[rollei_list] Re: OT "the price of gasoline"" (was: Cost of LF
- From: Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:45:48 -0700
At 10:25 AM 4/22/2005, you wrote:
>Ardeshir,
>
>What, exactly, do you mean by the term "perpetual motion"? The classic
>defintion is something that is capable of moving against gravity
>indefinitely with no apparent influx of energy.
>
>Let us use, as an analogy, planetary motion. The moon orbiting the
>earth, for example. According to your assertion, this would be an
>example of perpetual motion. The moon is actually falling toward the
>earth due to gravitational forces but it's speed is high enough to keep
>it balanced in orbit. Gravity is NOT perptual motion.
>
>An electron "orbiting" a nucleus is a quantum mechanical effect which by
>definition has nothing to do with nor is it affected by gravity.
>Therefore it is not perptual motion according to the classical defintion.
>
>David
I don't understand the whole discussion. We know that perpetual motion, as
commonly defined, is limited by friction, or any of several energy
conversion processes.
As far as planetary motion is concerned, the moon is dissipating it's
orbital energy in the earth's tides, in magnetic field interaction, and
will some day fall to earth. No relation to the classical and ancient
definitions of perpetual motion.
How did the discussion get here in the first place?
Oh, I know, it was driven here by perpetual motion . . . . .
DAW
Other related posts:
