Talk:Perpetual motion machine

At least one workgroup needs to be assigned.

Metadata here

Franklin?

Anyone who knows something about Benjamin Franklin and the U.S. Founding Fathers want to expound on this? My knowledge of the history is a bit shaky, but didn't Franklin basically debunk a free energy machine being put forward for patent in the early days of the Union? I'll dig out a few more contemporary claims of perpetual motion/free energy machines. Damn, this gets pretty close to crank territory. Roll on cold fusion, right? –Tom Morris 14:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More clarification needed

Dmitrii, you write: "giving the way to measure the absolute speed of the inertioid". I don't understand what you are saying, could you explain it here (using perhaps more words than you would use ordinarily in the article)?--Paul Wormer 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolute speed means that it is measured without to refer to any specific frame of reference. It is nonsense, there is no way to measure the absolute speed; all the inertioids are fraud, trick, pseudoscience. Milton Beychok asked me to be polight, "neutral", so, I do not mention in the article that the gravitspa is a fake device, that the inventors and the promouters are liars, knives, who use it as a pretext to plunder the funds assigned for the development of science in RF. I cannot say this in a CZ article nor in the academic journal. Therefore, I consider the hypothesis that the inertial propulsion exists, and analyze the applications. One of them is the ability to measure the absolute speed, projection of the absolute velocity to the direction of force generated by the inertioid. Such a device would be a revolution in the inertial navigation! I described this in the article requested by prof. Arun Azad; I hope the reviewers will like it.

The Laws of Conservation come from the symmetry of our Universe.

Some symmetries are related. For example, it is difficult to break the translational symmetry, keeping the rotational symmetry. The Law of conservation of energy and the Law of conservation of momentum follow from the symmetry of the space and the time. The boost (change to another inertial frame reference) corresponds to rotation of space–time. The Special Principle of Relativity postulates, that the physics does not change at the boost; so, we cannot measure the absolute velocity of any frame of references; in this sense, all the intertial systems are equivalent. This equivalence means that the movement is relative; there is no way to say that something moves without to indicate (or to assume) another object with respect which the thing may move. Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galiley, Ernst Mach, Hendrik Lorentz did a lot to recognize this; Newton and Einstein just picked up their results and postulated them. The relativity of movement was under the strong discussion few centuries ago. Some believers, True Christians, insisted, that the Earth cannot move. The discussion was really hot: some participants were fired (that time this word sounded much stronger than now); this was the only way to "prove" the existence of the preferred frame of reference.

The inertioids, the conservation of energy and the principle of relativity cannot hold all three together. I did not care about this, while inertioids were just kind of perpetual motion; for me, it was sufficient to qualify any thing as a perpetuum motion to exclude it from the scientific consideration. Then I found the declaration, that Menshikov "does not invent the perpetuum motion machine". Therefore I answered the request of the Editor with the article cited.

Sorry for the historical excurse, I continue. From the conservation of energy and the support-less propulsion it follows, that the energy may be constant only in some specific frame reference. The absolute velocity is velocity v with respect to this frame reference. The absolute speed will be |v| , id est, modulus of the absolute velocity.

This absolute frame reference can be realted to the Earth. This means, that all the stars and planets move round the immobile Earth.

However, the Earth may rotate. Then, the kinetic energy of this rotation can be withrawn by the inertioids. In this sense, gravitsapa is an equivalent of the perpetuum motion machine.

Dmitrii Kouznetsov 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Dmitrii, I agree with your analysis, but my question was more a linguistic one. I will change your sentence in a way that I understand it and hopefully I won't change your intention. If I do, please don't hesitate to revert.--Paul Wormer 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)