The Anti-Perpetual Motion Machine Society
Do a web search for the phrase “Perpetual Motion.” What will appear will be a mix of sites, some from “free energy” experimenters who think that some variation of perpetual motion is possible, and some from physicists and others who do not believe that it is possible. The sites that do not support perpetual motion use the subject to explore some of the more creative designs and to discuss why they do not work, thereby educating readers. Some of the sites are even playful and light-hearted, and make for amusing reading for one who may be mechanically inclined. I can not claim to have looked at every such web page, but so far I have never seen a page (that contradicted perpetual motion) that was mean or condescending towards those who suspect that perpetual motion is possible.
There are two reasons that physicists do not believe that perpetual motion machines can be made: the second law of thermodynamics (systems tend to go from order to disorder) and the conservation of energy (energy can neither be created nor destroyed). Basically, they say (and I’m sure that an actual physicist would say it better) that due to friction a system will tend to run down (if it is using energy that it is also creating), and that energy can not be made from nothing. Therefore unless a machine is being acted upon by an outside influence (i.e., being fueled) that machine will eventually run down. These two principles are two of the basic cornerstones of physics, and by extension they touch on nearly all branches of engineering, especially mechanical engineering. Mechanical engineers do things like design cars; things that we all risk our lives to.
Although the impossibility of perpetual motion is difficult to prove (how does one prove a negative), there is no known example of a perpetual motion machine that has ran for an extremely long time. This is an experiment that can be proved inductively (if a machine stops running then it is not perpetual), and so far nothing has disproved these two laws of physics.
Again, these principles are important to engineers. If engineering school students showed up at college believing that perpetual motion were possible then the professor would likely have some discussions with the high school responsible for the faulty education. If said students held onto that theory, then they would have difficulty in passing physics courses, and probably courses in dynamics, thermodynamics, design of machines, etc., too. As well, an employer would not be likely to hire the students even if they graduated, as their designs on paper would not translate well into reality. In short, in scientific education it is important, in a most practical way, that perpetual motion not be believed.
Take the average American: it would probably be possible to draw up a convincing design and trick a majority into stating that perpetual motion is possible. With some prodding, some would even design their own would-be perpetual motion machines.
So, in summary it has been established so far that:
· Perpetual motion is incompatible with the laws of physics.
· Perpetual motion has not been proved, and if it were possible it could be proved or at least very strongly supported experimentally.
· Those laws are not of mere academic interest, but are important in the day to day activities of engineers, who put science to practical use to the point of society entrusting their safety to them.
· Probably a majority of the public is either ignorant of the whole issue, or could easily be convinced that perpetual motion is possible.
· Web sites that seek to explain away perpetual motion do so with pretty much an eye towards using it as an opportunity to explain the laws of physics. They are not mean, or hostile. Such sites are also few in numbers, and the sort of thing one would casually put together in an afternoon.
No one has declared a state of intellectual emergency over this issue. School boards are not being pressed into making sure that science courses (required science courses for all students) cover these two principles of physics. There are no lecture circuits dedicated to denouncing perpetual motion. There are no journals, magazines, or books shrilly shouting down all those who think that perpetual motion may be possible. One is not publicly vilified for suggesting that perpetual motion may be possible.
Take another scientific issue, that of human evolution (i.e., not that some creatures or plants have changed over time, but that everything, humans included, evolved from essentially nothing). To summarize (more detail will follow):
· Evolution is claimed to be “more or less fact” in biology.
· Evolution can not be proved. The more science advances, the more complex the theories of evolution become.
· The theory of evolution is of mere academic interest as far as science goes. There is no practical scientific use of the theory in day to day life*.
· The majority of the public supports the theory.
· Web sites that seek to promote the theory are condescending if not blatantly hateful towards any who dare question it. Some such sites appear to have taken hundreds of man-hours to assemble. There must be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of hours a year dedicated to promoting the theory.
Some have declared a state of intellectual emergency over this issue. Schools boards make sure that this is the one ‘scientific’ idea to which every student must be exposed. There are lecture circuits, books, journals, university chairs, and even stage plays and films all dedicating to vilifying and slandering in the most extreme terms any who question any facet of the theory, what ever the theory is at the moment (it tends to change after every new bona fide scientific advance). A creationist who accidentally showed up at an evolution conference would be received perhaps only slightly better than a black man who accidentally showed up at a Klan meeting. Both groups would bristle at the mere existence of the accidental guest.
So what is the deal? Why the enormous disparity? The basic reason is that while the two laws of physics mentioned earlier are important to science and nothing else, the theory of evolution is absolutely essential to a materialistic philosophy while being unimportant to practical science. There are those who say that the theory of evolution is important because humans must not believe that there is a metaphysical or a supernatural existence. Quite right, that is the issue. If the government must not establish a religion it seems to follow that they should not actively pursue the disestablishment of privately held religion either.
There are those who would almost propose a sort of Before Darwin (BD) and After Darwin (AD) system for dating science. They would be shocked, though, when they looked at a scientific time line so arranged. Apparently a lot of key scientists (e.g., Newton, Pascal, Bayes, Mendel) in the pre-Darwin age, who really founded modern science, were not exactly held back by not having a theory whose purpose was to dispel any notion of the mere existence of the supernatural. Not only that, but a lot of key scientists (e.g., Lister, Pastuer, von Braun) in the AD age did just fine while holding on to the notion that there was a supernatural. The horrific irony is that while the religious scientists held, and hold, that their God was and is a God of order and therefore God’s natural laws would be and are orderly as well, the lets-replace-God-with-evolution crowd dabbles in law of nature breaking when needed to patch a hole in their deteriorating paradigm.
So, according to some, perpetual motion is possible; electricity is a liquid; electrons travel from the positive to the negative side of a circuit; H2O only has one oxygen atom; a light object will fall slower than a heavy object; and who knows what other misinformation exists. Some of these are more important than others, but they are all contradictions of facts, not theories; so why is it that a mere theory must be pushed in public instead of correcting these myths? Why push mere theories when actual facts are misunderstood? Because the theory of human evolution is the basis for materialistic philosophy.
Perhaps the final issue is that while physicists are not concerned that perpetual motion is possible, the evolutionists are concerned that human evolution did not take place. A religious person would consider the divine creation of human beings to be the central act in history—so important that the recognition of that and one’s response to that would weigh upon one for an eternity. It is easy to see why they are concerned. But if there is no practical use in science, why the concern of the evolutionists that human evolution is the de facto law of the land? They are welcome to use it in science, if they can figure out how. (Does one sprinkle it on? Are there formulas to apply? Does it require batteries? Can one buy it from McMaster-Carr or from Fischer Scientific?) But why the shrill screams that everyone else believe it too?
Some claim that a belief in the supernatural leads to witch hunts and inquisitions and so on. Certainly such things were wrong, but they were isolated incidents that were done inspire of, not because of, a belief in the supernatural as far as Western religion went. Yet any government born of atheism in the twentieth century (e.g., the USSR, Mao’s China) ended up butchering hundreds of millions of people. Even Hitler’s government could trace its roots to Nietzsche, who was an atheist; and on evolutionary grounds it makes perfect sense that some races had evolved better than others had. That being the case, is putting a less-evolved race of humans into a cage or using them as a beast of burden any different from putting a monkey in a cage, or using a draft horse to plow a field, or should gassing an ‘inferior’ race be any different than stomping on a cockroach? There is much talk of human dignity these days. How is being born of random and meaningless material accidental processes supposed to be dignified? Genesis says that all were created in the image of God, and so it follows that all have great worth by virtue of mere existence. Does one seriously believe that they are endangered by one who considers their fellow man to be priceless creations, and who is also commanded to love even their enemies, while there is no danger by one who believes that there is no such thing as morality? Now there is a silly belief that needs to be corrected.
*This issue (has the theory of evolution directly resulted in any thing of practical use) can be divided into two issues: has it directly or indirectly resulted in any practical thing that has helped the average person.
Taking the indirect first, it is sometimes proudly mentioned that attempts to validate human evolution has pointed science to new discoveries and so on. The real question should be, were those new discoveries incidental or coincidental to the theory. For example, alchemy (the effort to convert lead to gold by chemical means) eventually gave birth to chemistry. While alchemy never did what it set out to do, chemistry remains a useful branch of science. As well, one could set out to find Atlantis and invent an advanced aqualung to aid in the search for Atlantis, but it does not follow that Atlantis is therefore a fact or even a useful theory. Expeditions to find the Abominable Snow Man may not find Big Foot, but they would likely find something new in the Himalayas; any large expedition would. Any sort of application of math, for example evolutionary algorithms, fits into this category.
It is often thought that modern biology was born of Darwin. That is absurd. The father of genetics, for example, was a contemporary of Darwin named Mendel. This Monk laid out the laws of genetics not only independent of Darwin, but also in contradiction of Darwin. The Monk discovered that creatures could have one set of traits or another, but entirely new traits were not just going to pop up from nothing to respond to the environment. The laws that the Monk discovered did not support Darwin’s conception of the mechanism of evolution, and that is why, today, the mutation theory has quietly replaced Darwin’s concept that animals and plants could be indefinitely flexible in adapting to environment by selective breeding. Odd how a theory become fact, and then started changing—traditionally it is the other way around. And exactly which ‘fact’ should be taught? The old one or the new one?
In medicine the creation of drugs to counter germs that are no longer countered with older antibiotics is sometimes used to prove that the theory is useful. That does not hold water. Mendel is sufficient here. If germs with certain traits are killed, then well, they are killed and their traits will not be likely passed on. This really is not an adaptation to the environment; rather the susceptible germs are simply removed, making room for germs that were already less susceptible.
In short, if a theory has to be extensively revised when new discoveries take place, then that theory is hardly proved by them and was even probably a hindrance in finding them for it was pointing in the wrong direction. The theory may be made to explain them, or at least given enough plausibility to satisfy the faithful; but if anything it is slowly disproved each time the theory is rewritten. If scientists would stop wasting time dabbling in philosophy then more time could be spent on actual science. To that end human evolution is at best wasteful distraction, and at worst a patron of genocidal dictators who take it upon themselves to help the human race evolve.