Comment by DoctorOetker 3 days ago In 1598, physics had not yet developed to the point of articulating modern thermodynamics. 7 comments DoctorOetker Reply glenstein 3 days ago All the more reason not to treat his invention as if it belongs to that modern category. dr_dshiv 3 days ago But there wasn’t a difference in categories at the time — yet, at the time, perpetual motion was still treated as impossible. glenstein 3 days ago If the category didn't exist at the time, the example shouldn't have been volunteered as an example that fits our present day understanding of perpetual motion as understood by the U.S. patent office in the 20th century. 4 replies →
glenstein 3 days ago All the more reason not to treat his invention as if it belongs to that modern category. dr_dshiv 3 days ago But there wasn’t a difference in categories at the time — yet, at the time, perpetual motion was still treated as impossible. glenstein 3 days ago If the category didn't exist at the time, the example shouldn't have been volunteered as an example that fits our present day understanding of perpetual motion as understood by the U.S. patent office in the 20th century. 4 replies →
dr_dshiv 3 days ago But there wasn’t a difference in categories at the time — yet, at the time, perpetual motion was still treated as impossible. glenstein 3 days ago If the category didn't exist at the time, the example shouldn't have been volunteered as an example that fits our present day understanding of perpetual motion as understood by the U.S. patent office in the 20th century. 4 replies →
glenstein 3 days ago If the category didn't exist at the time, the example shouldn't have been volunteered as an example that fits our present day understanding of perpetual motion as understood by the U.S. patent office in the 20th century. 4 replies →
All the more reason not to treat his invention as if it belongs to that modern category.
But there wasn’t a difference in categories at the time — yet, at the time, perpetual motion was still treated as impossible.
If the category didn't exist at the time, the example shouldn't have been volunteered as an example that fits our present day understanding of perpetual motion as understood by the U.S. patent office in the 20th century.
4 replies →