Relative

Thank you, I think you may be correct and my idea of perpetual motion is not the same . You think the power source would not be effective enough for the matter to gain mass?, maybe not in some countries, but a huge flat surface made of iron or equivalent, in a hot country would heat to a great temperature, especially if painted black?

I do see what you are saying, I will rephrase, my device would be perpetual over time, of the suns existence and the Earths existence, but not infinite unless the energy was infinite? And we are not exactly adding energy, it is a natural event.

The motion would be perpetual over time, at night the motion would only be suspended, and no solar panels involved, just thermodynamics and gravity. I suppose it is harnessing solar energy. We add energy to a block of metal it gains weight , science told me, we may have to offset the bar , but in principle the north should go south by design of a pyramid, and a pyramid on its tip will always topple over. Momentum then should lift the cooler pyramid with less mass, then the process should repeat.

I believe your definition would have the planets rolling around a spiral falling, the curvature of time and space?. I would have to redefine gravity with my explanation, which involves thermodynamics and equilibrium's. So to be honest I am best not answering the question, it will take us of topic. I like your thinking, we should be able to utilize something, my thinking is that two metal/iron , pyramids, with a bar splitting them up, both of equal mass, peak points facing each other, 0 degrees and 180 degrees, respectively looking like a vertical dumb bell except with pyramids. We know that by adding energy to either pyramid, the thermodynamics will increase the mass potential, If we increase the thermodynamics of the pyramid at 0 degrees, the mass will make the pyramid heavier and it will swing down forcing the 180 degrees now lighter pyramid to rise. Then repeat, and repeat. Heat rises, and radiation is higher at altitude, and that is where I am at with my idea. S=entropy E=energy more likely this way around. The thermodynamics of the one in the sun making more mass, making motion by gravity, North and west points of energy gain needed to maintain momentum. West and south in the dark, protective cover from heat/energy of the sun. If this is not classed has perpetual motion? what is it?

2 equal masses, on an x axis been vertical, been balanced of an equilibrium of weight, A been at 0 degrees, and B been at 180 degrees, increase the mass of A by thermodynamics and A gains more mass. Maybe my definition of perpetual is off?

The planets do work, opposite reaction to action,

I have an idea of a machine that should in concept, be perpetual motion, however, the machine would harvest external energies , from the Universe, to make it work somehow. The motion would be none battery and continued, but according to science, this would not be perpetual? Yes they are doing work, they are in motion, how can you define motion has not work. Every action has an opposite reaction,

I think I let myself get confused now, ''A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source'' So what external E source, makes the planets spin, and have an orbital path around the Sun?

The internals of the Sun make the orbits do they not? The Sun rotates perpetual? Solar systems spiral perpetually? Unless you are saying there is forces acting upon our visual universe, from outside our visual universe?

''Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.'' The Sun has internal F, not external

I will answer you soon, need to refresh on energy conservation.

And you are not considering internal source of energy, proton-proton chain etc.

Thank you, yes I am aware that it is defined mainly based on a machine, however if the concept is there universally , the concept can be mimicked,. It exists in the Universe, so it must exist in reality. I do have an idea that may just work, but that's another thread another time. Has far has we are concerned, the entire recorded time of human existence, the orbit of the sun been perpetual, the answer is yes, and has far has we are concerned, is perpetual, if it stops, we will not be there to see it. Can you agree that the orbit is perpetual? A solar system is also ? Infinite is only has long has our existence. How can science say that planets are not in perpetual motion?, the dictionary definition that i posted states they are?

'' I am not even sure how we can really incorporate general relativity into classical statistical physics anyway.'' I do not understand sorry, I am and have learnt science has one, and not catergorized has classical or modern etc.

Locally the Earth perpetual orbits the Sun does it not? ''never ending or changing. "deep caves in perpetual darkness" synonyms: everlasting, never-ending, eternal, permanent, unending, endless,without end, lasting, long-lasting, constant, abiding, enduring,perennial, timeless, ageless, deathless, undying, immortal; More . occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted. "their perpetual money worries" synonyms: interminable, incessant, ceaseless, endless, without respite, relentless,unrelenting, persistent, frequent, continual, continuous, non-stop,never-ending, recurrent, repeated, unremitting, sustained, round-the-clock, habitual, chronic, unabating; informaleternal "Clara could recall her mother's perpetual nagging at her father"'' Light also is perpetual? having a constant V?

My evidence I offer, the design and motion of the Universe.

Does air and gases not have weight? I have never said science did not work, and I stated time ago, that everything I state is just questions. I reject experiments if all the variables have not been accounted for. ''said If I have seen further it is from standing on the shoulders of giants '' And I stand on the giants shoulders. I am only looking deep into what they say, and probably deeper. And i do not know how you can say that my asteroid model is not a viable model. The asteroid in a stable orbit does not leave the belt on its own accord, something must change to make it leave. Thermodynamics means radiation as well, the asteroids gain radioactive energy, do they not?

exactly

That sounds complex, r1 and r2 on a ellipse , how is the Earth able to lag behind the sun as such and go away from the sun, what force makes the Earth draw back to the sun when the furthest away? I know you will say gravity, so what explains moving away from the sun, If the orbit was circular, then I could easily see the orbital has been of the ball travelling around the pole theory, but with it been of ellipse, I can only see that the sun is moving and we lag behind at times?

I am sorry I thought simple models where gravity, orbits etc, I am still doing models , but to make a model , I surely must understand the concepts first? I can not understand where you get Fn from, why and how the ground pushes back, why would the orbit be an ellipse etc. Again if you lock my thread, again I will go away and still not understand. So again I will have to try find another forum to learn to understand. I really want to understand, I do not want to see it another way, I want to see it how science see's it, but it is not my thought it does not tie into my logic and work. I can not see the logic in it. I thought the asteroid belt was a simple model, and passable has a model. +energy = velocity, or minus energy = velocity. Thermodynamics of their equilibrium orbit. Is that not why the asteroids fly off? And what do you mean -''rejection of Newtonian gravity, and a cavalier disdain for some great Experiments does not bode well.'' I have not rejected them, I am asking why is not this way or that way, trying to understand where my logic is flawed and where you are correct. I can easily go on wiki and get the exact current models and copy them , but I like to learn myself and consider things first for myself before I rediscover current. Please do not close this thread, all forums do it, you can see I am not a troll and genuine trying to learn, although yes I agree I have a wicked imagination. Do you want to know what I have learn about models? I know a lot now, and understand what an actual model is, this forum has learnt me. ''Your failure to understand the normal' I understand what science says , the normal , I understand where you get Fn from, but can not agree it is there, if all the forces add up to zero, then would we not float about, would we not feel our own body mass when we stand? If I get past this Fn then maybe I will see it your way, Let me clarify what you are saying, you are saying that the ground pushes back with a force equal to the weight opposing a force onto it? To create a force F=ma , the ground is accelerating inwards, has no spring like properties, and no acceleration in the opposite direction. To me all the force is inwards, and the ground compresses, uniaxial isotropic, A question, if the ground pushes back, why is it that if I make a dent in soil using a hammer, the hole does not fill back up, if there is an opposing force f=ma from the ground, why does the ground not spring back into place? And in the simple model of a block sliding down a hill, we have friction tag, Fn tag and gravity tag, why is there no air pressure/weight tag?

Thank you , my chain was to represent gravity. And I know if i cut my chain the rocket would accelerate away from the pole. My problem is the elliptic orbit, I would expect an equal orbit. R1 and R2 been of equal distance. I do not know if you a have tried this, a piece of matter in a bath full of water with the plug took out travels an elliptic orbit around the plug hole. This is because there is more force, nearer the plug hole side of the bath. Meaning the ''side'' is closer. Does the sun travel directional?

It says the link not there sorry, could you copy and paste what it says please? In orbital mechanics, the orbits are explained has, If I put a chain on a rocket ship and attached the other end to a pole, and launched the rocket at X velocity, then the rocket ship will orbit around the pole. Is that about right in my definition? OK a new model for me to try - the asteroid belt. Is the asteroid belt the event horizon equilibrium of gravity?

Well, if the Cavendish experiment was done with equal dimension house bricks, and not lead balls, I would then maybe believe it, although I am unsure the Cavendish experiment is a fare test, due to the test been in an already gravity effected environment. And gravity of the Earth having effect on the lead balls, both balls want to fall, both balls experience a downwards force. And the twist of the wire, is no more than the twisting of water going down the plug hole. ''If you still believe this after all this discussion then you should abandon science '' Well, science has not proved anything to me with 100% factual information and logic, there is no logic in all matter is attracted to all matter. Similar to the Caesium clock, I can see the Cavendish experiment has another useless science invention, that misses all the parameters involved. ''I find actual experimentation to work better than trying to build models. You actually test it and you don't need to take anyone's word for it or hit the "I believe" button. You'll know something to be true or not.'' Yes totally agreed, however the test must account for all the variables. Put two house bricks in space and I bet you that they do not draw towards each other. I see it like this. If all matter is attracted to matter then all matter would hit the Earth , ?

Only if you believe that one house brick is attracted to another house brick which I do not. And is it not that all matter would be attracted to the stronger Force? The stronger force been the core! So how would our feet attract the ground, if the ground is been attracted directionally by a greater force? I am sorry , I think I may never understand your model , and the sliding block down an incline, that has a Fn, friction and gravity of forces. For me to believe the Fn part, you would have to prove to me that two house bricks have attractive force towards each other!. I do not see any force in an house brick, except its weight. An house brick has no center of gravity like an Earth's core. And has far has I know, neither is a house brick magnetically or electrically charged, although a house brick has thermodynamics , and takes on heat from surrounding energies/atmosphere. I do not understand what you are trying to show, are you trying to show a set of scales on some ones head upside? Or are the scales upside down and someone standing on what would be the actual bottom, but in this instant the top. Thinking about a set of scales, that has to be recalibrated in different areas of the planet. I set the scales on zero, then stand on them, I am falling at x amount of pounds. You can clearly see body weight force is equal to falling.

The weight of the scales, I do not get it , and I am still thinking models by the way, I thank you I am learning a lot about models believe it or not. I will quote this I wrote on other science forum with some replies, me-''So all you so called clever types, if f=ma , how is the ground accelerating away from gravity, because that is what you are saying. You say the ground gives of a force that is equal to the block, Fn, so how is the ground accelerating the opposite to gravity? stop talking garbage'' reply- ''the F in F=ma is the resultant force - so once all the components of all forces in the same direction have been considered and added up, what's the force left over, and that is what drives acceleration. The ground is not "accelerating away from gravity". me-''So you admit then that the ground is not accelerating away from gravity, so the force is directional towards gravity yes? you have just agreed with me.'' To have an opposing force we have to have f=ma in the opposite direction of each surfaces.