New Science

[blochee]

I understand that what follows may seem crazy. I am purporting that the most fundamental law in science is wrong. If you find the parts about the law of conservation of energy being wrong are too much for you, then at least read the bit on inventions.

Physics.txt

[Dave]

I just read the sentence:

 

The hydrogen has a mass of M. Now, if we make all the hydrogen undergo fusion, then we'd be left with a balloon full of helium and a whole lot of energy. The mass of the helium would be approximately 0.993*M. There's a drop in mass. But gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass. So, where did that minute, but measurable, amount of potential energy go?!?

 

You need to read this. Basically we know that mass and energy are interchangable for high-speed particles (i.e. close to c) through E = mc², so this explains a lot of things. Give it a read.

 

Plus that system you've quoted requires a lot of energy to actually fuse in the first place. Don't know about you, but I don't know many balloons of hydrogen that spontaneous undergo nuclear fusion.

 

From your bird example:

 

As it flaps its wings, two things happen; one, air is pushed downward, and two, it is pushed upward. Since the hummingbird is a fair distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets distributed amongst other air particles.

 

I suggest you read up on some chaos theory.

 

http://www.codynamics.net/science.htm

 

This explains the butterfly effect - or basically put, how a bird can cause a thunderstorm over half the planet away just by flapping its wings. However, that's just a sidenote and has no contribution to the real argument.

 

I can't see much else wrong with your example, apart from the fact that you've ignored quite a few fundamental laws. This bit just confused me:

 

So, we took care of all the forces, right? Wrong! We only considered the gravitational force of the Earth on the bird. But what about the gravitational force of the bird on the Earth? That force creates a minute acceleration of

 

a = G*m_b / (r+5)²

= 8.196889698 * 10^(-27) meters/second²

 

After 10^19 years, when the hummingbird returns to its nest, the Earth will be traveling at a velocity of

 

t = 10^19 years

= 3.15576 * 10^26 seconds

 

v = a * t

= 2.586741663 meters/second

 

The Earth was stationary and now it's moving at more than two meters per second! Can you account for that?

 

Well, yeah. You just did.

 

The earth is attracted to the bird (equal and opposite reaction). If it stays up there long enough, it's going to cause something to move, and indeed if it stayed up there for 10^19 years (which is about a billion times older the age of the universe, give or take) then it's going to cause it to move.

 

What does all of this mean? It means that the law of conservation of energy is wrong! It means that perpetual motion and free-energy devices do not contradict reality!

 

I think you'll find you're mistaken. Tried making a perpetual motion machine recently?

 

I haven't had time to read the rest of it, but you need to go through and re-read more or less all of it. I'm sure most physicists in the world have great confidence in conservation of energy for (relatively) slow moving particles. I'll post more when I'm less tired

[blochee]

You need to read this. Basically we know that mass and energy are interchangable for high-speed particles (i.e. close to c) through E = mc²' date=' so this explains a lot of things. Give it a read.

[/quote']

 

I know that mass and energy are interchangable. Let me simplify my argument:

 

1) Gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass.

2) Mass can be changed into energy. Now if we allow some mass to be changed into energy, then we'd be left with less mass.

4) Thus, gravitational potential energy will also decrease, without being realized.

 

Plus that system you've quoted requires a lot of energy to actually fuse in the first place. Don't know about you' date=' but I don't know many balloons of hydrogen that spontaneous undergo nuclear fusion.

[/quote']

 

Yes, I understand that hydrogen doesn't spontaneously undergo fusion. This does not create a problem though, since any energy used to fuse the hydrogen in the first place will be apparent afterwards either in the bonds of the helium atoms or as kinetic energy. What matters is the initial stage and the final result.

 

Initial stage: a mass M of hydrogen

Final result: a mass of 0.993*M of helium and a lot of energy

 

There's a drop of mass, and since gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, we must conclude that some gravitational potential energy was lost without being realized.

 

From your bird example:

 

I suggest you read up on some chaos theory.

 

http://www.codynamics.net/science.htm

 

This explains the butterfly effect - or basically put' date=' how a bird can cause a thunderstorm over half the planet away just by flapping its wings. However, that's just a sidenote and has no contribution to the real argument.

[/quote']

 

I agree that the effects of the bird's flapping it wings can have enormous repercussions. But, I stand by what I argue; that the force of the bird's flapping will not be conveyed to the ground.

 

The earth is attracted to the bird (equal and opposite reaction). If it stays up there long enough' date=' it's going to cause something to move, and indeed if it stayed up there for 10^19 years (which is about a billion times older the age of the universe, give or take) then it's going to cause it to move.

[/quote']

 

Well then, can't you see that it means that the law of conservation of energy is wrong? Look at how it started and how it ended up.

 

Initial stage: Earth not moving. Bird in tree; not moving.

Final result: Earth moving at 2.5 m/s. Bird in tree; not moving.

 

Now, I'm no rocket-scientist, but in this case I don't have to be. Something that was not moving has accelerated and is now moving. The Earth has gained momentum. Where did that energy to create the momentum come from? It was created out of thin air. I will reinterate what I say in the paper:

 

"I hope you can now clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other forces like magnetism) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancels out". You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth) when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving."

 

I haven't had time to read the rest of it' date=' but you need to go through and re-read more or less all of it. I'm sure most physicists in the world have great confidence in conservation of energy for (relatively) slow moving particles. I'll post more when I'm less tired

[/quote']

 

Please read the part about inventions.

[YT2095]

As it flaps its wings, two things happen; one, air is pushed downward, and two, it is pushed upward. Since the hummingbird is a fair distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets distributed amongst other air particles.

 

although the large part of that statement is correct, the force will indeed reach the ground. it can`t NOT.

granted, it will be widely dispersed and absorbed by many other particles and objects on it`s way, but it will ultimately reach ground

[Sayonara]

Look at how it started and how it ended up.

 

Initial stage: Earth not moving. Bird in tree; not moving.

Final result: Earth moving at 2.5 m/s. Bird in tree; not moving.

Errr... if the bird is in a tree on the earth, isn't the bird moving at 2.5 m/s as well?

[YT2095]

lol, Sayo, I think he forgot to factor in Inertial forces there

 

a bit like traveling in a car at 100mph and tossing a baseball in the air, I`ve never known it result in the back window needing replacement

[Sayonara]

It's not so much the inertia I was considering as the fact that a tree can be considered part of the earth for the purposes of the scenario.

 

Unless of course the branch with the bird on it is 'staying still', and the rest of the tree is being compressed towards it or stretched away...

[YT2095]

Eeeew Trippy concept! )

 

"There's a drop of mass, and since gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, we must conclude that some gravitational potential energy was lost without being realized."

 

not at all

D+D=T+p+4Mev there`s your basic fussion reaction, what is lost there?

[Dave]

I think the problem is that he's not considering the entire system. I don't really want to write another very long post on it because I've not done systems for a while now, so I'll leave it to someone else.

[blochee]

Errr... if the bird is in a tree on the earth, isn't the bird moving at 2.5 m/s as well?

 

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?

[blochee]

As it flaps its wings' date=' two things happen; one, air is pushed downward, and two, it is pushed upward. Since the hummingbird is a fair distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets distributed amongst other air particles.

 

although the large part of that statement is correct, the force will indeed reach the ground. it can`t NOT.

granted, it will be widely dispersed and absorbed by many other particles and objects on it`s way, but it will ultimately reach ground [/quote']

 

What if the Atlantic ocean was still. Now, if we drop a pebble in Atlantic ocean from Canada, will the waves reach France?

[blochee]

Eeeew Trippy concept! )

 

"There's a drop of mass' date=' and since gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, we must conclude that some gravitational potential energy was lost without being realized."

 

not at all

D+D=T+p+4Mev there`s your basic fussion reaction, what is lost there?[/quote']

 

What does "D+D=T+p+4Mev" mean?

[swansont]

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?

 

From the bird.

[swansont]

What does "D+D=T+p+4Mev" mean?

 

Deuterium + Deuterium = tritium + proton + 4 Million electron-Volts

[Dave]

What if the Atlantic ocean was still. Now, if we drop a pebble in Atlantic ocean from Canada, will the waves reach France?

 

Yes, eventually (albeit they will be undetectable).

[blochee]

WHAT I HAD PREVIOUISLY SAID:

 

"Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?"

 

From the bird.

 

So did the bird push the Earth, and cause it to move? Or was the bird towing the Earth with a rope which was fastened to the ground? As far I know, the bird just pushed air. The reason why the Earth began to move is because gravity *creates* forces which then create/destroy energy/momentum. I will reiterate a part from the paper:

 

"I hope you can now clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other forces like magnetism) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancels out". You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth) when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving."

[blochee]

Deuterium + Deuterium = tritium + proton + 4 Million electron-Volts

 

Let me clarify. Consider my friend Waldo on the Earth.

 

First, consider a ball that has a mass of 3 kg. Now let Waldo lift the ball ten meters above the ground. We'd say that Waldo has done work. Let's define P as the amount of work done by Waldo. We'd say now that the ball has a potential energy given by the equation "force multiplied by distance". The acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. The force is 29.4 Newtons. And so, the potential energy is 294 Joules. Thus, Waldo did 294 Joules of work. Now, drop that ball, and all the 294 Joules it took to lift the ball will be realized, either by sound as the ball hits the ground, or as heat due to friction, etc.

 

Now, consider a tank which has a mass of 0.986 kg. Inside the tank is 1000 moles of Deuterium. Now, the atomic mass of Deuterium is 2.0140 grams per mole. Thus, the Deuterium has a mass of 2.014 kg; the tank as a whole has a mass of 3 kg. Now, let Waldo lift the tank ten meters above the ground. We'd say that Waldo has done work. Let's define P as the amount of work done by Waldo. We'd say now that the tank has a potential energy of 294 Joules. Thus, Waldo did 294 Joules of work.

 

But, instead of dropping the tank, let's let the Deuterium fuse together to form Tritium and protons. (I understand that to fuse the Deuterium requires an input of energy. However, I am only considering the initial stage and the final result. The two are interchangeable. The road from the intial stage to the final result won't be analysed, since it doesn't effect the initial stage or the final result.) Now, in the tank we'd be left with 500 moles of Tritium, 500 moles of protons, and 2 Billion electron-Volts. (Let's assume here that the tank doesn't explode, and instead contains the mass and energy.) Now, Tritium has a an atomic mass 3.016 grams per mole, and a proton is close enough to 1 gram per mole. Thus, there is 1.508 kg of Tritium and 500g of protons. The contents of the tank now has a mass of 2.008 kg. The tank has lost a mass of 6 grams, and so, the potential energy P is less than before.

 

Now, we have invested energy by lifting up the tank 10 meters above the ground. Can we realize that energy now? And if we can't, then what "truth" is there in defining P, as a form of energy.

 

(I hope the calculations of moles, etc. are accurate.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?

Chemical energy. The bird gains gravitational energy as it uses up its food, and that energy (just like gravity) pulls on the earth.

 

Duh.

But' date=' instead of dropping the tank, let's let the Deuterium fuse together to form Tritium and protons. (I understand that to fuse the Deuterium requires an input of energy. However, I am only considering the initial stage and the final result. The two are interchangeable. The road from the intial stage to the final result won't be analysed, since it doesn't effect the initial stage or the final result.) Now, in the tank we'd be left with 500 moles of Tritium, 500 moles of protons, and 2 Billion electron-Volts. (Let's assume here that the tank doesn't explode, and instead contains the mass and energy.) Now, Tritium has a an atomic mass 3.016 grams per mole, and a proton is close enough to 1 gram per mole. Thus, there is 1.508 kg of Tritium and 500g of protons. The contents of the tank now has a mass of 2.008 kg. The tank has lost a mass of 6 grams, and so, the potential energy P is less than before.

 

Now, we have invested energy by lifting up the tank 10 meters above the ground. Can we realize that energy now? And if we can't, then what "truth" is there in defining P, as a form of energy.

[/quote']

That mass of 6 grams was turned into energy holding the atoms together. If you drop the tank, it will fall with 294 joules.

 

With the Newton Seesaw: That energy is electricity from the electomagnets. Duh. Same with the Simple Engine.

 

Two masses: They slow down as they get farther away due to gravity. Taking up the energy they got.

 

So really, your paper is worthless. If it was true, I'm sure Leonardo DaVinci wouldn't have said that a perpetual motion machine was impossible (believe me, he tried to make them).

[Dave]

The conservation of energy only applies to a closed system of energy; I don't think the system you're describing is closed - where does the energy come from to spontaneously make the deuterium fuse?

 

(on a sidenote, the energy released that you calculated is wrong. The fusion of 2kg of deuterium produces a lot more energy than just 10 TeV).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The conservation of energy only applies to a closed system of energy; I don't think the system you're describing is closed - where does the energy come from to spontaneously make the deuterium fuse?

He was discounting the energy put in to it.

I wasn't tought that it applies to a closed system, please explain.

[blochee]

That mass of 6 grams was turned into energy holding the atoms together. If you drop the tank' date=' it will fall with 294 joules.

[/quote']

 

I thought the 6 grams was turned into heat, sound, light, etc. There is less mass, isn't there? And if gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, then isn't it reduced when mass is reduced.

 

With the Newton Seesaw: That energy is electricity from the electomagnets. Duh. Same with the Simple Engine.

 

Two masses: They slow down as they get farther away due to gravity. Taking up the energy they got.

 

I don't think you understood that section, the part about inventions.. Both the "Seesaw" Newton Motor and the "Simple" Newton Engine are used to create thrust/propulsion.

[YT2095]

if we try to keep this simple for the sake of long posts and irrelevance

 

lets say we lift a bowl of water that has 1 liter in it, to a height of 1 meter. that now has energy P.

lets say some water evaporates the original energy P is less now.

is that what you`re trying to say?

 

or does it need to be an atomic reaction? I`m only trying to help here!

[blochee]

if we try to keep this simple for the sake of long posts and irrelevance

 

lets say we lift a bowl of water that has 1 liter in it' date=' to a height of 1 meter. that now has energy P.

lets say some water evaporates the original energy P is less now.

is that what you`re trying to say?

 

or does it need to be an atomic reaction? I`m only trying to help here! [/quote']

 

Yes, we need the atomic reaction. Because in your example the bowl of water loses some potential energy, but the water vapour has enough potential energy such that both the bowl of water and the vapour has a total potential energy of P.

 

But in the atomic reaction the mass dissapears, becoming energy, and thus gravitational potential energy disappears without being realized.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

When the water evaporates the gravitational potential energy also disappears as it turns to gas. Why atomic only?

[Dave]

Yes' date=' we need the atomic reaction. Because in your example the bowl of water loses some potential energy, but the water vapour has enough potential energy such that both the bowl of water and the vapour has a total potential energy of P.

 

But in the atomic reaction the mass dissapears, becoming energy, and thus gravitational potential energy disappears without being realized.[/quote']

 

But that's the entire point; the mass doesn't 'disappear', it becomes energy. If you consider the entire system including mass instead of just looking at energy (i.e. conservation of mass and energy, as I've already stated), then there's blatently no flaw to be pointed out.