There are two basic kinds of PMMs (perpetual motion machines): those that violate the first and second laws of thermo (which are Rob Knopp type machines that output more than they put in) and those that only violate the second law (machines that are 100 percent efficient). A PPM requries that work be done since a machine is some device that does work. What is work? The physics definition is that work is the dot product of force and displacement. Essentially this means that work = forcexdistance but also that the force and the distance have to be in the same direction (they should be parallel and not perpendicular). A block sliding on ice or better still a body moving through space is not an example of a PPM because there is no force being exerted. A planetary body does have a force being exerted on it over a distance but the displacement and the force are always perpendicular (not in the same direction) so the work done is zero. I am not sure about the expanding universe but my feeling is that there is not force involved in expanding the universe and therefore there is no work. However I don’t really understand GR and I am not sure how things work when you are talking about space itself expanding.

The reason why PPM don’t work is heat. Whenever any machine does work it produces heat. So in order for the machine to keep going it must somehow recover the heat energy it loses. However you basically end up producing even more heat if you try to recover the heat energy you lose and so you can never have a machine with 100 percent efficiency.

(I respect the fact that a comment here is not the best place, but with Jacques Distler and others on arXiv deleting my papers in 2002 within 45 seconds, without reading them, it isn’t possible to put information where it should be. Red tape gets in the way, not to mention elitism, hatred of so-called “pet theories”, etc. Even if you use entirely established facts, you’re still censored because they don’t have the time to read anything not in their carefully censored journals, which are biased in favour of M-theory and related speculations. To publish facts that actually predict gravity with that stuff would be embarrassing and thus impossible not only to them, but to me. I published in Electronics World.)

However, the lack of slowing down of supernovae recession wasn’t predicted by the cosmological constant, but it was predicted and published two years ahead by a dynamics for gravity which is entirely factual. There is 100% bias in favour of mainstream and 0% objectivity towards new work, especially where it’s based entirely on facts which are well established (spacetime, Hubble recession, Newton’s 3rd law etc.).

Any statement of the constructive facts get ignored, any criticism of the mainstream gets responded to with a request for constructive facts, which then get ignored. What you never get is any interest in fact based science.

The nonlocality question is important and I found this book quite elucidating>>

‘The NonLocal Universe: The new physics and matters ofthe mind’
-Robert Nadeau & Menas Kafatos; Oxford UP 1999!

Re:astrology v. “science” see: ‘Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a new world view’
-Richard Tarnas; Viking 2006.
There is quite a difference between Rob Brezhny and Dane Rudhyar, but i’ve heard that those born with grand crosses in Aries in the fifth house are geniuses or serial killers…

MOND proponants claim that TeVeS changes the way gravitaitonal lensing works, so the bullet cluster results may not seal the deal (they did convince me, although I was rooting for MOND)

Along the lines of what George was saying, the freakonomics people wrote an article in the NYTimes about correlations between birth-month and success in life–it was societal, of course, no astrology. But still…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07wwln_freak.html?ex=1166763600&en=abb6f6ba07d89cf3&ei=5070

The discovery by the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) and the High-Z Supernova team that the expansion of the universe is accelerating poses an exciting mystery — for if the universe were governed by gravitational attraction, its rate of expansion would be slowing. Acceleration requires a strange “dark energy’ opposing this gravity. Is this Einstein’s cosmological constant, or more exotic new physics? Whatever the explanation, it will lead to new discoveries in astrophysics, particle physics, and gravitation.

Priceless – The Universe does not produce the stars inside it?
Where did the energy of the first cause of motion come from?
From a power source (or big foot) kicking the universe into motion?
-