Warning: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 824 Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 831

How to put it, it is not impossible to say what this sentence insists on. After all, the conservation law of energy conservation is generally only available in systems with constant time translation. In general relativity, space-time can be bent, and a system with non-conserved energy (material part) can always be found. For example, during the inflation period of the very early universe, the total energy of matter in the universe E~a³ (a is the scale factor of the universe), and the energy increases exponentially with the expansion of the universe. In the radiation-dominated universe, the total energy is E~1/a, and the energy decays as the universe expands. Today’s universe is dominated by dark energy, and the total energy of the material part is also increasing with the expansion of the universe. Therefore, if a person can create a space-time dominated by “vacuum energy” and make effective use of the increased energy, it can really be regarded as a perpetual motion machine. Or if this person uses some means to convert dark energy into energy that can be used by humans, then it is considered that he has created a perpetual motion machine. But, can these really be done by human science and technology? I am afraid that this will not be possible until mankind disappears. Let me add one more point. Some friends who have studied general relativity may have the following questions: The energy of the matter part can not be conserved, but the energy of the matter + gravitational field is conserved. How can it be regarded as a perpetual motion machine? Indeed, the increased energy of the matter can be regarded as borrowed from the gravitational field, but,,, it seems that there is no law that prevents matter from borrowing energy from the gravitational field indefinitely. For example, dark energy. The total energy has been increasing for more than 10 billion years, and there is no sign of stopping at all. Since energy can be borrowed infinitely without repayment, what is the difference between this and perpetual motion machine? Let me talk about this first, and I will add if there are many people watching.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 months ago

“Perpetual motion machines can’t be created. This is not a limitation of the scientific level. It is because cocoa will prevent perpetual motion machines from being created.” “Cocoa is a kind of alien creature with eight tentacles. Each one has eight tentacles. Everyone wears eight red armbands to patrol the universe. Once they find out which planet wants to build a perpetual motion machine, they will use the energy in the red armband to destroy the development process of the perpetual motion machine.” Yes, because the current level of science is not yet able to discover them.”

7 months ago

This is a very classic view that cannot be falsified. Let’s put this question in another way: a truly high-level science can find new laws of physics that allow perpetual motion machines to exist. This is logically called the “true Scots logical fallacy”. Let me give you an example: Zhang told you: Scots never drink beer in small glasses. Then you pointed to the boy at the next table and said: This boy is a Scot. You see, he is drinking beer from a small glass. Lao Zhang immediately retorted you and said: Then he is not a real Scot, because a real Scot would not do that. This is the “true Scots logical fallacy”. Back to the subject of the subject. When you cite the current laws of physics that prohibit the creation of perpetual motion machines, the person who said this will immediately say that these physical laws are all low-level scientific discoveries. The real science is to find new physical laws that allow perpetual motion machines to exist. of. As long as you can add the word “real” to a vocabulary, you can make your point of view invincible. This is the essence of this fallacy. On the other hand, if someone always likes to use “real” as the attributive, then he is guilty of this classic logical fallacy. So, knowing the existence of logical fallacy, how can we break it? You can tell him what is logical fallacy and what is true Scots logical fallacy. If he is a logical person, this matter is basically solved. He will understand that it is meaningless to ask such questions, so he won’t ask them in the future. If he is not going to speak logic. And to tell you what “your logic” and “my logic” are, if you don’t talk about the common logic that humans observe together, you can only use the following method: The method is like this: Well, what you said is right. It can be made, but we lack a material, and there is no such material in the universe. So it’s no different from not being able to make it. So you should wash and sleep too, don’t think about it. If this persuades him, then give up. Anyway, he knew there was no perpetual motion machine. If he insists on asking what material it is, or why it is necessary for this material, you can tell him that the material is more complicated, and we can’t describe it in any language or writing, so I can’t tell you. When the language develops, it can be described, and I will tell you as soon as possible.

7 months ago

Perpetual motion machines cannot be made because the omniscience and omnipotent cabbage stipulates that no matter how advanced the science and the level of technology are, perpetual motion machines cannot be made. What is the omnipotent cabbage? It is a cabbage, he is omniscient and omnipotent, and he has formulated the laws of the entire universe. Where’s the shit cabbage, can you prove it? I can’t, but can you prove that he doesn’t exist? Are you crazy? Why did the cabbage you proposed yourself let me prove that it doesn’t exist? Then you proposed that you can create a perpetual motion machine. Why do I need to refute it? ……Or you prove the perpetual motion machine to me? Can’t prove it? Let me falsify? I have falsified it? What if you disagree? Well, now it’s your turn to falsify the all-knowing and almighty cabbage. I also have the all-knowing and almighty cabbage here. I also have the all-knowing and almighty peppers, eggplants, potatoes… Isn’t it all right and uncomfortable? I wish you a happy proof.

7 months ago

There is no need to refute, because this sentence is really possible. Our understanding of the objective world is still extremely limited. The physical theory summarized now is not the truth, and the laws of the universe have no so-called truth, let alone the desire and obsession of human beings for simplicity and beauty. But that being said, the sentence in the question is also meaningless. An unknowable and unverifiable possibility can neither guide our work production nor lead us to progress. There are too many “possibility”, maybe Sex is not the same as the truth and the law itself. Indulging in the possibility will only make people become a delusion who is divorced from reality. In fact, a more realistic approach is to first circumvent the perpetual motion machine’s own obsession, and approach this desire directly from the purpose—controllable nuclear fusion is a typical example. Finally, I want to emphasize again that the “laws of physics” mentioned in the title is not rigorous, because there are no so-called physical laws at all, only objective laws, physical theories and conjectures. The so-called physical theory or conjecture is only the result of human observation, summary, and verification of objective laws at this stage. It is not a truth in itself. The existing physical theories are not complete or accurate. We can discover more new ones in the future. Objective laws to be rewritten, supplemented or more accurately described as physical theories. It’s like, you drew a sketch of the apple on the table, and then I ate the apple. Can’t you say that I broke the sketch, right? I just ate the apple and it has nothing to do with your sketch. I eat your apple, it’s so unreasonable, but this happened!

7 months ago

It’s not that I can’t solve this problem, it’s just that my current level of intelligence is still not able to solve it.
If you can create it, you can create it. If you can’t create it, you can’t create it.
What does it mean to be unable to make it?
It’s like this bowl of rice, if you can eat it, or if you can’t eat it, you can’t eat it.

7 months ago

If you want to use a scientific method to refute, you can’t refute it. The conclusion of empirical induction is that there must be a very embarrassing thing, that is, we cannot observe all the situations, and science cannot obtain absolute truth. (Mathematics is not the same. The axioms of mathematics are assumed to be set, so there are absolutely correct things in mathematics.) But scientists never worry about such trivial things. If it is wrong, just change the textbook…

7 months ago

1. Science is originally a thing that constantly surpasses the past. It is normal that the current level of science cannot create something. The so-called law is just based on existing scientific discoveries.
2. Nothing at present does not mean that it will not be made in the future, and it does not mean that it will be made in the future
3. In terms of current and foreseeable future technological level, this sentence can help you screen out a large number of unqualified friends

7 months ago

No matter what you make, you need tools. For example, making a chip requires a lithography machine. Perpetual motion machine is an absurd machine. To build an absurd machine requires another absurd machine as a tool. Perpetual machine is a tool for manufacturing perpetual motion machine. What is a permanent machine? Perpetual machine is an absurd machine that can create perpetual motion machines. Where does Yongjing Machine come from? It can be made with perpetual motion machine. According to legend, the drawings of the two machines are drawn from ubiquitous dots and lines that are not anywhere; the control system of the machine is written in the language before the collapse of the Tower of Babylon; the materials used to make the machine are performed all the time in the world. Ridiculous farce.

7 months ago

In fact, I personally think that the difficulty or focus of this question is not how to describe the concept of perpetual motion machine or the laws of thermodynamics, or to criticize and contempt the other party from the IQ level. Instead, it seeks a more appropriate method to explain or communicate to people whose cognition is not at the same level. Maybe many people find it troublesome and don’t answer or refute, and feel that it’s a waste of time. But is it meaningless? Actually it is not. How to communicate with people who have gaps in cognition or who are not at the same level actually requires skills. It is not always appropriate to take evasive methods, such as communicating with children and communicating with older elders. When the other party is difficult to understand or lack of knowledge and there are some misunderstandings, it is actually a very valuable and meaningful skill to refute the other party gently and allow the other party to accept some correct ideas. The subject of the subject, I will try to explain this: It is true that the current level of science cannot be achieved, but this violates one of the current basic laws of physics, so the premise of the breakthrough is to break the basic laws first. This is more difficult than ordinary science and technology. It is much harder to break through. So this sentence may be more appropriate to say, “Perpetual motion machine is not impossible to create, but it cannot be realized under the current laws of physics.” In this way, it also leaves a step for the other party, but there is no intention to cater to the other party.

7 months ago

Said a nonsense. All knowledge, not just physical knowledge, is based on induction, which means that it can explain what has happened more completely and accurately. And after the process of predicting and testing the success of the prediction, the “correctness” and “stableness” of knowledge are established. However, no knowledge can be verified, and we try our best to predict the future, and it is impossible to guarantee that it will always be correct. This is determined by epistemology and has also undergone statistical verification.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x