and it means something that can deliver energy—to run an automobile, for example—without requiring any external source of energy, such as gasoline. It means something for nothing.

:'''COUNTER:''' By "perpetual motion machine" I mean simply what the term says: remain in motion perpetually. I'm not proposing running "something for nothing," which is obviously impossible. I'm proposing running something indefinitely, like the clock you describe. Why is that impossible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 31 December 2006 (EST)

::I don't think it '''is''' impossible. I don't understand enough about the entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to be absolutely sure. And the Clock of the Long Now isn't expected to run forwever, just for ten thousand years.

:::By the definition of 'perpetually moving' it is indeed possible: the simple hydrogen atom becomes a working prototype. But the term is generally used to describe a machine that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics: in any closed system useful energy will dissipate. Indeed any engine more efficient than a Carnot Engine is by definition a perpetual motion machine [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html (Carnot Cycle)]. [[User:Airor|Airor]] 22 Feb 2007 2:22PM PST

::The "perpetual motion machines" or ''perpetuum mobiles''—the gadgets that the patent office refuses to review—all were intended to generate energy from nothing. They got to be a problem because inventors were constantly claiming to have found it and lining up investors. Often there was deliberate fraud, but sometimes there was just innocent ignorance involved. Usually there was either a hidden source of energy (e.g. in frauds, like the Keeley Motor) or the inventor believe he was producing energy when he was just releasing stored energy.

*For an interesting example of an attempt to build a machine that will stay in motion for a long time, see [http://www.longnow.org/projects/clock/ The Clock of the Long Now]. This is a serious effort to encourage long-term thinking by solving the engineering ''and social'' problems involved in building a clock will actually run for ten thousand years.

*It is not impossible becuase The Lord could make a perpetual motion device if he so wished it. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hum... Could he also create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I do think that the second law of thermodynamics states "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.", which essentially means that every closed system will eventually lose the potential for energy until it will reach the closest it can reach above absolute zero without actually reaching it (reaching absolute zero violates the third law). I personally have no idea as to whether this means perpetual motion is impossible - although it does essentially mean a practical application for perpertual motion is, as the energy released would be so insignificant that it could not be put to any forseeable use -- [[User: ShikamaBlue|Shikamablue]]