Paul, you're wrong about newton and his laws. I don't know why you're in such denial - that you're wrong is self-evident, both in the way Newton phrased his own laws (in which he clearly states external forces - impressae), and in the simple fact that enough perpetual motion devices like yours have been shown to not work.
bryan it is you that is wrong about newtons laws , its clear that he wasnt a idot like you think he is , on the contrary
he was smart.
you are denying his laws because you think they are being violated when they are not.
Newton phrased his own laws (in which he clearly states external forces - impressae)
impressae
does not translate into external.
dummy.
it translates into press or to press
nothing external there , dummy.
heres the latin:
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus
impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
impressis thorough consideration to stand that change
nothing external there either , dummy.
can you show where
impressis means external?
can you show where any of the above means external?
no you cant , because none of the above can translate into external.
and the closest word in the 1st law that could be translated into force is impressis.
dummy.
heres the translation:
a body will preserve in its state stiched in place and will move in its uniform direction , if not pressed through consideration to stand that change
