Perpetual Motion Machines

Thanks to Marty Samson for the link to the perpetual perpetual motion machine debate at: ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54128-continuous-frictioned-motion-machine/ ).

This is just the same old, same old. You see only subtle hints about what is going on behind the scenes here. It is the old battle between the deterministic Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) and its indeterministic opposite, creation. Energy, once again, is being used here as the great obfuscator. As I explained in my E=mc² paper, energy is a calculation, a matter-motion term that is neither matter nor motion. Indeterminists, ever hoping for evidence of the creation of something out of nothing, readily jump on the PMM (perpetual motion machines) idea.

Lately, it has been the quest for “free energy.” However, all reactions, as assumed above, involve the transformation of one kind of matter in motion to another kind of matter in motion. Any “energy” discovered under that assumption will be no freer than the solar “energy” that our plants absorb each day. As you will discover in reading "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," the macrocosm contains all manner of supermicrocosms (e.g., aether-1, etc.). These unseen particles have the potential to be involved in what many of our modern-day aether-deniers would consider “free energy” or contraventions of PMM. Of course, if it were not so obvious gravitational motion could be considered “free energy” too. What could be freer than the motion of a meteorite as it smashes any supposedly “isolated system” we could devise? Nonetheless, that possibly unexpected result would not be a falsification of conservation, the law that states that PMM cannot exist.