The law of conservation of energy is the greatest mistake of physics

[PyotrD]

The law of conservation of energy in mechanics in its present form is the greatest mistake of physics during its entire existence. This error arose because of incorrect assumptions made more than 300 years ago by the Cartesians and Gottfried Leibniz. Correction of past mistakes is always the most urgent issue for any science, especially in the theoretical and methodological terms.

See more: https://www.academia.edu/36208608/The_current_law_of_conservation_of_energy_is_greatest_mistake

[studiot]

Wow you have done a lot of algebra!

 

Read here for a better history of how the confusion over ideas of motion were resolved over the 200 years from about 1650 to about 1850.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/2.pdf

Note that this article still presents the same assumption you have made right at the beginning of your own article and caried through all that algebra to a wring conclusion at the end.

Your mis-assumption is that kinematic formula for constant acceleration may be used.

This was not the case when you developed the tables of lifting force v energy.

 

Since your thesis is that the modern version of The Law of Conservation of Mechanical energy is incorrect, can you state it, including the conditions under which it holds true?

You need to show that your analysis satisfies these conditions.
Have you done this, I can't find it?

 

[swansont]

I don't see where you mention Noether's theorem, as applied to energy. A mathematical proof that energy will be conserved when there is time translation symmetry.

[studiot]

Thanks for all that support.

Any change a moderator might tidy my spelling since itis now too late for me to do this.
My apologies.

[Sensei]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Any change a moderator might tidy my spelling since it is now too late for me to do this. My apologies.

I can say the same about my the all posts here ever made.. Review 4k posts and fix them, without changing meaning..

"unfortunately"/"fortunately", I am not humanist...

 

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, PyotrD said:

This error arose because of incorrect assumptions made more than 300 years ago by the Cartesians and Gottfried Leibniz.

If you list those incorrect assumptions here then we can look at them.

 

[Bender]

I am not going to download a pdf that requires giving my email address.

However, perhaps you should also explain why engineers, who have designed countless devices and processes based in one way or another on conservation of energy, never noticed that these devices do not work. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Bender

[Danijel Gorupec]

Hey Bender.... But many do not work. We tend to hide them (in embarrassment). We only put forward those that do work  

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Hey Bender.... But many do not work. We tend to hide them (in embarrassment). We only put forward those that do work  

The reason devices do not work is NOT because conservation of energy is incorrect.

[koti]

Looks like we have yet another Nobel prize contender. So many of these, the jury is going to have a hard time deciding.

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Bender said:

I am not going to download a pdf that requires giving my email address.

However, perhaps you should also explain why engineers, who have designed countless devices and processes based in one way or another on conservation of energy, never noticed that these devices do not work. 

I didn't need to provide an email address to read the document.

But I warn those trying it

Half of it is in Russian (cyrillic script).

The layout is broken into alternate Russian and English paragraphs, which makes reading easier.

There is a lot of algebra which is in Roman script (English)

The English half is a google translation, for which the OP offers an apology.
But it is the best google translation I have ever seen and quite readable.
I think he has done his best and I can see why the whole can't be reproduced here.

 

However Peter, all here would welcome a bit more substantial statement within the thread - it is the rules you know.

 

 

 

[Silvestru]

32 minutes ago, studiot said:

The layout is broken into alternate Russian and English paragraphs, which makes reading easier.

Hmm the main problem with reading it is that it doesn't read as physics paper but as a teenage blog in some parts: (from the "paper")

Quote

Now the idea that the law of conservation of energy in its present form - stupidity goes throughthe first stage. Therefore, many citizens, without understanding the issue immediately rushed to insultme, they say, I do not understand anything even in school physics, and indeed ...

Quote

All educated people having GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) know theequation:

To end with the conclusion:

Quote

Leibniz made the greatest mistake since the time of physics, suggesting that energyis not the quantity of motion equal to the product of mass by speed , but rather a newquantity, invented by it, equal to the product of the mass per square of the velocity

PyotrD, I didn't understand/find your "proof" for your original assumption in your paper to be honest but I am low level. 

Would you be happier if we refer to it as The law of conservation of mass-energy?
 

I am also adding a related quote from Feynman as I saw you liked quotes so much in your paper.

 

Quote

 

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

— The Feynman Lectures on Physics

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Silvestru

[koti]

I’m just waiting to find out what happens to the energy which is not conserved. I presume it is teleported somewhere far far away like the pink unicorn dimension where fluffy bunnies distribute it to form rainbows. 

[Silvestru]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

I’m just waiting to find out what happens to the energy which is not conserved. I presume it is teleported somewhere far far away like the pink unicorn dimension where fluffy bunnies distribute it to form rainbows. 

To be fair, there are sources that... try to expand on this law lets say. But not to say it's wrong the way that the OP did.

https://kaiserscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/is-the-universe-leaking-energy-law-conservation.pdf

Quote

Thus, the universe does not violate the conservation of energy; rather it lies outside that law’s jurisdiction.

 

[koti]

8 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

To be fair, there are sources that... try to expand on this law lets say. But not to say it's wrong the way that the OP did.

https://kaiserscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/is-the-universe-leaking-energy-law-conservation.pdf

 

The article seems to be highly speculative, there aren't any conclusions. I only skimmed thorough it but I see that it hinges on the brane model to try to push an idea that energy is not conserved on the universe scale and then at the end suggests that photon energy is conserved after all, which is strange. There's a statement in the first blue infographic which seems to either horribly contradicting itself or I am missing something:
"Because each photon in the region becomes less energetic as space expands, this calculation suggests that the total amount of photon energy in the region and, by implication, in the rest of the universe must be going down"
I don't see how the author arrived at the conclusion that the total energy must be going down if photons become less energetic due to spacetime expansion. It seems to be an irrational conclusion but maybe some of the more knowledgeable people can explain otherwise. Besides, even if it would be true that the universe is leaking energy to another brane it would not be violating conservation of energy. 

[Silvestru]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

The article seems to be highly speculative, there aren't any conclusions. I only skimmed thorough it but I see that it hinges on the brane model to try to push an idea that energy is not conserved on the universe scale and then at the end suggests that photon energy is conserved after all, which is strange. There's a statement in the first blue infographic which seems to either horribly contradicting itself or I am missing something:
"Because each photon in the region becomes less energetic as space expands, this calculation suggests that the total amount of photon energy in the region and, by implication, in the rest of the universe must be going down"
I don't see how the author arrived at the conclusion that the total energy must be going down if photons become less energetic due to spacetime expansion. It seems to be an irrational conclusion but maybe some of the more knowledgeable people can explain otherwise. Besides, even if it would be true that the universe is leaking energy to another brane it would not be violating conservation of energy. 

I was reading about this recently. Here, the photon is loosing energy to the gravitational field. Photons have mass (not rest mass) so they bend space-time just like mass. 

So photons are interacting with the gravitational field > Gravitational field is related to the curvature of space-time so the photons have an effect on the curvature and that includes the rate of expansion of the universe.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I’m just waiting to find out what happens to the energy which is not conserved. I presume it is teleported somewhere far far away like the pink unicorn dimension where fluffy bunnies distribute it to form rainbows. 

It doesn't have to "go" anywhere because it isn't conserved!

Here is a good article on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

And some more discussion here: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

[koti]

7 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I was reading about this recently. Here, the photon is loosing energy to the gravitational field. Photons have mass (not rest mass) so they bend space-time just like mass. 

So photons are interacting with the gravitational field > Gravitational field is related to the curvature of space-time so the photons have an effect on the curvature and that includes the rate of expansion of the universe.

As far as I know, light follows a geodesic trajectory of the curvature of spacetime, follows the so to speak „shortest path” in curved space and this is the interaction of photons with gravity (gravity is the curvature of spacetime)

Even if photons are loosing energy to the gravitational field (I don’t know if this is correct?) it doesn’t imply that the conservation of energy is violated.

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

It doesn't have to "go" anywhere because it isn't conserved!

Here is a good article on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

And some more discussion here: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Wow, I was not aware of this. I skimmed throug the first one and and I was convinced that it all hinges on the notion that gravitational waves in fact must carry energy but started to read Sean Carroll’s article and I’m stunned. I was just not aware of this. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do over Easter. 

[Silvestru]

13 minutes ago, koti said:

Even if photons are loosing energy to the gravitational field (I don’t know if this is correct?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Quote

In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantumtheories of light.

Quote

A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. A special instance of this is the cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth.

 

16 minutes ago, koti said:

it doesn’t imply that the conservation of energy is violated.

The article I quoted and the one Strange did explain how the law is not violated. It just doesn't apply in some cases.

[swansont]

AFAIK, photons traveling the geodesic has nothing to do with expansion, with regards to energy conservation. The bottom line is that energy is conserved within a single reference frame. It is not an invariant, i.e. it is generally not the same when measured in another reference frame. An expanding universe is not a valid reference frame for this analysis; this is why one can say conservation of energy doesn't apply to the situation. 

 

And none of this is relevant to the OP.

[koti]

27 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

 

The article I quoted and the one Strange did explain how the law is not violated. It just doesn't apply in some cases.

You surely must admit that what is being discussed in the last posts is not validating the OP statement. 

[Bender]

10 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Hey Bender.... But many do not work. We tend to hide them (in embarrassment). We only put forward those that do work  

Could you give an example relevant to this thread?

It still does not explain

1) why most do work 

2) why none of these engineers took the opportunity to claim a Nobel price. Engineers love opportunities, and it is otherwise pretty hard for an engineer to get a Nobel price.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

Could you give an example relevant to this thread?

It still does not explain

1) why most do work 

2) why none of these engineers took the opportunity to claim a Nobel price. Engineers love opportunities, and it is otherwise pretty hard for an engineer to get a Nobel price.

 

Could the explanation be that Engineers control their volume and thus never get drunk?

Input  = Output plus Accumulation

[Danijel Gorupec]

2 hours ago, Bender said:

Could you give an example relevant to this thread?

It still does not explain

1) why most do work 

2) why none of these engineers took the opportunity to claim a Nobel price. Engineers love opportunities, and it is otherwise pretty hard for an engineer to get a Nobel price.

Sorry, this took a wrong turn... I was only making a joke... I found it amusing how you constructed your sentence saying that 'engineers never noticed devices that did not work'. I, on the other hand, noticed that almost all my first (and second) tries did not work. Still have some of them hidden in my garage.

 

Going on-topic... ummm.... ummm.... nope.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, koti said:

You surely must admit that what is being discussed in the last posts is not validating the OP statement. 

Absolutely correct.