Perpetual motion

[Smokinjoe9]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Where does science show or prove that there will ever be an end to everything? Newton's law of motion says that a body in motion will stay in motion until acted on by an external force. That is perpetual motion.

Are you saying evolution and thermodynamics are in conflict? I am just trying to understand the different ideas behind these theories. I am not a physics student, I am just interested in various theories. Thanks, Joe.

I know these things have been discussed before, but there are so many conflicts, history, religion, physics, evolution, darwinism.....humm - interesting.

Also, concerning the universe, body in motion, there are no external forces acting apon it???

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Are you saying evolution and thermodynamics are in conflict? I am just trying to understand the different ideas behind these theories. I am not a physics student, I am just interested in various theories. Thanks, Joe.

Just a friendly notice - please try to keep this thread on topic.

Also, concerning the universe, body in motion, there are no external forces acting apon it???

We don't know that a) the universe is a body in motion, nor that b) no external forces act upon it.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Are you saying evolution and thermodynamics are in conflict? I am just trying to understand the different ideas behind these theories. I am not a physics student, I am just interested in various theories. Thanks, Joe.

I know these things have been discussed before, but there are so many conflicts, history, religion, physics, evolution, darwinism.....humm - interesting.

Also, concerning the universe, body in motion, there are no external forces acting apon it???

Huh? What has evolution got to do with the motion of bodies in space or the universe as we know it coming to an end? So far the topic of evolution pertains only to life on this planet. It may apply on other planets when we locate other planets with life.

Thermodynamics are not violated by Newton's law of motion. In theory, you could propel a body through space and it would continue forever unless some external force stopped it. That too has nothing to do with everything coming to an end, especially the universe itself.

[Smokinjoe9]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Huh? What has evolution got to do with the motion of bodies in space or the universe as we know it coming to an end? So far the topic of evolution pertains only to life on this planet.

Sorry, I would think evolution would be included in space and the universe. If evolution is used on our planet, for it to mean anything it has to be used on the other planets in our solar system, otherwise you remove a piece of the perpetual motion machine in a whole. As I understand it evolution doesn't just pertain to life. The same theories used for evolution on our planet has to be used in conjunction with relativity etc.. Otherwise the theories conflict or earth cannot be included.

[Smokinjoe9]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Thermodynamics are not violated by Newton's law of motion. In theory, you could propel a body through space and it would continue forever unless some external force stopped it. That too has nothing to do with everything coming to an end, especially the universe itself.

I know this is getting off the topic, but, it is very interesting. I guess I will look for a thread about this type of topic. I have to know though. Are we saying the bodies now moving in the vaccuum of space are not being acted upon? they just move in the direction they are going because of the force that started them; Earth, moon, etc...I understand the theory, but I find it kinda old....If you did set an object in motion in space and by some odd chance the universe has no beginning or end and the object didn't run into some force, yes it may go on forever, but that is rediculous. Newton's theories were tested on Earth the same place the theory of evolution is being tested.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Sorry, I would think evolution would be included in space and the universe. If evolution is used on our planet, for it to mean anything it has to be used on the other planets in our solar system, otherwise you remove a piece of the perpetual motion machine in a whole. As I understand it evolution doesn't just pertain to life. The same theories used for evolution on our planet has to be used in conjunction with relativity etc.. Otherwise the theories conflict or earth cannot be included.

All right, include evolution. Now tell us how the evolution of life on Earth or any other planet means that everything will eventually come to an end.

[Smokinjoe9]

Originally Posted by C1ay

All right, include evolution.

I would like to continue this, but I think I need to move this topic because I have been told not to get off topic. IE; Perpetual motion...Where should this topic go? I guess I need to check the different threads.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

I would like to continue this, but I think I need to move this topic because I have been told not to get off topic. IE; Perpetual motion...Where should this topic go? I guess I need to check the different threads.

Perpetual motion belongs in this thread. The concept of evolution does not. So if you want to fuse the two I suggest you start a thread in the philosophy forum, perhaps. The we can find out if another forum might be more useful later.

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Tormod

We don't know that a) the universe is a body in motion, nor that b) no external forces act upon it.

Unless one counts internal expansion as motion itself. The external force question and external motion would be something more in line with modern Brane theory and even here it would be gravity itself acting interdimensionally as the external force with movement within hyperspace supplying the other perspective.

[Guadalupe]

Curious, Newton’s 1st Law of Motion suggests to be Infinite (with no beginning and no end). But the word Perpetual, by definition, suggests to be Finite (to have a beginning, a ground state, a point of origin, etc). Is this correct?