Windevoid Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 I guess I never asked this about this Law of Conservation of Energy: Was the Law of Conservation of Energy ever proven for electricity? Was it ever proven for capacitors, inductors, resistors, batteries, electromagnets, motors, parallel circuits, etc.?
studiot Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Was the Law of Conservation of Energy ever proven for electricity? As stated I find the question meaningless. What do you think the COE applies to and what sort of proof are you looking for?
swansont Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Yes, it's one part of Noether's theorem. Conservation laws arise from symmetries; in this case it's the time translation symmetry of the Lagrangian. The result is that energy is conserved. And it's a mathematical proof (i.e. a theorem, not a theory)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Windevoid Posted July 24, 2013 Author Posted July 24, 2013 Yes, it's one part of Noether's theorem. Conservation laws arise from symmetries; in this case it's the time translation symmetry of the Lagrangian. The result is that energy is conserved. And it's a mathematical proof (i.e. a theorem, not a theory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem Perhaps not everything is symmetrical.
John Cuthber Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 Perhaps not everything is symmetrical. You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
Windevoid Posted July 24, 2013 Author Posted July 24, 2013 As stated I find the question meaningless. What do you think the COE applies to and what sort of proof are you looking for? It would only apply to simple, symmetrical systems.
swansont Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 Perhaps not everything is symmetrical. Unless you can find instances of the laws of physics changing with time, energy is a conserved quantity.
Windevoid Posted July 24, 2013 Author Posted July 24, 2013 Unless you can find instances of the laws of physics changing with time, energy is a conserved quantity. I think you are assuming the "Law" of Conservation of Energy is always true. I think you are assuming the "Law" of Conservation of Energy is always true. Regardless of the situation.
studiot Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 It would only apply to simple, symmetrical systems Well I think COE applies to processes not systems.
Windevoid Posted July 24, 2013 Author Posted July 24, 2013 Well I think COE applies to processes not systems. Then simple, symmetrical processes.
swansont Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 I think you are assuming the "Law" of Conservation of Energy is always true. Regardless of the situation. I have given you the conditions where it holds true, and it's from a mathematical proof. Thus, I believe your question is answered. Now, if you have some disagreement, then post your evidence or model. But implying that it doesn't hold for some system or process, absent such evidence or model, fails to meet the burden set forth in the speculations rules. IOW, it's put up or shut up time. 1
Windevoid Posted July 24, 2013 Author Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) I have given you the conditions where it holds true, and it's from a mathematical proof. Thus, I believe your question is answered. Now, if you have some disagreement, then post your evidence or model. But implying that it doesn't hold for some system or process, absent such evidence or model, fails to meet the burden set forth in the speculations rules. IOW, it's put up or shut up time. I mean like a situation where a ball is flying through the air fast, but then it suddenly hits a wall and stops almost immediately. As compared to a sine wave, like with a pendulum, this is not symmetrical. Edited July 24, 2013 by Windevoid
studiot Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) I don't know what you mean by simple symmetric processes (or systems). Consider, for instance, the question "What is the kinetic energy of Mars?" Well to know the KE, you have to know the velocity and the mass. But someone on Earth, Jupiter, Alpha Centauri or some nearby black hole would all disagree on the velocity, although they might agree on the mass. So how can you tell if the KE is conserved if you don't even know what it is? I'm sure there are equivalent electrical questions. COE works well when we consider the change of energy from one form to another, which was why I mentioned processes. So you could ask Does COE hold for generating electrical energy from steam? or in the electrical heating of my bedroom? or perhaps can I transfer all the electrical energy from one battery to another? Edited July 24, 2013 by studiot
swansont Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 I mean like a situation where a ball is flying through the air fast, but then it suddenly hits a wall and stops almost immediately. As compared to a sine wave, like with a pendulum, this is not symmetrical. Energy is still conserved in such a scenario.
Windevoid Posted July 25, 2013 Author Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Maybe it's about pulsing, like a "Bedini" pulsed motor generator. I think electromagnets can also disobey Newton's third law. Edited July 25, 2013 by Windevoid
Windevoid Posted July 26, 2013 Author Posted July 26, 2013 How so? I'm not the alternative theoretical physicist that Eric Dollard is. I've just gotten odd results and am mystified by how they can happen. Maybe it's a result of asymmetry? Different magnetic power on either side of the system, maybe? I'm not the alternative theoretical physicist that Eric Dollard is. I've just gotten odd results and am mystified by how they can happen. Maybe it's a result of asymmetry? Different magnetic power on either side of the system, maybe? Kind of like how air conditioning cools one side of the system and warms another. But this time with less equality of energy. I don't agree too much with LOCOE or was it Noether's theorem. Any logical statement always assumes a lot of things. Here's what I mean. I could say: Premise 1: I want magic powers I can use on a whim. Premise 2: I don't see nor can think of anything that can prevent me from using magic powers. Premise 3: I can think, but the universe can't. Premise 4: So, may power is greater than the universe's. Conclusion: I can use movielike magic powers on a whim successfully. But obviously this doesn't (as far as I know) work. -2
Bignose Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 Kind of like how air conditioning cools one side of the system and warms another. Not sure what this non-sequitur was meant to mean; I can assure you that conservation of energy is perfectly followed by air conditioning units. In fact, it is very commonly analyzed by students in thermodynamics classes. I don't agree too much with LOCOE or was it Noether's theorem. Good thing your agreement doesn't really mean all that much. Because conservation of energy may very well be one of the most validated ideas mankind has ever had. Never has a situation been found where it is violated. Never. The simple truth is that the predictions from conservation of energy have been supremely, supremely successful. Whether you agree with it or not. Unless you are prepared to present copious amounts of well verified objective evidence of situations where the conservation of energy fails, your disagreement with it just makes you appear irrational.
Windevoid Posted July 26, 2013 Author Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) I'm not the alternative theoretical physicist that Eric Dollard is. I've just gotten odd results and am mystified by how they can happen. Maybe it's a result of asymmetry? Different magnetic power on either side of the system, maybe? Kind of like how air conditioning cools one side of the system and warms another. But this time with less equality of energy. I don't agree too much with LOCOE or was it Noether's theorem. Any logical statement always assumes a lot of things. Here's what I mean. I could say: Premise 1: I want magic powers I can use on a whim. Premise 2: I don't see nor can think of anything that can prevent me from using magic powers. Premise 3: I can think, but the universe can't. Premise 4: So, may power is greater than the universe's. Conclusion: I can use movielike magic powers on a whim successfully. But obviously this doesn't (as far as I know) work. I mean, it doesn't say anything about the objects in a space. One space of one time and space can have a roll of tape, and another space of the same size and area can have a multimeter in it. Besides, it's just and indication of the sameness of laws. It can't make laws. Edited July 26, 2013 by Windevoid -1
John Cuthber Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 ""Premise 4: So, may power is greater than the universe's. Conclusion: I can use movielike magic powers on a whim successfully." is nonsense, It's like saying that I can beat someone at chess so I can beat them at football. Having greater "power" in one sense doesn't say that you can do everything. That's just silly. And, when you have finished discussing it, the conservation of energy will remain proven, contingent only on the stability of the laws of nature over time. It will remain so, because t has been proven mathematically.
swansont Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I don't agree too much with LOCOE or was it Noether's theorem. ! Moderator Note Saying it without backing it up with a model or evidence is contrary to the rules of the speculations forum, as I have already warned you. Thus, closed.
Recommended Posts