brother Paul
Member
Conservation of energy implies that in an isolated system energy can be neither created nor destroyed, although it can be changed from one form (mechanical, kinetic, chemical, etc.) into another. In an isolated system the sum of all forms of energy therefore remains constant.So, the total quantity of energy in an isolated system does not change, though it may change form. In physics then, it is said "the total quantity of the property governed by that law remains unchanged during physical processes."
Therefore, as Planck demonstrates, a consequence of the law is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist (that is a system or machine which produces work/motion without the input of energy).
That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings. (See Max. Planck’s, Treatise on Thermodynamics, third English edition translated by A. Ogg from the seventh German edition, Longmans, Green & Co., London, page 40). Such a thing is unimaginable in Physics, and is said to be an epistemic impossibility.
To me this is indicative of Aristotle’s concept of “prime mover”. Nothing can move without something that moved it. He was addressing a physical observation (not a spiritual speculation) in that movement not only meant something travelling in some direction, but also change, growth, melting, cooling, and so on. He argues back to something which moves it but of itself is itself unmoved, i.e., a necessary first source(s) of all movement.
It is theorized that the original motion of the mass/energy (which allegedly has never changed only transformed) which became the planets, stars, etc., is an expected reality (though we have yet to prove it absolutely). However if Planck and Aristotle are correct, then can't it be logically deduced that the origin of the Universe also required the “input” of a force not of the Universe.
I realize this is simplified but any thoughts?
Therefore, as Planck demonstrates, a consequence of the law is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist (that is a system or machine which produces work/motion without the input of energy).
That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings. (See Max. Planck’s, Treatise on Thermodynamics, third English edition translated by A. Ogg from the seventh German edition, Longmans, Green & Co., London, page 40). Such a thing is unimaginable in Physics, and is said to be an epistemic impossibility.
To me this is indicative of Aristotle’s concept of “prime mover”. Nothing can move without something that moved it. He was addressing a physical observation (not a spiritual speculation) in that movement not only meant something travelling in some direction, but also change, growth, melting, cooling, and so on. He argues back to something which moves it but of itself is itself unmoved, i.e., a necessary first source(s) of all movement.
It is theorized that the original motion of the mass/energy (which allegedly has never changed only transformed) which became the planets, stars, etc., is an expected reality (though we have yet to prove it absolutely). However if Planck and Aristotle are correct, then can't it be logically deduced that the origin of the Universe also required the “input” of a force not of the Universe.
I realize this is simplified but any thoughts?
