How about this..

[Peebothuhlu]

 Hi Drich.

Uhm... I think the problem/isue is that you're using the definition "Perpetual motion machine" incorrectly.

In relation to a geothermal plant, or wind farm, or atomic rector, or solar pannel array.

Non of the above are 'Perpetual motion machines'. They all convert one form of energy into another form of energy.... and usually into a third form of energy in most cases.

A 'Perpetual motion machine' is effectivly a 'Free lunch'. Once set up and plugged in energy 'Magically' comes out the end.

This is why, in most science fiction settings 'Gravity thrusters' are actually a bad idea. If you can make a gizmo that can simply 'Push' against reality when you supply electricity into it?

Then, depending on the efficency, you can simply have a couple opposit each other on long arms around an axis with a generator mounted at the axis. Supply some innitial power to get the thing spinning and eventually the rotatinal energy wil produce more power than the 'Gravitic pushers' mounted on the ends.

Needles to say.... you can weaponize said idea pretty quickly as well.

Sorry for the digression.

Basically the geo/solar/atomic/wind systems all lose energy in one form or another. With atomic energy... the atoms simply turn into something esle that's no lonegr atomically unstable.

With solar? we eventually run out of Sun. Plus the panels break down under UV bombardment etc.

With geothermal? The latent heat energy in the rocks 'fades' and new heat can't phase into the are fast enough to keep the temperature high enough to generate useful power.

With wind? Well... it's actually the worst (Least efficent) of the group. You ever wonder why we don't still use wind mills to grind our grain and stuff? You could, with enough windmills taking energy out of the surrounding air, potentially change weather patterns in the surrounding area. Clouds form based party on the energy in the air in which they coalesce

Basically, you're redefining the term 'Perpetual motion'. If you want to keep with your definition, that's fine. but at least allow every one else to understand and catch up with your terms.

 

Not at work.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-59309-page-21.html
that was the big reveal of post 207 in the original thread... thanks for confirming my own findings and respringing my trap validating all of the facts and technology that you YES YOU and your peers were originally arguing against.

in your efforts here, You're only furthering the point I made there and now that you've finally come to a conclusion I personally pointed out almost 4 days ago..

can you now be bothered to read this op in this new thread and now comment on this topic?

Because the only thing you have done here by rehashing your conclusions of the other thread is insult your peers by pretending to have figured out what they have all failed to do in the heat of the moment. Even if you did honestly figure it out, why post it here? Unless your intentions is to tell your fellow atheists how smart you see yourself to be...

---

 Uhm... so that's a "Yes" to you using the word/term 'Perpetual motion machine' in the wrong sense then, is it?



EDIT: Well... not in the 'Wrong' sense... but in a way that, so far, only you have used it?

Not at work.