There are two basic kinds of PMMs (perpetual motion machines): those that violate the first and second laws of thermo (which are Rob Knopp type machines that output more than they put in) and those that only violate the second law (machines that are 100 percent efficient). A PPM requries that work be done since a machine is some device that does work. What is work? The physics definition is that work is the dot product of force and displacement. Essentially this means that work = forcexdistance but also that the force and the distance have to be in the same direction (they should be parallel and not perpendicular). A block sliding on ice or better still a body moving through space is not an example of a PPM because there is no force being exerted. A planetary body does have a force being exerted on it over a distance but the displacement and the force are always perpendicular (not in the same direction) so the work done is zero. I am not sure about the expanding universe but my feeling is that there is not force involved in expanding the universe and therefore there is no work. However I don’t really understand GR and I am not sure how things work when you are talking about space itself expanding.

The reason why PPM don’t work is heat. Whenever any machine does work it produces heat. So in order for the machine to keep going it must somehow recover the heat energy it loses. However you basically end up producing even more heat if you try to recover the heat energy you lose and so you can never have a machine with 100 percent efficiency.

(I respect the fact that a comment here is not the best place, but with Jacques Distler and others on arXiv deleting my papers in 2002 within 45 seconds, without reading them, it isn’t possible to put information where it should be. Red tape gets in the way, not to mention elitism, hatred of so-called “pet theories”, etc. Even if you use entirely established facts, you’re still censored because they don’t have the time to read anything not in their carefully censored journals, which are biased in favour of M-theory and related speculations. To publish facts that actually predict gravity with that stuff would be embarrassing and thus impossible not only to them, but to me. I published in Electronics World.)

However, the lack of slowing down of supernovae recession wasn’t predicted by the cosmological constant, but it was predicted and published two years ahead by a dynamics for gravity which is entirely factual. There is 100% bias in favour of mainstream and 0% objectivity towards new work, especially where it’s based entirely on facts which are well established (spacetime, Hubble recession, Newton’s 3rd law etc.).

Any statement of the constructive facts get ignored, any criticism of the mainstream gets responded to with a request for constructive facts, which then get ignored. What you never get is any interest in fact based science.

The nonlocality question is important and I found this book quite elucidating>>

‘The NonLocal Universe: The new physics and matters ofthe mind’
-Robert Nadeau & Menas Kafatos; Oxford UP 1999!

Re:astrology v. “science” see: ‘Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a new world view’
-Richard Tarnas; Viking 2006.
There is quite a difference between Rob Brezhny and Dane Rudhyar, but i’ve heard that those born with grand crosses in Aries in the fifth house are geniuses or serial killers…

MOND proponants claim that TeVeS changes the way gravitaitonal lensing works, so the bullet cluster results may not seal the deal (they did convince me, although I was rooting for MOND)

Along the lines of what George was saying, the freakonomics people wrote an article in the NYTimes about correlations between birth-month and success in life–it was societal, of course, no astrology. But still…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07wwln_freak.html?ex=1166763600&en=abb6f6ba07d89cf3&ei=5070

The discovery by the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) and the High-Z Supernova team that the expansion of the universe is accelerating poses an exciting mystery — for if the universe were governed by gravitational attraction, its rate of expansion would be slowing. Acceleration requires a strange “dark energy’ opposing this gravity. Is this Einstein’s cosmological constant, or more exotic new physics? Whatever the explanation, it will lead to new discoveries in astrophysics, particle physics, and gravitation.

Priceless - The Universe does not produce the stars inside it?
Where did the energy of the first cause of motion come from?
From a power source (or big foot) kicking the universe into motion?
-

1) I have read Rob knops’s definition of a perpetual motion machine: when somebody says “perpetual motion machine,” what they really mean is some machine that puts out more energy than is put into it.
-
2) Charon you claim: the universe doesn’t give the energy that creates stars, etc. (violating one condition to be a “perpetual motion machine”).
The Universe produces all the energy within it. If there is more energy in the Universe today than yesterday, or say 13.7 billion years ago +/- 0.03% what does that say in relation to Rob knop’s definition of perpetual motion machine.
-
3) You and Rob knop claim: The Universe is not local?
Are you speaking from another ‘pocket’ universe somewhere else?
-
Though it may appear clear to you both inside your heads, neither you or Rob knop have shown that the Universe is not a perpetual motion machine.
-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
diagram showing how often throughout history science moves away from the norm ?

Obviously, a similar plotted graph for say Astrology?, should have a “fixed straight line” within their criteria, showing no deviation away from the narrow band, because of their steadfast beliefs.

Every aspect of human “knowledge” history can be plotted using available data, as example, Religion can have certain truths, for instance Moses existed, along with many other Humans. What needs to be addressed is the factual course of “probable” events leading to current understanding, did Moses go up to the mount and communicate with a “God”..or did Moses as an old man (therfore exert himself physically) travel from a sea level location, climb a mountain and experience:Altitude sickness, physical trauma,with delusional events being interpeted by some as mystical?

What we know NOW, must, as the course of learning evolution expects, leads one to conclude that Humans are suseptable to have their environment experience, alter their fragile fear of the Unknowns!

Had Moses, or anyone else at the time been aware of exposure to Altitude sickness, Deprevation of Oxygen, or even the prospect of High Energy Cosmic Ray particle’s frying the Human brain at certain altitudes, then we could be experiencing a totally different “beliefs” ?

Data, when collected is open to intepretation, anything can happen, and some say “will” happen, but until that time, stay within the known knowns !

you have not shown that the Universe is not a perpetual motion machine

Go back and read his definition of perpetual motion machine. He’s pointed out that the expansion of the universe doesn’t give the energy that creates stars, etc. (violating one condition to be a “perpetual motion machine”). He’s also pointed out that perpetual motion machines need to be local. Even with the generous definition of “local” that GR with FRW gives, the universe as a whole is not local.

This has become trolling. Stop.

Yes Rob, nuclear reactors are not perpetual motion machines, they are machines built by man using up their fuel (like stars do?).
But though it may appear clear to you in your head, you have not shown that the Universe is not a perpetual motion machine inside which there are many galaxies and solar systems, and on one of these there is a planet we (humans) call earth, and on which ants live.

I realize I really shouldn’t be feeding the trolls, but just in case somebody else is reading who might learn something….

The expansion of the Universe itself, without Dark Energy, is coasting, and indeed slowing down from the mutual gravity of all the mass in the Universe. However, Dark Energy is in fact there, and is speeding up. The coasting of the Universe expanding is much like any other kind of coasting — smooth block on ice, baseball thrown in intergalactic space continuing it’s Newton’s 1st Law motion, etc.

The formation of the stars, galaxies, etc., all comes not from any of the energy of the Big Bang itself. Rather, the energy of all of that comes out of (initially) gravitational potential energy lost (and, yes, energy is conserved there– a galaxy is “local” when you’re talking the GR of the Robertson Walker metric), and then, later, energy through fusion of Hydrogen. (Also, some fusion of other elements.) Large scale structure formation has pretty much stopped in our Universe; we’re not building new clusters, just condensing the ones we have. Give it a few hundred billion years, or whatever, and eventually stars will have used up all of the Hydrogen available, and they will no longer shine. Stars shine for a long time, but they’re not perpetual motion machines; they are using up their fuel.

None of these processes “suck energy” out of the expansion of the Universe or any such. It’s all just local stuff on the expansion of the Universe. It’s akin to a few ants having a campfire on the top of that block sliding on the lake of ice. Yeah, they’re burning up energy, but it has nothing to do with the sliding of the block on the ice.

-Rob

Energy is not conserved in an accelerating universe. All the talk about local vs global is irrelevant.

Rob, A Universe which over time produces enough energy to give birth to Suns, new Stars and galaxies, is coasting - like a brick sliding on a smooth lake of ice?