I'm not saying they are either possible nor impossible. I'm saying that given our current understanding, they appear to be impossible. But I will take the patent office viewpoint on them. I'll believe in them when I can see a working prototype complete with an explanation of how it works.
http://www.google.com/patents?q=Perpetual+Motion&btnG=Search+Patents Same thing with computing. How much of computing science is going to become irrelevant should quantum computing take off? How many new laws are waiting to be discovered? On 9/26/07, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Then again the basic assumptions are really just best guess models to > > describe what we observe. > > > <nice history of scientific advancements and theory refinements snipped> > > Are you telling me that perpetual motion machines are, in fact, > possible? Because I'm aware of all that stuff you said (and you did > say it well), but I still say perpetual motion machines are > impossible, and I don't think I'm going to miss out on anything for > believing so. > > By show of hands, who believes that perpetual motion machines are not > impossible? > > Computing is another matter entirely. We're not trying to uncover the > basic laws of computation through experiment. We know the basic laws > because we invented them and built machines to exactingly implement > them. When a computer scientist tells you something is not computable > and provides a proof, you can be quite certain that if the proof > holds, he's 100% correct. And I believe this is the real context > we're discussing, not the realm of physics. > > --Levi > > > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
