*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Real-life-M-C-Escher-perpetual-motion-machine

someone quickly harness this perpetual motion to provide free energy for all!

>> ^Kalle:

makes you think...
Arent ocean currents a form of perpetual motion an endles stream of energy you can harvest only we prefer to burn coal and oil?


Not *strictly* perpetual: ocean currents are caused by winds, which are in turn caused by the earth's rotation. And the earth's rotation is slowing down, infinitesimally, all the time.

But your point is valid and there are many research programs to this effect: http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Current.pdf

makes you think...

Arent ocean currents a form of perpetual motion an endles stream of energy you can harvest only we prefer to burn coal and oil?

>> ^RFlagg:

Would you even need pumps or motors in this case? We don't see any of them operate long enough to prove they can overcome friction and other forces to keep in motion as we only see them for a very short time.
The train one stuck me as odd, even on first viewing, as it seemed the green line was made to make you think that was the level line, but it seemed to me to be slanted down some, using the grain and a slightly tilted camera to make it look like it was going uphill...
>> ^Mammaltron:
You can't win, you can't break even and you can't quit the game.
You can however troll a whole lot of people with some strategically-placed motors and pumps.



In the "Uphill Train" example you're missing the fact that there are two ramps at play, one steep and one shallow. The shallow ramp is the wooden ramp with the green lines which does indeed run uphill, but the "downhill" ramp is the double-cone "train" itself. Once it reaches the bottom of the hill (the outside tips of the cones) that's the end of the ramp, and the energy is depleted. The mass is not in fact running uphill at all, the net movement is still downhill. Follow?

Would you even need pumps or motors in this case? We don't see any of them operate long enough to prove they can overcome friction and other forces to keep in motion as we only see them for a very short time.
The train one stuck me as odd, even on first viewing, as it seemed the green line was made to make you think that was the level line, but it seemed to me to be slanted down some, using the grain and a slightly tilted camera to make it look like it was going uphill...

>> ^Mammaltron:

You can't win, you can't break even and you can't quit the game.
You can however troll a whole lot of people with some strategically-placed motors and pumps.

>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^therealblankman:
Until the moment the universe stops expanding, or until the moment when monkeys fly out of my butt (whichever comes first of course) this will remain a pack of lies.

I'd say "lies" does not apply here since all the so-called PMMs in here, like the description more or less states are using an external source of energy: earths gravity.
So technically, they are not PMMs.
edit: Wait... I just destroyed my own argument... "lies" applies since they are not PMMs.

Hmmm... you might want to re-think the whole "Gravity being used as an external source of energy" thing. That's not what's happening here as gravity can not be used in such a sense. You can certainly use gravity as a way of converting potential energy into kinetic energy, but such energy is always quickly dissipated as heat. The classic example of this is having a mass at the top of a ramp and releasing that stored energy by allowing the mass to roll down that ramp. Once that mass reaches the bottom of the ramp, with perhaps a few oscillations until the energy is completely expended, then that's it- the "machine" comes to a complete halt and all the energy is spent. These machines in the video seek to return the mass to the top of the ramp over and over again without using outside energy to do so, and without losing any energy within the system itself, which is impossible.

>> ^therealblankman:

Until the moment the universe stops expanding, or until the moment when monkeys fly out of my butt (whichever comes first of course) this will remain a pack of lies.


I'd say "lies" does not apply here since all the so-called PMMs in here, like the description more or less states are using an external source of energy: earths gravity.
So technically, they are not PMMs.

edit: Wait... I just destroyed my own argument... "lies" applies since they are not PMMs.

Those perpetual motion machines are getting sillier.

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

Right, well you go ahead and justify indiscriminant genocide then. I'll leave you to it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Energy existing is a terrible explanation, a it was created in the big bang, b because it violates all laws (no perpetual motion machine), c because there is no impetus for creation in an eternal continuim (it would have to stable), etc..if you want to say it is infinite, well..if if it is then it couldn't exist..if you take infinitity to its conclusion you have something which contridicts its own existence..if you want to say there are infinite universes again you'll inevitably have a universe which destroys all other universes or something to that effect.
since you couldn't bothered to think for yourself, i couldn't be bothered to individually debunk them myself, but its easy to see that right off the bat many of them are just patently false
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540">http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540</a>
as far as the egyptians go, they were responsible for quite a bit of baby murdering..400 or so years worth of it..and God punished them for it as a nation..I don't see a problem with a sovereign God exercising his control over life and death..He could have killed hitler off but He didn't..he lets man reap with he sows, even if it means that "innocents" will be punished for it..ultimate justice is certain in every case..and if you don't want to obey God its your own choice, just as its your choice to reap the consequences of your actions

Energy existing is a terrible explanation, a it was created in the big bang, b because it violates all laws (no perpetual motion machine), c because there is no impetus for creation in an eternal continuim (it would have to stable), etc..if you want to say it is infinite, well..if if it is then it couldn't exist..if you take infinitity to its conclusion you have something which contridicts its own existence..if you want to say there are infinite universes again you'll inevitably have a universe which destroys all other universes or something to that effect.

since you couldn't bothered to think for yourself, i couldn't be bothered to individually debunk them myself, but its easy to see that right off the bat many of them are just patently false

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540

as far as the egyptians go, they were responsible for quite a bit of baby murdering..400 or so years worth of it..and God punished them for it as a nation..I don't see a problem with a sovereign God exercising his control over life and death..He could have killed hitler off but He didn't..he lets man reap with he sows, even if it means that "innocents" will be punished for it..ultimate justice is certain in every case..and if you don't want to obey God its your own choice, just as its your choice to reap the consequences of your actions>> ^RedSky:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.
Energy existing is a much more simple explanation. Let's be clear too, you're not just proposing an eternal being existed. You're proposing what you conveniently ommitted from replying to:
Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Like what?
How about we start with the parts it can't make it's own mind up on:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#guilt
Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
This was a throaway line really.
But anyway, I feel like this argument will continue until forever so let me give you my take. As far as I'm concerned arguing over the existence/non-existence of God is meaningless. If you want to address the Christian god specifically, even if I had proof that he existed, I would not willingly worship a being like this or adhere to its religion for the endless list of cruelty that he has supposedly perpetrated. Take the murder of the firstborns of Egypt for the actions of others as but one example. To me worshiping such a god were it to exist would be no different to worshiping a tyrannical dictator or abiding to an abusive parent.

Lovely bit of mad science.

I'd love to see what happens when another food source is added to the opposite end of the stick. Squirrel powered near-perpetual motion machine perhaps?

>> ^WKB:

For a second there I thought it was running under power of magnetic force. That would have been truly world rocking. Once it cut to the hand crank it was a bit of a let down. Still very cool, but it should have shown the hand crank up front to avoid this disappointment.


Wait, your default assumption was that this was a perpetual motion machine and you feel he should clarify that it isn't ahead of time?