## Perpetual Motion Conspiracy #1

Expand Messages
• Perpetual Motion Conspiracy Inventors have a hard time when trying to patent perpetual motion machines. Robert L Park in his book Voodoo Science debunks them.
Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

Inventors have a hard time when trying to patent perpetual motion machines.

Robert L Park in his book Voodoo Science debunks them. He claims that given the Laws of Physics such machines cannot work, so Patent Offices are justified in rejecting them.

After talking about Dr Fludd's 17th century perpetual motion machine, he then explains the Laws of Physics:

".....the concept of energy or 'work' as a measurable quantity did not exist in the 17th century. It would be another two hundred years before the flaw in Dr Fludd's machine would be stated in the form of a fundamental law of nature: energy is conserved. Written as a mathematical equation, it is known as the First Law of Thermodynamics. There is no firmer pillar of modern science. It is the law that explains why a ball, no matter what it's made of never bounces higher than the point from which it's dropped. The conservation of energy is consistent with our everyday experience: you can't get something for nothing.

He 'slags' Fludd's machine, and then says:

"..Without adding energy, any real machine, no matter how well it's built, would gradually slow down and stop. That's embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Our bouncing ball, no matter what it's made of, can never bounce quite as high as the point from which it's dropped. The first law says you can't win; the second law says you can't break even."

When I drop my ball it bounces at least twice as high as the distance it fell.

Balls can bounce 'higher than the point from which it is dropped.'

This Robert Parks must totally disregard observations. He pontificates and says that all balls don't bounce as high as the distance they fell, and then pretends that this is based on everyday observations. He must be totally disregarding observations!!! He thinks that his 'word' has more weight than 'actual observations' and pretends observations agree with him. WHAT A CHEAT.

I suppose that when faced with a claim that a ball can bounce higher than the distance it fell, he can pontificate that he does not need to see the relevant experiment, because he already believes it won't work. He would also probably say that such a ball would violate the Laws of Physics (i.e. the first and second laws of thermodynamics). BUT - what it really means he has failed to comprehend what those laws REALLY mean.

According to the back cover of the book- Robert L Park is Professor of Physics and former chairman of the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland. So, he's not a person devoid of physics knowledge. But when it comes to talking about dropping balls, he talks utter nonsense.

It is these sort of opinionated people who have no grasp of physics, but claim lots of credentials in physics that Inventors of Perpetual Motion machines face, when they find their patents refused.

They are the type of Fools that probably never even tried dropping balls to see what actually happens. Instead they probably sat in classrooms listened to the Physics Professors pontificate to them as to what should happen, and paying careful attention to what was said regurgitated all the statements that they were told in the exams. Then passing exams with flying credits become Physics Professors themselves and then pontificated to the next generation of physicists.

This is GIGO - 'Garbage In Garbage Out'. One generation teaches Garbage to the next, who then teaches it to the subsequent generations. A whole tradition of people teaching nonsense and not paying attention to what really happens in physics. Where - Lessons are the transfer of the Teacher's notes to the Students' notes without passing through the minds of anyone.

This is the Foundation upon which much of Modern Physics is based - a total disregard for what actually happens, and the transference of Garbage that becomes Dogma.

Such Dogmatists (with their misunderstanding of science) pontificate on all subjects, disregarding observations which would contradict their pontifications. (Parks does pontificate about UFOs later in his book and sets about trying to debunk.)

One can check for oneself that these Dogmatists talk nonsense: Try dropping balls yourself if you don't believe me; to find out under what conditions they bounce higher than the distance they fell. (One should of course not throw the balls down or else you are giving them extra energy more than which gravity gives them.) Its a question of being able to observe properly. Lateral thinking might also be needed, it depends on how much of a 'rut' your thinking processes can get into.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.