Science contradicts itself..Questions

[GeoscienceStudent]

Geo, I think you are confusing a couple of terms.  If you take away friction and all other losses, all scientists will agree that perpetual motion is possible.   An object in motion will continue to stay in motion.  Newton agrees too.

Atoms are no different.  At that scale, there is nothing stopping electrons from orbiting the nucleus, so they spin forever.

What we generally refer to as "perpetual motion," however, is the idea of free energy - a machine that not only works perpetually, but also creates a surplus of energy for us to use. This is what modern science has a problem with, and so far, there is not really a good example to prove them wrong, so don't bash mainstream science too much.  To use your example, I assure you, if we put a satellite in orbit but then tried to extract energy from its motion, it would plummet to earth quickly.

I hope that helps.

You told me that yesterday utilitarian but for some reason our posts are missing today.  Do you see them anywhere.
Anyways your explatation does make a whole lot more sense than some of the others because they did not explain the friction part.  And I agree that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is into play here, but that perhaps if it was use to make the energy, then reused again (recycled) it might "appear" that your getting more energy than in, when really you're not.  Think of a cup. Use it.  fill it up. use it. over and over.  How many uses can you get out of  cup before it weathers away?  You still only have one cup.  But used several times.

[HopeForHumanity]

You see, the problem with electrons are they have mass. But electrons don't actualy orbit, they chaoticaly form a electron cloud thats in constant motion. This means that atoms would have momentum at absolute zero. If atoms still have momentum at absolute zero, and they are at rest, then wouldn't that mean force is being created for no reason? "No No No, because this equation, bla bla bla." Have you actualy proved this with real experiments? "Well, no..." I rest my case.

These are the problems that I have, but some people just agree with the math. But the problem with all math is that when you get deep into a problem, every step you left behind better be right, or you got the entire problem wrong. See what I'm saying? No matter what, we must still have faith, even in science, the most logical of subjects.

[GeoscienceStudent]

Electrons do have a mass but very tiny compared to protons and neutrons.  And I read they can be either waves or particles, but this can lead to variances in the energy momentum.

Heiseburg equation (my computer won't make the exact symbols by ^ means a triangle)
^x ^p > h / 4 pi ( ^x is position, ^p is momentum (and again I apologize I can't make triangles))

when ^p is less then ^x raises to make the expression true. when ^p raises, then ^x lowers   to measure the uncertainty fo measurement of particles position and momentum.
As a scientist's measurement of position becomes less uncertain, then the uncertainty of momentum rises. 
And vice versa.
Makes it hard to do the math, I would think.  One or the other becomes uncertain.
sounds like the more certain you are about one thing, the more uncertain you are about the other.

Anything new that has come out against Heiseburg's equation?

[Golden Mean]

@GeoscienceStudent:

Whats your take on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

Exactly what I was going to post! Nice! 

The expanding Earth theory makes sense... period.  Look up the archeological records for giant species in the past... Giant dragonflies (> 1 ft) couldn't fly in today's gravitational field on Earth. 
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html

Neal does an excellent job backing up his theory too.  Not just on Earth, but on almost every planet in the solar system we have images of.  Check it out... Neal Adams
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Peace,
Will

[GeoscienceStudent]

@GeoscienceStudent:

Whats your take on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

I respectfully disagree with this Neal guy.  India is on the Indian-Australian plate relative motion and rates of movements are 2.0, 4.0, 6.2, 7.3, 7.2, 10.5 cm/year.  (Measured by Laser ranging techniques.  Laser beams from a station on one plate are bounced off a satellite and returned to a station on a different plate)It did NOT pull itself off the ocean floor. It is a plate that moves over the Mantle. He mistated that.  THe South East Indian Rise divergent plate boundary can be found in the Indian Ocean by Sonar. They have found the sea-floor spreading by Sonar, actually took the cameras down there to see, and also know where the subduction zones are.  ONe is an oceanic-oceanic plate boundary known as the ring of fire where Japan is.  I don't think Earth is expanding as this guy says.  Now in all fairness, I could not see the one you offered above, because it kept shutting off after 4 seconds, but I looked at some others.  I just don't see it.
Indeed, atmosphere has been changing and at one time was thought to be a bunch of methane gases. Also when volcanic action was more intense, even in USA about 5-10 million years ago there were more sulfuric acids, particles in the air (ash), water vapor, Carbon dioxide, nitrogen sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide, and carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and chlorine.  Usually this dissapates with the more infrequent eruptions we have now but is thought to have caused the Little Ice Age in 1400-1700's and famine,  with an East Indian Island blowing up (whole thing was a volcano)
and the Laki fissure eruption in 1783 that produced a "dry fog" oveer Europe responsible for a dry winter of 1783-1784 and toxic gases killing 75% livestock in Iceland.  And several others that have caused a lowering of temperature but with bad results.