Perpertual Motion

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8824401
>>>/x/

>>8824401
Conservation of energy and the increase of entropy over time prevents these things from existing

>>8824421
It does exist though, look up time cristals.

>>8824409
>relativity
>blackholes
>psychiatry
neck yourself

>>8824426
You have to shine a laser on them.

But >>8824428
are you a brainlet for saying "relativity" mhmmm

>implying the entire universe isn't a giant perpetual motion machine because in the distant yonder space is expanding faster than the speed of light.

>>8824438
There is no conservation of energy in cosmology. It's still conserved locally, however.

>>8824426
You have to impart energy into them. Not sure this supports your point.

>>8824433
>t. brainlet

File: hqdefault.jpg (5KB, 480x360px)

5KB, 480x360px

The Moon is kinda a perpetual motion machine. I mean eventually it'll fall into the Earth.

In a theoretical space, say it's own universe with nothing in it except: the the Earth and the Moon. The orbits are lined up as perfectly as the physical laws of the universe will allow. For simplification the Earth and Moon are as smooth and featureless as possible and their gravity is as uniform as possible. There are no other objects in this 'theoretical universe'. Again, the orbit is perfect.

Would the Moon orbit forever? or will gravity take hold and bring the moon crashing down with time.

>>8824458
Can I ask what you mean by ">t. brainlet" I know that brainlet is a pejorative term for an engineer, but what does the "t." part mean?

>>8824464
>I mean eventually it'll fall into the Earth.
Nope, it's moving away from the earth. The earth is loosing kinetic energy via tidal friction, so the moon is gaining potential energy. Which means it move to a higher orbit.

>Would the Moon orbit forever?
Well if the planets are still planets then there would be a non-zero quadrupole moment, which would still lead to tidal friction, see above. If that wasn't there then you'd have some perfect, non-deformable body which doesn't exist. If you assume that there are no external forces at all, just gravitation then yes, it would just orbit forever.

>>8824469
Urban dictionary is your friend.
>Short of tevierseh or something of that sort. It's Finnish for: "Regards."
And you have brainlet mixed up. Brainlet.

>>8824479
>The earth is loosing kinetic energy via tidal friction, so the moon is gaining potential energy.

Maybe that's true, but I read they calculated the Moon moves 2 cm closer to the earth every year.

>non-deformable body
What about a perfectly uniform crystal?
Assuming no micro stress fractures form in the first orbit, then they should remain intact for all eternity.

>>8824498

It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.

>>8824498
>but I read they calculated the Moon moves 2 cm closer to the earth every year.

No, it moves away from the earth by about 4cm per year
http://www.space.com/3373-earth-moon-destined-disintegrate.html

>What about a perfectly uniform crystal?
Again if you neglect all external forces, then I don't see how it could do anything other than orbit forever.

File: 1443743736139.png (9KB, 401x367px)

9KB, 401x367px

>>8824409
>CS jobs
kek

>>8824421
Conservation of energy is quite a bitch, and whoever talks about Perpetual Motion without thinking of it as something PURELY theoretical, should revisit their knowledge.
also that my opinion, if someone did some math , he can still try to proof me wrong.