Is it true that all arguments against perpetual motion are of philosophical nature and from a scientific point of view there is no reason why it would be impossible?
>>7945811
Quite the opposite. The arguments against perpetual motion are scientific and for are purely philosophical.
>>7945811
You can create perpetual motion, but only on the margins and scraps. Only on the waste heat and flaws of other sources of power may you find the infinite and glorious realization of not only a powerhouse but the power source of your own self and that final godhead.
You are mistaken to think that only the prime power production can provide you the true hertz to operate your finial form but it is a path that will only lead to short-circuits and blown fuses through your life.
The righteous path toward illumination is a three-phase source only obtainable by those willing to seek it.
>>7945815
If the universe ended tomorrow then that pendulum you have swinging in your clock would count as perpetual motion because it lasted "forever" because "ever" ends when the universe does. Therefore if the big crunch or rip is real then any celestial motion that lasts up to that point is effectively perpetual. Checkmate scientists.
>>7945945
And this folks is why /sci/ occasionally shoots philosophers.
>>7945811
If the notion of zero point energy ever becomes established as a credible possibility we might have to reconsider perpetual motion. Until then, keep eating your lentils and watch out for the chemtrails.
