The Law of Conservation of Energy

This is meant to be a mild anecdotal brain tickler.
To the mainstream science, this law which states that, Energy can neither be created nor destoyed,
is as solid as the Rock of Gibralter.
So once I was debating this law with a friend and she asked me to prove otherwise.
So I told her, its quite simple. You carry a bucket of water to lets say a 30 storey building rooftop.
This water now has Potential Energy, which when poured down to the earth will be converted to Kinetic Energy.
All hunky dory so far, but if this water is spread on the rooftop to evaporate, does not the stored Potential Energy disappear, proving that Energy can indeed be destroyed..
Needless to say, she is still trying to come up with a suitable counter arguement.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
This is meant to be a mild anecdotal brain tickler.
To the mainstream science, this law which states that, Energy can neither be created nor destoyed,
is as solid as the Rock of Gibralter.
So once I was debating this law with a friend and she asked me to prove otherwise.
So I told her, its quite simple. You carry a bucket of water to lets say a 30 storey building rooftop.
This water now has Potential Energy, which when poured down to the earth will be converted to Kinetic Energy.
All hunky dory so far, but if this water is spread on the rooftop to evaporate, does not the stored Potential Energy disappear, proving that Energy can indeed be destroyed..
Needless to say, she is still trying to come up with a suitable counter arguement.

It does not evaporate, it turns into a cloud, then the clowd produces electricity due to heat, you get storms, then it rains, and it's back to water.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

No, in fact the water just gains more potential energy. As it is warmed, its molecules float off upwards, perhaps to eventually become clouds, and lose their potential energy when they rain on your head.

A more interesting brain-teaser is if you lift something off the planet, then remove the planet - what happens to that potential energy?

I believe something called Neother's Theorem proves that the conservation laws still hold - but I don't have the maths for that, so I'll just take their word for it!

while the last poster is correct and your bucket of water does not disappear but in the process of evaporation regains potential energy...

BUT if you really want to stump people on the law of Conservation do this... ask them why atoms continue their high energy mambo day after day when conservation says something of that limitted of mass even at light speed would stop fairly expediently thereby making the matter all around is dissolve.

you will get a story back about how that's quantum physics and it's different... which is interesting when you think about your science teacher saying a law is a law only if it applies uniformly. while I do believe in quantum physics the big ie to me is that it only works at the nanoscale... which discover magazine and several others have already been having to publish articles saying "sometimes in very specialized settings you can get macroscopic phenomena to behave according to quantum model not standard model" because of experiments that are cropping up and not fiitting standard model on the macro scale...

amplified light link
Now another interesting one is this link I'm dropping where scientists AMPLIFY light 1000 times... literally spawning more photons... Now tell me how THAT one works in standard model... (I know what teh quantum dodge is and hey its the right answer all the time but I like watching them sweat and stutter) well that is if they aren't the type that just asks you if you have a PHD then if you say no they say well then there's no point explaining but it doesn't prove your precious theories trust me I have a PHD I KNOW THESE THINGS. which is the crap answer we get most.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

No, in fact the water just gains more potential energy. As it is warmed, its molecules float off upwards, perhaps to eventually become clouds, and lose their potential energy when they rain on your head.
A more interesting brain-teaser is if you lift something off the planet, then remove the planet - what happens to that potential energy?
I believe something called Neother's Theorem proves that the conservation laws still hold - but I don't have the maths for that, so I'll just take their word for it!

Lol. Not very convincing. Water from the ground also evaporates to form clouds to rain and fall on your head.
Havent heard of this theorem you quote tho

I am just a Joe and am intrested in most things .I just came across this ,this morning and thought I would share . It is very intresting and could be very valuable info .....peace Randy Powell - Advanced Vortex Math - Part 1 tru 6
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by roguetechie


Lol. A bit gobbledygooky, but thanks for your reply.
Will chk on your link about light amplification.

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I am just a Joe and am intrested in most things .I just came across this ,this morning and thought I would share . It is very intresting and could be very valuable info .....peace Randy Powell - Advanced Vortex Math - Part 1 tru 6
www.youtube.com...

Am watching your youtube link. Hope it does lead to some practical applications in the latter parts

Hokay.
To fully state the law: Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but it can be changed to and from different states (this includes matter since matter is merely condensed energy).

Your bucket of water at the top of a building has more than just the potential energy you generated carrying it up. Heat is energy too, zero degrees kelvin being the point where there is no heat and therefore no energy.
Right, now the law of entropy, states that matter and energy will always try to reach a state of entropy - that is where all the mass and energy is evenly spread. So, on a hot sunny day, where the water is colder than the surrounding atmosphere, it absorbs energy from it's surroundings in various ways: Induction, radiation and convection. Now, the water will evaporate as it absorbs more heat (energy) from these processes - it doesn't have to absorb enough energy to make the whole bucket boil, only enough at any one time to make a single water molecule change state. Assuming all the water evaporated, the total water that was previously contained in the bucket will not have lost any of the potential energy you invested in it by carrying it up the stairs, in fact it will have gained energy in order to evaporate, >however< that water instead of being concentrated in the bucket as a liquid will be spread over a much much larger volume as a gas. A gas is still matter and still has mass and can gain and lose energy
When the weather changes, and the atmosphere containing the water vapour that used to be your bucket of water, gets colder. Then the law of entropy will have a new effect. The heat energy that originally caused your water to evaporate will be lost, eventually enough of it will be lost to cause the water to condense and this condensed water vapour will fall as precipitation.
The potential energy you invested in the water carrying it upstairs will then be converted to kinetic energy (along with a smidge of heat energy that was converted to potential energy as the water vapour molecule gained altitude) as the water molecule (in a raindrop) falls to earth.
Then, on impact again there is a transfer of energy! The raindrop makes a noise, that is energy, and some of the kinetic energy is changed into heat, minutely raising the temperature of the molecule

Hope that clarifies.

reply to post by aegis80


Hey. Thanks for your reply, but unfortunately its all topsy turvy and does not clarify anything.
To put it simply. Spread one bucket of water on the ground floor and an identical amount over an identical area on the rooftop. Both will evaporate at the same rate given identical ambient conditions on both locations.
So now show me your energy balance sheet.
Both water vapours will form clouds and eventually fall down as rain.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

water is spread on the rooftop to evaporate,

Sounds like the water is going to gain more energy from the sun by evaporation.
This might be better explained by ether scientists which do not exist.
Some how on atomic levels, energy can be absorbed in strange ways.
The classic is Hydrogen H2 separating to 2H by a small amount of heat and
then recombining to it natural state by exhausting at least 10 or more, perhaps
up to 1000 times, heat used to separate the atoms of gas.
The state of independent atoms are gathering ether energy in some way.

Water becoming more independent in the ether might exhibit some strange
behavior but I don't know what.

Ah yes teslaandlyne but as you said there's no ether scientists just some foam strings superstrings and soap bubbles.

and like you said also it's really too bad there's no ether scientists to explain all the COP > 1 interactions that power our world...

I am not a bearden fan but he does point out some interesting things in his open letter to new scientist magazine.
Too much information to to rehash here. BUT if you read it and cross reference what he talks about, you can cross reference the information like I did and find the necessary information to decide whether you believe the information or not.

OP I sincerely understand your confusion at the contradictions in the "energy accounting" system that conventional model physics is based off of... the reality is it's a pretty good guideline for day to day life but it starts breaking down real fast in highly complex situations.

The reality is simply stated that you won't get a satisfactory answer to your question following conventional model eventually you'll hit a snag. This is why special relativity and other things exist...

Los alamos national labs and others have confirmed several conservation breaking phenomena on a micro AND MACRO scale. The answers are out there and if you talk to a physicist instead of an engineer you'll get different answers... more satisfactory ones too if you find the right physicist. (you need theory guys in some esoteric highly specialized areas)

THen you'll run across the same dilemna the rest of us searchers do once you start finding your answers that seem to completely blow away text books and the theories our engineers use on a day to day basis...

We need a revamp of our knowledge base and a concerted system wide effort to distribute the knowledge gained from our theory guys to our applications guys (apps guys = engineers) where the knowlege can be taken advantage of to improve the human condition instead of ENRICHING the holders of the SECRETS

I'm sorry, but there is no magic involved in vaporizing water

It is just a phase change. The energy is delivered as heat from sun or/and due to diffusion(the air above the vaporizing water and the surface below will be cooled).

Gravity is a conservative force. It doesn't matter at which height the water is vaporing the energy is still conserved. It will vapor faster at elevated positions though due to lowered air pressure(boiling point).

Los alamos national labs and others have confirmed several conservation breaking phenomena on a micro AND MACRO scale.

Never heard of an experiment breaking energy conservation. It would be really big news. Can you cite your sources.

ERR go to the link in my post... they passively AMPLIFY light 1000 times without applying more energy or sublimating some of the gold in the experiments. COP > 10 ... If you were to oh I DON"T KNOW READ what I already posted you'd know that in the gap between to the two gold points in the experiment they did MORE PHOTONS APPEARED...

In other words they started with one photon ended up with ten... then there is the PRETTY FAMOUS experiments replicated by several universities now of the new Ultra small nano scale solar device that converts individual photons directly into electricity... But here's the catch they've been getting 5 to 8 TIMES the electricity they should get out of each photon. which the cheniere.org tom bearden letter to new scientist details.

And if you were to do some reading into several other things there's other really great examples that are quite literally all around us.

The problem we are running into at this point is pretty simple... We have an engineering community so indoctrinated int these old rules which have been known to be at best flawed for decades now in the physics community. BUT these guys are literally SO CONVINCED because of the way they were taught that even when physicists try to explain the new concepts.

This is what happens when the entire way that science is taught from kindergarten to junior college is DECADES out of date with reality!! I mean what does it say that in my high school they still teach orbital atomic model? When it's been common knowledge among the physics community for years that they pop in and out of existence at random from subatomic land and that is what quantum superposition etc are about.

There's a fundamental disconnect between our theory and CONSUMER implementation department... that's why everything new and revolutionary you see in tech magazines that is still in labs is quoted as 5 to 7 years away...
They have to find an engineer willing to listen! Then he has to convince some other engineers that the physicists haven't gone NUTS again.... etc etc.

Originally posted by moebius
I'm sorry, but there is no magic involved in vaporizing water


Gravity is a conservative force. It doesn't matter at which height the water is vaporing the energy is still conserved. It will vapor faster at elevated positions though due to lowered air pressure(boiling point).
Never heard of an experiment breaking energy conservation. It would be really big news. Can you cite your sources.

i did say that assuming identical ambient conditions at both locations
Besides you are already commentin on an experiment which breaks conservation. its a done deal

Exactly OP

It's like the poster wants the mainstream science community to do the one thing they suck at!

ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG!!

Conservation is not the be all end all... matter of fact if you look backwards in time and ACTUALLY READ stuff scientists write about instead of what science and engineering COMMENTATORS write about (IE people not smart enough to do the science or engineering but instead write about it trying to explain in laymens terms for general consumption). The commentators are who are the problem well and the guys who run the textbook mills.... Funny thing those text book companies ... you'll find most of them through various business ties have a VESTED interest in promoting the PARADIGM before last... (yes the books aren;t just one paradigm behind in many cases but a couple in actuality)

But if you're waiting for popular mechanics and popular science to publish an article that says WE WERE WRONG (Sorry everyone who we ridiculed and destroyed financially) If I'm not mistaken them changing their stance at this point would even possibly open them to some VERY EXPENSIVE legal liabilities. This is in addition to the ownership situation (hearst publishing is a good example... there is a good reason why they came out swinging so hard on 9/11 myths... do your DUE DILIGENCE and you'll see it's not the supposed bad science of the anti originial story crews but instead was motivated instead by it's chain of corporate associations.


You are free to believe what you want but the cuttiing edge passed by your views at some point in the early 50's in most labs... So instead of spending all your time manning the battlements defending ideas that are known to be wrong maybe your time would be better spent in getting to the bottom of the mystery of WHY exactly certain interests keep promoting models they know are broken and creating a hostility and animosity within the community that PREVENTS HONEST DIALOGUE and keeps these discoveries bottled up and hotly contested which assures they will not be HARNESSED.

That is the REAL interesting question in modern science.

AKA QUI BONO .... WHO BENEFITS?

As soon as we tied science and commerce to each other this became as relevant of a question as any in the standard litany of the scientific method. And whenever you run across an area where the "accepted answers that make up the common man's and even engineering understanding of science" do not match up with what current lab experiments are saying and showing it;s a VITAL QUESTION in your repertoire if you truly wish to DENY IGNORANCE.

We live in a commercial society it would be FOOLISH to believe that any scientific misconceptions that stand to MAKE PEOPLE LOTS OF MONEY would be overturned without YEARS if not DECADES of slow progress that costs careers and reputations of any who DARE try to put a stop to an INDUSTRY'S GRAVY TRAIN.

The "suitable counter argument" you are looking for from your friend is that the evaporated water's potential energy has been MOVED, transferred, converted, whatever you wanna call it.

You should probably talk to your scientific friends about issues like this...

It's really too bad more people don't read Heinlein... he has a quote that is so stunningly applicable and explains so much in current education trends and how they affect the world we live in it's unreal.

His a man should be a generalist because evolution hates specialists quote explains alot, including why the current educational system is so DETERMINED to give people ONE very narrow specialization if they go any further than a bachelors degree... THis allows them to teach each specialization in a manner that does not allow the different specialists to communicate effectively without intermediaries because of differing vocabularies and standards...

This is all according to design because it allows them to hide the GLARING inconsistencies that keep engineers believing in conservation and away from the microbiologists, physicists, and etc that can burst that bubble in about 4 seconds 1000 different ways.

It's also why the most ground breaking discoveries time and again have been made by GENERALISTS ... they see the loopholes and exploits...

And to go forward at this point that is what we need ... Hacker engineers, aka guys that look at the underlying code (physics concepts) that their program (invention they are trying to build) is trying to work with and go for the best most cutting edge, clean, simple, and balanced answer they can to the problem they are trying to solve.

The future is in generalism and a new vocabulary that allows ALL branches of science and engineering to communicate with each other and cross specialize.

reply to post by prepared4truth


Ok but what about the photons? or the nanoscale solar cells that convert a photon directly to electricity but they get 5 to 8 times more than they should?

where is that answer? or the light amplifier in the article I posted?

what's the suitable counter argument there?

And why hasn't the moon crashed into the earth and the earth crashed into the sun and why don't hydrogen molecules decohere shortly after coming into existence because even at C there isn't enough mass in a hydrogen atom to explain it being stable for much of any time at all without "running down" and separating into low energy forms of it's component proton neutron electrons fairly quickly according to CONservation...

YOu can't have conservation without CON... :p

Originally posted by roguetechie
amplified light link
Now another interesting one is this link I'm dropping where scientists AMPLIFY light 1000 times... literally spawning more photons... Now tell me how THAT one works in standard model... (I know what teh quantum dodge is and hey its the right answer all the time but I like watching them sweat and stutter) well that is if they aren't the type that just asks you if you have a PHD then if you say no they say well then there's no point explaining but it doesn't prove your precious theories trust me I have a PHD I KNOW THESE THINGS. which is the crap answer we get most.

Nothing seems odd about that experiment to me, nor do I see anything that violates conservation. They take a laser beam and simply concentrate it down to a very small point. So yes, the light in that point has gained incredible intensity. But it's still the same amount of energy that went in to the system. It's kind of like using a magnifying glass to burn something. You take the light entering the magnifying glass and concentrate it down to a point and you can see how even a small amount of light can become very intense.