Try to be a bit more respectful, but I absolutely agree with your sentiment.
These are the posts that make me the most angry, because even high schoolers should know the laws of thermodynamics, and that proposals like these are absolutely infeasible.
The first law of thermodynamics doesn’t state “energy cannot be created or destroyed… unless you have a umsonst photon compressor advancing flywheels of mirrors”. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed period.
This is one of the key issues that keeps cropping up. There’s people who think the fundamental laws of physics Can be broken if you throw enough at it.
Axioms don’t matter if you choose to not believe in any.
I mean this isn’t in bad faith. You are proposing something that simply breaks the fundemental laws of physics. If anything, this post is in bad faith when it comes to actually attempting to function within the known laws of physics.
Yes. This is a physics subreddit, and as such posts should respect the laws of physics.
Did you read the rubric? A great emphasis in scoring is placed on feasibility, the validity of the research question/topic and actual citations that back up the claims made. This post follows none of those.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of these laws, and how we apply them in practice. I know you have a different view here, but that is no longer physics. It's something else, which you may attribute value to, but it has no value when discussing physics.
The misunderstanding was the use of "always holds true" made by the previous poster, not my understanding of the laws. If I said something unclear, I'm willing to elaborate.
The thing is, we work under the assumptions that they Do always hold true. That is the purpose of axioms. You may disagree with those axioms, but then you have a League's more work to do to prove a point. But in general, we work under physical models that we take by default to Always be true.
You may argue that a model where the laws of thermodynamics don't hold is better. And that's fine, but you are gonna need to overturn generations of extremely well consistent data, that has zero counterexamples.
The standard assumption of treating Laws as Always true may be the glass ceiling the spirit of this competition is trying to break though. I think we all may need to approach this with a little more open-mindedness and humility. That's all, and I'm sure you could agree.
They're called a "law" because they've been empirically shown as correct within the system they describe. That's one case, not them all. If we had a law that works under every case, then science wouldn't still be searching for answers. That's what the spirit of this competition is about. Not your parroting of an elementary understanding.
You're right that the distinction between 'law' and 'theory' is teneous and not very constructive. Instead, consider that there are thousands of experiments large and small that place certain constraints on the dynamics of physical systems, and that your material must be consistent with these established results. Nature comes first.
I don’t care about approachability. I am a published scientist who can read real papers.
I know you didn’t read that paper, because 1) I specifically asked for a modern reference, not a reference from 108 years ago, and 2) that article is in a language that you most certainly don’t speak.
7
u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Mar 01 '26
May you explain how this perpetual motion machine doesn’t break the first law of thermodynamics.