It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There is a well-known "rule of thumb" in science, perhaps best expressed by a late Noble Laureate, physicist Richard Feynman:
"You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right -- at least if you have any experience -- because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in ... The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler that you thought ..."
Originally posted by freeourminds
its easy , limited power keeps us under control and on this planet , even bush is pawn in that game, i mean how would your dishwasher cope if it caught on to the fact that its whole purpose was to wash your dirty dishes ?
Originally posted by wild_cat
The Law of Conservation can not and will not be broken. That is why it is call the "Law of Conservation of Energy" instead of the "Theory of Conservation of Energy".
Originally posted by Revelmonk
Tesla also stumbled upon a theory that he believed and tested that electricity could be wirelessly transferred from one continent to the next. Yet he was not able to finish it among others.
Originally posted by jumpspace
The law regarding the "Conservation of Energy" CANNOT be broken.
I believe pretty well anything is possible, however unfortunately this is one rule that cannot be broken.
If anyone is making a claim to the contrary then I would suggest they do more research on "Open" and "Closed" systems.
Originally posted by wild_cat
The reason why it is called a law is because it is unbreakable. Tests and tests have been performed and the same results happen each time. It wasnt called the law of flat earth or the law humans cant fly. It was a theory that the world was flat and we couldnt fly. Sorry
Originally posted by Yarium
Well, I gotta say, I'm a believer that The Law of Conservation will never be broken.
Every action and energy release has an equal and opposite reaction. This holds true for everything. When you release energy, something had to happen prior to contain that energy.
Not only that, but every action releases energy - and will only not do so if it's at absolute zero (but an object cannot be acted upon nor can it act whilst at absolute zero, otherwise it gains energy to be acted upon).
Even the universe.
You say that here we are, and that the universe breaks these laws. Perhaps...
But perhaps not. What if this existance is merely a pocket of inequilibrium - a cosmic spark of energy transfer? Or, what if there's an equal amount of negative matter (matter with a negative mass), or even perhaps negative energy?
Mind you, I'm not saying that we can not find LOOP-HOLES in the Law of Conservation. We can get energy out of almost anything, and then have the byproduct as well. We burn oil, we get energy and carbon dioxide (and some other fun/not so fun stuff).
In essence, it costs us less energy to burn the oil, and we get MORE energy out of it. But this is only because the energy was ALREADY THERE - just unharnessed.
By the same token, we may be able to perform some miracles of science and get energy from extremely common sources, or sources that are already packet with a mountain of energy. Could you imagine the energy contained in an electron? And electrons are more than numerous!
Imagine we found a way to harness the energy of the electron - fully. The electron ceases to exist around that atom when we're done with it. In that case, we might be able to get huge amounts of energy, but we'll also start winding up with a cold plasma with strange, unknown properties (inso far). We could harness energy that's already there, and end with a byproduct.
Heck, this byproduct should be able to attract electrons to it, and perhaps by exposing it to energies that we cannot control, we would be able to reuse those electron-less atoms, for a small cost to OUR energy.
So, remember, the universe may be a closed system, but earth is open - we have a lot of space around us to use. Sure the Law of Conservation may not be breakable, but there may be a lot of loopholes that we can use to get energy for US - even if we're taking energy away from somewhere else.
An electron here, and a proton on the other side of the universe, still equal out to a neutral charge.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
There may be one principle of science that allows the law of energy conservation to be, well, warped. Technically, energy would still not be created, but for practical purposes it might as well be.
I'm referring to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, using that principle to effectively "create" energy would require doing something that science hasn't the first clue how to do or even whether it is possible: alter the fabric of probability itself.
As I said, technically the energy wouldn't be "created," it would just always have been there unmeasured and unnoticed. (Isn't physics a grand mind-bender?) But for practical purposes, it might as well be popping out of nothing.
Now, as to how probability can be shifted in this way -- no comment for the present. You ball, play with it as you will.
Originally posted by StellarX
We do not 'create' wind power after all but what we do not tap is 'wasted' ; same principle applies.
We assumes creation instead of simply directing the 'flow'?
And both Maxwell and Heaviside knew that this was true for electrical circuits 125 years ago.
Originally posted by ThaiKV
Wind is actually considered a form of solar energy. The problems with using wind energy is energy storage and the variability of wind speeds, especially in the United States. In most areas of the United States that have viable wind speeds, this are reached in the winter and spring months, when energy demand is at its lowest. In the summer months, when we have peak energy demands, viable wind speeds are least available.
This is the reason why many proposed plans have wind energy used in conjunction with a hydrogen generation.
At best, given wind energy resources, we could obtain 10-15% of a local areas grid demand. Even then, we would have to have backup systems installed.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
No, that's a different principle altogether. The wind is part of the energy system of the sun-earth complex, whose total energy is constant. Wind power is not creation of energy, it is tapping energy potential from the sun that already exists.
It's not an assumption. And it's not creation, exactly. It's a statement that we cannot measure energy precisely -- it doesn't HAVE an exact quantity -- and so the law of conservation of energy has to be revised to say that energy of a system is constant within the limits of uncertainty.
There is nothing in the work of Maxwell or Heaviside that calls the law of energy conservation into question.