History of energy theory

[Mr Skeptic]

wtf is free energy?

 

It's when your energy costs are paid by the government.

[Tsadi]

If only one could tap into the zero-point field... more than plenty energy to go around an infinite amount of times...

[Mr Skeptic]

That depends on where the zero is, and how much energy your device to extract it takes to produce.

[swansont]

There's nothing to indicate that we can tap into zero-point energy.

[Mr Skeptic]

There's nothing to indicate that we can tap into zero-point energy.

 

We can, eg with the Casimir effect. The trick is that then you either need as much energy to reuse the device, or the device must be replaced. An so far, it takes far more energy to produce such a device, than can be gotten from it. So while the laws of physics themselves don't forbid it, I don't expect to see one anytime soon. And if they did make one, it may be more useful as a battery.

[absolute1]

I would like to ask to withdraw from this discussion. I am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Before I withdraw, I'd like to clarify things so we don't misunderstand. The notion of "energy conserve is true yet untrue". There are free energy yet it's not free. There are two types of energy, positive and negative. Together they are conserve, but current science have not taken negative energy into account. So one can say it conserve or not depends on if you recognize the full meaning. Zero point energy means you cleaverly redirect the positive energy so that negative energy suck in surrounding energy. In the end, the positive energy utilize go back to the surrounding.

 

Anyway, I think it's a correct decision to suppress this knowledge. Peace.

[mooeypoo]

I would like to ask to withdraw from this discussion. I am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience.

This is not an inconvenience, it's unsurprising (you've done this before).

 

What you're saying, really, is that you have no answers to any of our questions, no proof to back up your claims and no way to scientifically argue your point, so you run away.

 

Like last time. We put the effort to try and have a debate with you, and the moment you see you're on the losing side of it you run off.

 

That's not an inconvinience. You coming back again and doing the same thing all over again and wasting our time will be.

 

 

Before I withdraw, I'd like to clarify things so we don't misunderstand. The notion of "energy conserve is true yet untrue". There are free energy yet it's not free. There are two types of energy, positive and negative.

 

This doesn't exist in reality, it exists in your mind. What is negative and positive energy? Free energy? You need to start putting evidence and references next to your claims, my friend, or they are no more than fantasy.

 

But then again, you're leaving again, so why would you care.

 

Together they are conserve, but current science have not taken negative energy into account. So one can say it conserve or not depends on if you recognize the full meaning. Zero point energy means you cleaverly redirect the positive energy so that negative energy suck in surrounding energy. In the end, the positive energy utilize go back to the surrounding.

 

Again. This isn't reality. Either prove it, or go to a fantasy-claim forum.

 

 

Anyway, I think it's a correct decision to suppress this knowledge. Peace.

 

I think the decision to hide the invisible pink unicorn from the world is smart.

 

Since I hven't proven the invisible pink unicorn to exist, nor have I proven that he is hidden and that someone made a decision to hide it consciously, my opinion about such fantastically-unproven claim is irrelevant.

 

And so is yours.

 

But you're leaving. What do you care.

 

Please don't waste our time again. Either participate in a debate and see it through to to end, or don't come back here again.

We've been trying to participate in a scientific debate with you. You coward away when you have no answers. It's disrespectful and it does very badly for your point.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

I see what your arguments are. Basically, people said science is reality, rational and have nothing to do with belief or the conscious. Well, if you don't consider the possibility, then my argument is not for you.

No, you have this completely wrong. Science is not reality, it is our best description of it so far.

 

Every single person that I ahve found that presents psudoscience has this exact same misunderstanding about science. They all think that scientists think that Science dictates reality, but in fact it is the other way around: Reality dictates science.

 

Science is a description of reality, and as our information about what reality is grows, we change our description of reality (scientific theories).

 

It has nothing to do with beliefs.

 

If I was to state that my computer case is black, does this mean that because I believe that it is black that makes it black (as opposed to beige), or that it is black and my statement is describing what it really is?

 

If a scientist states that according to all observations, energy is conserved, then does the scientists statement mean that they believe it to be true, or are they just describing a feature that is consistent between all observations?

 

It is of course the latter. They are making the statement that: "according to all observations" they have reached that conclusion.

 

They then go on to say that if someone can perform an experiment that contradicts that conclusion, then they will change that conclusion.

 

This is why it is absolutely necessary to present evidence.

 

The original statement stated: "according to all observations". This means that the original statement used evidence to reach that conclusion. Not belief, democracy, wishful thinking, cleaver maths, well put together arguments, that is makes sense to you, fame or anything else.

 

As science is about reaching a description of reality, then you have to show that what you are talking about actually occurs in reality.

 

That is all evidence is: Proof that what you are claiming actually occurs in reality.

 

If yo claim that something is real, then you need to have proof that it is real.

[absolute1]

Sigh... I'll summary my 8 months of research. The rest is up to you whatever you want to decide.

 

Energy = Force

 

compression force is positive, tension force is negative

A source consist of both positive and negative

Such high energy occur in collisions and and collisions will never stop in molecular level.

In symmetric object, positive force is 90 degree perpendicular to negative in collison. One can redirect the direction by disable symmetry.

Energy is the ability to make movement

[mooeypoo]

Sigh... I'll summary my 8 months of research. The rest is up to you whatever you want to decide.

Please stop putting irrelevant data here. With due respect, the amount of time it took you to reach a conclusion has no bearing on the validity of that conclusion, and that sigh has no bearing on whether or not we will agree with you.

 

Whether you like it or not, we are using scientific concepts to check your theory. If it works out, we can continue talking about other aspects that need to be addressed (such as predictions, repeatability, etc).

 

It is called peer review, and you should welcome it, if you truly want to do science. It will either verify your theory or help you refine it.

 

Energy = Force

No. No no no no no. No, and again No.

 

Energy is absolutely, inequivocally, unquestionably, not equal to force.

 

They are related in certain cases, but they are NOT the same. At all.

 

Potential Energy is a good example. The force applied to an object is *not* the same as the potential energy.

 

A ball falling from the 10th floor would have a force acting on it equal to

F=mg (g being acceleration due to gravity, and its sign, as I will discuss later in this post, will depend on where YOU DEFINE your axes).

The potential energy of that ball, however, will be U=mgh at the full height of those 10 floors and U=0 at the moment it hits the floor (h=0), at which point the potential energy was completely transferred into another energy (probably heat from the friction) as stated by conservation of energy.

 

As you can see, mg is not the same as mgh.

 

here's a nice reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/pegrav.html with the same concept with a string.

 

As you can see, U (energy) IS NOT EQUAL to F, but rather:

 

[math]

-\frac{dU}{dx} = F(x)

[/math]

 

And that is only in the case of conservative forces.

 

Your basic premise is false.

 

Which is quite a problem, because it means that whatever comes next and relies on it is based on a flawed premise, and is therefore false as well.

 

compression force is positive, tension force is negative

No.

 

In physics, signs are determined by the directions. That means that they are almost arbitrarily chosen, as long as they are consistent.

 

For example, in my above falling ball, I can decide between:

 

• Looking at the ball from the ground. My Y axis is positive as it goes up to the sky, and so the force will be NEGATIVE (because the acceleration is pointing towards the floor, not the sky, and hence in the direction of the negative Y axis.
  
• Standing on the rooftop, looking straight down at the ball. My Y axis will be pointing towards the ground floor now, which is the direction of movement *and* acceleration, which would make the force POSITIVE.
  

As long as I am consistent in my directions, this will work out great for either situation. All I need to do is remember which is my plus and which is my minus in terms of directions, make sure my signs are marked well with each affecting force (friction due to air, for example, woud be directed against the acceleration, and would therefore have a sign opposite to the g I chose), my solution will also include the direction of the final movement. That means that if my force "up" (positive? negative? my decision) is equal to the force "down" (negative? positive? depends on my above decision) then Forces would cancel each other out.

 

That, btw, is exactly what is called "Terminal Velocity".

 

A source consist of both positive and negative

Again, read up. There could be cases where there is only a force in the positive direction, or a force in both directions.

 

Other than that, you need to define "source". What is the source? the source of the force? what's the source of gravity, the earth? how do you include that into a mathematical/physical equation, exactly? and what if you are inside the falling vehicle? And, well, the earth is also "falling" towards the sun. Is it still the source?

 

In physics you often have many different sources applied to an object. The Earth, for example, is affected by gravity from the Sun, gravity from the moon, and gravity from the rest of the planets. And since the other planets are in orbit, and therefore not always near earth, the calculation of what, exactly, affects the Earth and when is not that simple.

 

 

Such high energy occur in collisions and and collisions will never stop in molecular level.

I don't even know what you mean here, but it sounds like you need to reference yourself and explain why you state such conclusion.

 

 

In symmetric object,

 

And now you introduce yet another term you haven't defined - "symmetric object". Do you mean a sphere? how 'close to it' are you getting? The Earth is a sphere if you're far away, and it's an oblated spheroid if you're close, and it's a rough-shaped spheroid if you're really really close. Not really symmetric from up close, and relatively symmetric when you go away.

 

Same with the sun. So either define which scales you are talking about, or define what type of symmetry you are talking about.

 

positive force is 90 degree perpendicular to negative in collison.

 

No.

 

Positive force is going one way. Negative force is going another. The interaction between forces depends on the masses they are applied on.

 

There is a difference between 2 spheres moving one towards another in opposite accelerations (hence, opposite forces are applied on each), and a situation where a single sphere is being pushed and pulled by 2 different forces that are applied on it.

 

In either way, the negative and positive are DIRECTIONS. Collision has nothing to do with it, unless you want to talk about what the trajectory would be of those above spheres ramming into one another in acceleration.

 

One can redirect the direction by disable symmetry.

 

How do you disable symmetry? This is close to a word salad, and makes absolutely no sense. You talk of multiple terms you don't seem to understand or define and mix them together to sound scientific.

 

Disable symmetry? what does that mean?

 

Energy is the ability to make movement

 

Absolutely not. Energy is the ability to do WORK (and work is the transfer of energy), not to make movement. Though the two are related, it's still not the same.

 

I suggest you do some more reading about what Energy is, what a Force is and what "Work" is.. you can start here, it's a good enough introductory resource: http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/energy.html

At the very LEAST get your terms and definitions straight.

 

 

Good luck,

 

~moo

[throng]

I would like to ask to withdraw from this discussion. I am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Before I withdraw, I'd like to clarify things so we don't misunderstand. The notion of "energy conserve is true yet untrue". There are free energy yet it's not free. There are two types of energy, positive and negative. Together they are conserve, but current science have not taken negative energy into account. So one can say it conserve or not depends on if you recognize the full meaning. Zero point energy means you cleaverly redirect the positive energy so that negative energy suck in surrounding energy. In the end, the positive energy utilize go back to the surrounding.

 

Anyway, I think it's a correct decision to suppress this knowledge. Peace.

 

 

Maybe you have a knowledge you find difficult to express. I think it is best to invent logical mathematical metaphors for an idea.

 

Anyone with a great idea should be wary of it's possible applications and perhaps humanity would be doomed by their greed if given infinite energy.

 

If you study, you'll find alot of your ideas have already been solved. Antimatter, strange quarks, strings, entanglement, uncertainty, possibility. You could find the mathematical expression you need.

[D H]

Maybe you have a knowledge you find difficult to express. I think it is best to invent logical mathematical metaphors for an idea.

When dealing with physics, it is best to develop mathematical models for an idea. WTF are logical mathematical metaphors?

 

Anyone with a great idea should be wary of it's possible applications and perhaps humanity would be doomed by their greed if given infinite energy.

Non sequitur.

 

If you study, you'll find alot of your ideas have already been solved. Antimatter, strange quarks, strings, entanglement, uncertainty, possibility. You could find the mathematical expression you need.

The OP needs to learn what the conservation laws truly entail, as opposed to his parodies of the conservation laws. This is basic physics. One cannot learn advanced physics without a thorough understanding of the basis. In other words, the OP needs to learn to walk before he learns to run.

[Tsadi]

There's nothing to indicate that we can tap into zero-point energy.

 

The Casmir Effect is a natural phenomena involving quantum fluctuations and zero-point energy. Because it has been observed, there is something to indicate we might be able to tap into this source.

[Klaynos]

The Casmir Effect is a natural phenomena involving quantum fluctuations and zero-point energy. Because it has been observed, there is something to indicate we might be able to tap into this source.

 

No, because you've got to position the plates which would always take more energy than you could get out of the system.

 

If you work threw the maths it's more of a slight alteration to the zero-point energy inside (and outside) than tapping into it.

[Edtharan]

The Casmir Effect is a natural phenomena involving quantum fluctuations and zero-point energy. Because it has been observed, there is something to indicate we might be able to tap into this source.

As Klaynos said, you can't actually do this.

 

To get the energy from the plates, you would have to let them move together. This would allow you to extract the energy from the attractive force between the plates into kinetic energy and then from that into whatever form you liked (most likely electrical).

 

To reset the plates to extract more energy, you would need to move the plates apart. However to do this would take, at best, the same amount of energy you were able to extract from it. But when you factor in losses due to the fact that no system is perfect, it actually takes more energy to reset the plates than you would be able to extract in the first place.