1166: "Argument"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

1166: "Argument"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:12 am UTC

Image

Title Text: The misguided search for a perpetual motion machine has run substantially longer than any attempted perpetual motion machine.

Also ironically, it's apparently generating plenty of friction.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:21 am UTC

I too thought free energy was impossible . . . that is until I attached an alternator to Rudolf Clausius's corpse.

asdfzxc
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:04 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby asdfzxc » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:41 am UTC

Come on now Randall. Trolling a pseudoscience board is akin to literally stealing candy from a baby.

jobud9
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:51 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby jobud9 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:52 am UTC

Can someone find the actual thread?

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:03 am UTC

asdfzxc wrote:Come on now Randall. Trolling a pseudoscience board is akin to literally stealing candy from a baby.

It's like being not anti-Semetic on /r/conspiracy
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

Eutychus
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 am UTC
Location: France

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Eutychus » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:11 am UTC

I came in here to say that 547 pages was even longer than the Pressures thread and found that the thread in question had shrunk to just two pages.

Then I found, to my relief, that the Relativity thread was 129 pages long.
Be very careful about rectilinear assumptions. Raptors could be hiding there - ucim

Ehsanit
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Ehsanit » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:40 am UTC

Working Perpetual motion machine design:
Hamster wheel with the a sign telling folks there's a PPM at the top.

User avatar
San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby San Fran Sam » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:59 am UTC

Ooh! Ooh! Can we argue as to whether Randall used the word "ironically" correctly or not? :twisted:

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Gargravarr » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:01 am UTC

Personally I like the buttered cat school of perpetual motion.

And this design, probably inspired by all YouTube videos of perpetual machines that have to be pushed by hand.

slhuang
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:12 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby slhuang » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:06 am UTC

When I was at MIT, I would get the occasional random message from some very earnest person detailing a perpetual motion machine idea that would REALLY WORK NO REALLY, if someone would just recognize the BRILLIANCE of it (hence email blasting every single @mit.edu address the person could find). It was kind of hilarious.

User avatar
Icalasari
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 5:11 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Icalasari » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:14 am UTC

Well, found this video

This whole thing is making me wonder how he actually got each device to work (other than the train as that one was hardly perpetual motion). The YouTube comments say that the flask has a pump hooked up to it

And I seriously want to see that thread

EDIT:

However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]


Oh Wikipedia

slhuang
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:12 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby slhuang » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:20 am UTC

San Fran Sam wrote:Ooh! Ooh! Can we argue as to whether Randall used the word "ironically" correctly or not? :twisted:


Heh, I'll bite!

It's not verbally ironic, but I believe it's situationally ironic -- presumably the intention of the thread, in telling everyone they're crackpots and don't understand thermodynamics, was to make them stop believing in perpetual motion machines. Instead, the thread created a perpetual motion machine, thus breaking the laws of thermodynamics and disproving the original post. So, if we posit for humor's sake that the thread itself flouts the laws of reality in being an actual PMM, which I read as the implication in the comic, then it's definitely the opposite of the thread starter's intended result there . . . and thus situational ironic.

I'm good with the usage. :D

(And Sam, I laughed at your post, because ::mumbles:: my brain might have done a compulsive check of the usage the very first time I read the comic.)

DavidRoss
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby DavidRoss » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:30 am UTC

[quote="slhuang"]...Instead, the thread created a perpetual motion machine, thus breaking the laws of thermodynamics and disproving the original post...."

The cute (I'll not use "ironic" inappropriately) part is that the thread is a perpetual motion machine in exactly the same way that most perpetual motion machines work: by ignoring the energy that is input to keep it running. In the case of the thread, it's the energy that is input to the Internet connections, servers, etc. to maintain the thread. In the case of the mechanical machine, if it does keep running, is due to the battery you're suppose to ignore or not know about.

Dryhad
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:31 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Dryhad » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:55 am UTC

I don't buy it. It's a forum specifically dedicated to perpetual motion, right? So everyone posting there should be either a perpetual motion adherent or a troll. And yet we're supposed to believe both groups payed attention to the thread in sufficient numbers to maintain an active argument for nine years? To say nothing of moderator action.

This perpetual motion machine thread is a hoax!

User avatar
Himself
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:17 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Himself » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:27 am UTC

Icalasari wrote:Well, found this video

This whole thing is making me wonder how he actually got each device to work (other than the train as that one was hardly perpetual motion). The YouTube comments say that the flask has a pump hooked up to it

And I seriously want to see that thread

EDIT:

However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]


Oh Wikipedia

Given that all the devices apart from the flask and the train rotate, I might guess he used an electric motor.
"Looking me am a civilization person"
-Ratio Tile

MeisBarry
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:37 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby MeisBarry » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:08 am UTC

I would just like to say that I enjoyed the choice of avatar image for the second poster.

Patrik3
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Patrik3 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:22 am UTC

Gargravarr wrote:And this design, probably inspired by all YouTube videos of perpetual machines that have to be pushed by hand.


That video was funny... but it bore quite a resemblance to that counter-ontological argument (if I recall the terms I learned in school correctly) - the argument being that in order for us to exist, a god must exist, and the counter argument being that if a god existed to put us in motion, then there must be something else to have put god in motion.

So, is reality itself a perpetual motion machine?

Also, if the universe doesn't end in a steady state and does collapse into an infinite succession of big bangs, then surely that is perpetual motion, too?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Klear » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:30 am UTC

However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]


I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

Beidah
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Beidah » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:39 am UTC

Klear wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]


I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

Depends on how hard you butter it, actually. If you press firmly against the bread as you butter, then it'll more likely land butter-side down. If the knife just glides over the bread, then it'll land butter-side up. This is because pressing firmly indents the bread, making the opposite side heavier.

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Gargravarr » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:40 am UTC

Klear wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]

I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

IIRC, Mythbusters found out that toast usually lands upside down when it falls off a table, but not when you drop it off a roof.
EDIT: link
I think I'll go butter a toast on both sides. In the name of science and breakfast.

Afrael
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:23 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Afrael » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:07 am UTC

Icalasari wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]


Oh Wikipedia



That sentence was added three days ago. :lol:

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby ijuin » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:23 am UTC

Gargravarr wrote:
Klear wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]

I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

IIRC, Mythbusters found out that toast usually lands upside down when it falls off a table, but not when you drop it off a roof.
EDIT: link
I think I'll go butter a toast on both sides. In the name of science and breakfast.


Since toast is generally shaped like a flat, semi-rigid slab, when it slides off of (your hand, plate, whatever), its center of mass falls off of the support and begins to descend before the trailing edge of the toast has cleared the thing from which it is falling off. In other words, the trailing edge of the toast gets "caught" on the edge of your hand/plate/whatever. This puts a torque on the toast, causing it to tumble. When falling from a typical height of 50-200 cm (i.e. the kind of height from which we would typically drop it onto the surface that we are standing upon), the toast has enough time to flip over once, so that the side that was formerly facing up will now be facing down. Since we tend to carry the toast butter-side up, this results in the toast landing butter-side down. Dropping the toast from a much greater height (e.g. the roof of a 2-floor building), would allow the toast to flip over more than once, and if it flips over an even number of times, then it will land butter-side up.

Afrael
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:23 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Afrael » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:28 am UTC

What I took from that explanation is that if I have buttered toast, I should always carry it buttered side down or only on a roof. Is that correct?

hicksbw
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:38 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby hicksbw » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:55 am UTC

Dryhad wrote: ... to maintain an active argument for nine years? ...

An arbitrarily long sequence of unrelated assertions is not an argument.

And the only available conclusion is that it will not be reached.
Sort of like Zeno, only using 1/3 instead of 1/2.

Offtopic: What is the appropriate ellipsis following a question mark? - ??? - ?

do7slash
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:23 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby do7slash » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:25 am UTC

Reminded me of the best homer simpson quote:

"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!"

I want to print that in big letters and hang it above my front door.

itaibn
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:06 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby itaibn » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:42 am UTC

Sadly, it's impossible to generate useful work out of perpetual motion crackpottery.
I NEVER use all-caps.

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Invertin » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:58 am UTC

Patrik3 wrote:That video was funny... but it bore quite a resemblance to that counter-ontological argument (if I recall the terms I learned in school correctly) - the argument being that in order for us to exist, a god must exist, and the counter argument being that if a god existed to put us in motion, then there must be something else to have put god in motion.


i've heard arguments to this effect ('where did god come from?') directed at religious folks
and I really do not intend to make this into a religious thing i just felt i had to direct my grievances towards this specific train of thought because it hasn't quite reached the last station

two of god's features as a god is that he is omnipotent and that he exists outside of our understanding of the laws of physics
so why would causality apply to him
why can't god have created god- it doesn't make sense but that's why it's omnipotent and not aslongasitmakessensewithinourunderstandingofthewaythingsworkpotent

im not saying god definately exists because of this im nor that the original poster was being anti-religious i just
i see similar thoughts a lottt

Patrik3
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Patrik3 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:31 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:
i've heard arguments to this effect ('where did god come from?') directed at religious folks
and I really do not intend to make this into a religious thing i just felt i had to direct my grievances towards this specific train of thought because it hasn't quite reached the last station


Oh, no, I don't mean to turn this into a religious thing.

The point I was trying to make was, the video's joke was that each cog N only turned because of the force applied by cog N+1, but since each cog always relied on the previous cog's force, there would be an infinitely long chain of cogs because there could never be a 'first' cog to power itself. If all motion - or even just existence for that matter - requires a cause or force, then likewise there can never be a 'first' cause (I believe the term I was looking for was actually 'prime mover'). So I was just drawing comparison between the 'joke' perpetual motion machine in the video and our own universe.

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Gargravarr » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:17 pm UTC

Patrik3 wrote:
Gargravarr wrote:And this design, probably inspired by all YouTube videos of perpetual machines that have to be pushed by hand.


That video was funny... but it bore quite a resemblance to that counter-ontological argument

Well, it reminded me of a drinking song:

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall,
Aleph-null bottles of beer.
Take one down, pass it around,
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:03 pm UTC

MeisBarry wrote:I would just like to say that I enjoyed the choice of avatar image for the second poster.

Yes, but (s)he's got the wrong First Law. The First Law of Thermodynamics is you don't talk about thermodynamics.
(Somebody had to say it).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:18 pm UTC

asdfzxc wrote:Come on now Randall. Trolling a pseudoscience board is akin to literally stealing candy from a baby.


I think a better analogy is the famous slogan of the long-gone, lamented best website ever, suck.com : A fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

DavidRoss wrote:
slhuang wrote:...Instead, the thread created a perpetual motion machine, thus breaking the laws of thermodynamics and disproving the original post...."

The cute (I'll not use "ironic" inappropriately) part is that the thread is a perpetual motion machine in exactly the same way that most perpetual motion machines work: by ignoring the energy that is input to keep it running. .


Correct: the proper description of the thread is not "perpetual motion," but rather "infinite recursive loop"
:mrgreen:

Meanwhile, maybe we can argue about the musical structure "perpetuum mobile."
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

wagner
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby wagner » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:25 pm UTC

itaibn wrote:Sadly, it's impossible to generate useful work out of perpetual motion crackpottery.


Maybe we could take all those crackpots, seal them in pods, and hook them into some kind of biofusion reactor...

wagner
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby wagner » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:29 pm UTC

Gargravarr wrote:Personally I like the buttered cat school of perpetual motion.


Drink Flying Horse!

baardvark
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:13 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby baardvark » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:38 pm UTC

I didn't know perpetual motion machines couldn't have a first input, but he is in total violation by adding a second input (stoking the "irony" fire.)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:05 pm UTC

No one is complaining that the alt text just explains the punchline? I'm a little surprised. That complaint usually comes up even when it's not true.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

asdfzxc wrote:... is akin to literally ...

I like the way you found a formulation that lets you use the word "literally" in a figurative sense with impunity.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

richP
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby richP » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:19 pm UTC

itaibn wrote:Sadly, it's impossible to generate useful work out of perpetual motion crackpottery.


Sure it's possible, just open an online store selling supplies for homebuilt perpetual motion machines.

User avatar
BrianB
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby BrianB » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:34 pm UTC

I maintain that the topic referenced in the comic cannot exist in real life. Why? Because it used the word "you're" instead of "your".

Everyone knows that nobody on the internet knows the correct usage of these two words.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:35 pm UTC

richP wrote:
itaibn wrote:Sadly, it's impossible to generate useful work out of perpetual motion crackpottery.

Sure it's possible, just open an online store selling supplies for homebuilt perpetual motion machines.

Just remember to push back hard when Marketing start wanting to offer complete, pre-built working models.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Keyman, Soup and 98 guests