Conservative vs. Nonconservative Energy Generation

Standard physics recognizes only conservative energy generation.

This thread is based on an essay by Paul A. LaViolette dated December 2013 stating that there is also evidence of nonconservative energy generation in the universe.

Nonconservative energy generation takes place in an open, rather than a closed, system.

The closed system of standard physics is characterized by an analogy of the universe as a whole to heat engine thermodynamics, where there is no existence outside the physical universe we're familiar with - that there is nothing outside that known environment.

In an open system, there is existence outside the physical that we know and LaViolette's unified theory models it. His unified theory is called subquantum kinetics:

. . . But there is a new approach to understanding the physical universe that is being developed. This instead views the universe as an open system and allows for the spontaneous generation of energy with no need of an antecedent high potential physical source. This is the methodology of subquantum kinetics. As mentioned elsewhere, subquantum kinetics has surpassed the prediction track record of general relativity and quantum mechanics in that it has upwards of 12 a priori predictions that were subsequently verified. Moreover it constitutes a unified field theory, explaining the origin of electric charge, gravity, their force interactions, the origin of the nuclear force, spin, magnetism, beta decay, and a host of other phenomena in a unified theoretical framework. . . .

starburstfound.org...

Subquantum kinetics postulates an unobservable ether. The theory was developed from the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. The proposed etheron units engage in reaction and diffusion processes.

LaViolette states:

It is known that the first law of thermodynamics, that entropy should spontaneously increase, is only valid for a closed system. Open systems, systems that exchange matter and energy with their environment, can instead spontaneously decrease their entropy, increase their state of order. The mathematics setting this forth was deduced by mathematician Ilya Prigogine, an achievement for which he was given the Nobel Prize. The energy content of open systems can progressively increase provided that they import high energy potential fuels or food and export low energy potential products, or waste. One example of such an order increasing system is a living organism. Another example is an etheric reaction-diffusion system, such as Model G of subquantum kinetics. In this case, it is not matter and energy, but etherons that enter and leave the domain of our physical universe, transforming into the G, X, or Y ether states that form the substrate of our universe, or transforming out of these states to other “outside universe states”, this entire river of activity taking place along a higher dimension that remains inherently inaccessible to us and our measuring instruments. Yet we know it is there because by postulating it along with Model G, we are able to account for observable physical phenomena in a unified manner unequaled by any attempts previously made with the standard physics approach, string theory included.

starburstfound.org...

Instead of the Big Bang theory, subquantum kinetics postulates a physical universe that has been created in a continuous process. And he talks in terms of a "meta-universe" beyond our known universe.

The term that has been coined to express his new concept of a subatomic quantum is "genic energy." It is nonconservatively created.

LaViolette states:

. . . This new physics paradigm also leads to the realization that within the supercritical regions of space where galaxies spawn themselves, photons as a rule spontaneously gain energy and continually blueshift their wavelength. This phenomenon accurately accounts for the Pioneer effect, a photon blueshifting effect; it accounts for 72% of the earth’s geothermal energy; and it accounts for the energy output of jovian planets, brown dwarfs, and red dwarf stars, all of which lie on the same mass-luminosity relation. It also explains the enormous energy output from novae, supernova explosions, and galactic core explosions. Even upper main sequence stars that are run primarily on fusion energy, bring into being more matter through nonconservative parthenogenesis than they burn through energy conserving fusion reactions. So even for such stars, it can be said that genic energy reigns supreme. By the way, when the astrophysics Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe reviewed the photon blueshifting idea predicted by subquantum kinetics, his comment was that it was a very original idea and that there might be some truth to it.

So in overview, we find that, as a rule, most energy in the universe is being generated through nonconservative energy generation processes. Free energy is not the exception, but the rule! . . .

starburstfound.org...

reply to post by Mary Rose

We can view the Earth as an open system, and if we do so we find energy is not conserved as it is in a closed system. However this doesn't mean that the energy has a non-physical source. Most of the energy Earth receives from outside sources comes from the sun and we think there is conservation of mass/energy when the sun is considered to be converting something like 600 tons of hydrogen to 596 tons of helium per second. The missing 4 tons per second is not missing, it's converted to energy and therefore conserved.

I only found one semi-mainstream reference to LaViolette's book from a philosophy major named Epperson and looked for the review he wrote but couldn't find it. Even if I could find it, I have little confidence that a philosophy major is in a position to evaluate theories in physics as a physicist would be.

LaViolette's position of making something up and then tweaking it until it matches observation reminds me somewhat of string theory, in that many possible versions of string theory can be tweaked to match the universe we live in. However if this is so, neither those tweaked string theory models nor LaViolette's tweaked model tell us anything practical about the universe if they can't make any predictions, which as far as I can tell, none of them have successfully done so, though I'd be glad to be presented with information to the contrary if available.

As mentioned elsewhere, subquantum kinetics has surpassed the prediction track record of general relativity and quantum mechanics in that it has upwards of 12 a priori predictions that were subsequently verified.

In addition to subquantum kinetics, LaViolette has a theory in the area of astronomy and climatology which is a superwave theory. That theory verification is covered in Part I on his website.

The subquantum kinetics theory verification is covered in Part II: Subquantum Kinetics Predictions and their Subsequent Verification

The mathematics setting this forth was deduced by mathematician Ilya Prigogine, an achievement for which he was given the Nobel Prize.
starburstfound.org...

Peter Lindemann talked about Ilya Prigogine's work having been virtually ignored in his presentation at the 2013 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology Conference entitled Open System Thermodynamics.

A screenshot from the video of this presentation:



Things being ignored is what the problem is in mainstream physics.

Mary Rose
The subquantum kinetics theory verification is covered in Part II: Subquantum Kinetics Predictions and their Subsequent Verification

Mainstream science thinks it has verified exactly the opposite of what LaViolette claims to have verified here (from your link):

Verification (1979 – 1986): Dr. LaViolette checks this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired-light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Freidman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests. He demonstrates that the tired-light model consistently makes a closer fit to observational data on all tests.

Here is the mainstream view which comes to exactly the opposite conclusion:

www.astro.ucla.edu...

Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This has three main problems:

---There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
---The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.

In 2001 Goldhaber and the Supernova Cosmology Project published results of a time dilation analysis of 60 supernovae. A plot of their width factor w versus the redshift z is shown below.

If the redshift were due to a tired light effect, the width of a supernova light curve would be independent of the redshift, as shown by the red horizontal line. If the redshift is due to an expanding Universe, the width factor should be w = (1+z) as shown by the blue line. The best fit to the data is the black line, and it is clearly consistent with the blue line and rules out the tired light model...

---The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
---The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the emissivities of blackbodies. Lubin & Sandage (2001) show that tired light fails this test by 10 standard deviations.

The tired light model is a perfectly reasonable thing to investigate, and it has been investigated, and rejected for the reasons mentioned. That LaViolette comes to the opposite conclusion of the mainstream explains why he is considered fringe.

Mary Rose
Things being ignored is what the problem is in mainstream physics.

Tired light wasn't ignored, it was considered, evaluated, and rejected, pretty dramatically if you consider the red line versus the blue line above.

It is similar to what I was saying in regard to papers and journals. If you consistently ignore your own evidence and own universe even. Truth when you claim mainstream sciences holds onto old theories that need to be thrown out, much of the alternative are grasping hold of theories that are even older at the core and go so far as to ignore all evidence completely. You may as well say unicorns exist because horses do for all it is worth.

Mary Rose
The theory was developed from the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

I see that the mainstream Wikipedia does recognize nonequilibrium thermodynamics:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics that deals with thermodynamic systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is concerned with transport processes and with the rates of chemical reactions.[1] Many natural systems still today remain beyond the scope of currently known macroscopic thermodynamic methods.

The thermodynamic study of non-equilibrium systems requires more general concepts than are dealt with by equilibrium thermodynamics. One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems. This is discussed below. Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.[2][3]

Overview

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a work in progress, not an established edifice. This article will try to sketch some approaches to it and some concepts important for it.. . .

en.wikipedia.org...

I am encouraged.

At least Wikipedia is not using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" in reference to nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

reply to post by Mary Rose

There is real vortex math. Then there is a guy called Marko Rodin who comes along and makes up some sudoku he calls "vortex math" which has little (actually I think it's nothing) to do with vortex math.

Prigogine won the Nobel prize for doing real science. In no way does someone who then comes along and makes false theories claiming to be based on his work become validated by this claim, any more than Marko Rodin gets validated for using the name "vortex mathematics" when his math has nothing to do with real "Vortex Mathematics".

Another less egregious example would be Antony Garrett Lisi's theory of everything being based on E8. E8 is solid math according to the experts, but in no way does this mean that the "Theory of Everything" based on it is valid, and indeed even Lisi says that his theory is more than likely wrong simply because most new ideas in physics are eventually proven wrong. But just because Lisi's theory is likely wrong, doesn't mean the underlying E8 math is wrong. Likewise, just because LaViolette is wrong, doesn't mean that Prigogine is wrong.

There isn't anything in the wiki suggesting that non-equilibrium thermodynamics is pseudoscience. The pseudoscience happens when people take real science and then distort it into something that's not true. There really is a tired light hypothesis. The pseudoscience happens when LaViolette claims he's proven observations support the hypothesis, when in fact observations reject the hypothesis.

Mary Rose
In an open system, there is existence outside the physical that we know and LaViolette's unified theory models it. His unified theory is called subquantum kinetics . . .

LaViolette states:

The subquantum kinetics paradigm avoids many of the pitfalls of conventional physics and astronomy theories and interprets physical phenomena in a distinctively different manner. A listing of the numerous problems of the conventional paradigm and how subquantum kinetics resolves them is presented in the following tables.

starburstfound.org...

There are two tables: "Comparison to Quantum Theory and Field Theory" and "Comparison to Cosmology and Astrophysics."

Here are screenshots of the table "Comparison to Quantum Theory and Field Theory":

Not a very good list... It is like

Theory I dont like and a statement about a part of it i dont understand

My theory is better.

It is quite easy to say "Iv solved it." but i am yet to see a single actual proof.

ErosA433
It is quite easy to say "Iv solved it." but i am yet to see a single actual proof.

He presented his verification of the tired light hypothesis as "proof".

I think that proves something, but probably not what he had hoped.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thats fine though right... can just claim that it proves exactly what he thought it would and politely ignore the fact that it proves what his theory says, incorrect...

It is like saying... "So the sky is blue over there right" Person nods and says "Yes" and then saying... Ah great, so I have this theory that the sun is not a ball of gas but it is hollow and the sky being blue proves it!

To which the person says "But your theory states the sky should be yellow" and his response... oh but since the sky is blue and that is correct, it means I am correct.


To me it truly is a sign of someone being truly logically broken.

Mary Rose
In an open system, there is existence outside the physical that we know and LaViolette's unified theory models it. His unified theory is called subquantum kinetics . . .

From starburstfound.org...



Subquantum kinetics is also referred to as Model G.

Click on the link to see the animation.

ErosA433
To which the person says "But your theory states the sky should be yellow" and his response... oh but since the sky is blue and that is correct, it means I am correct.

To me it truly is a sign of someone being truly logically broken.

That happens too, particularly in electric universe pseudoscience where any time there is a new discovery, they claim their theory predicted it even if their theory predicted the opposite. But in this case, it seems to me that LaViolette is claiming the sky is yellow with his "tired light proof", and everyone else saying it's blue is wrong, in your analogy.

I also see that Mary Rose still likes to parrot other people's claims, without engaging in a discussion about the veracity of such, since she appears to have blinders on and wishes to believe the claims even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

Mary, did you figure out in the graph above if the black line is a better fit to the blue line or the red line, and what the implications of that are for LaViolette's theory, which would require the black line to match the red line?

A screenshot from Subquantum Kinetics:



LaViolette notes on his website Stephen Hawking's change of heart about black holes:

Hawking finally sees the light: Says black holes do not exist

Physicist Stephen Hawking has now reversed his stand on black holes. He gives his reasons in a paper that he posted five days ago on the physics preprint internet archive at (arxiv.org...). He says that according to his new analysis “There would be no event horizons and no firewalls. The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity.” He says that the concept of a black hole should be “redefined as a metastable bound state of the gravitational field” which has a chaotic interior. In other words, he now envisions that a supermassive Galactic core should be a collapsed region from which energy can escape through an “apparent horizon”. An apparent horizon is described as a surface that traps light but which also varies its shape due to quantum fluctuations allowing the possibility for light to escape.
Click to read more

starburstfound.org...

Arbitrageur
Mary, did you figure out in the graph above if the black line is a better fit to the blue line or the red line, and what the implications of that are for LaViolette's theory, which would require the black line to match the red line?

edit on 10-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

evidently not it seems

Arbitrageur
I also see that Mary Rose still likes to parrot other people's claims, without engaging in a discussion about the veracity of such, since she appears to have blinders on and wishes to believe the claims even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

I often see that Arbitrageur engages in sarcastic games when posting so I really don't pay much attention to what he says.