Jump to content

History of energy theory


Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

Wow, it's more than half a year since the last time I'm here. After a series of debates about energy theories, I seclude myself and determine to find out what was going on. I've found the answer, but that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to touch your belief system, vibrate it alittle bit and hopefully something will crack. I just want to introduce the brief history of what happened back then.

 

It was the time of Leibniz and Newton/Descartes and their view of Force. Newton/Descartes were the creator of the formula "mv" where m=mass, v=velocity. It is now known as momentum. Leibniz was the creator of the formula "mv^2", which later modify by Coriolis to "1/2 m v^2" now know as kinetic energy. Leibniz and Newton fought among themselves over who's correct. In some cases momentum conservation holds and other cases kinetic energy holds. The dispute was never resolved. Strangely, science adopt both of these controversal quantities as "law" and remain unchallenged till this day.

 

I challenge you to read into the founding fathers stories of energy and reevaluate our foundation. If the forumula is case restricted, they cannot be law, not even saying they are laws in parallel. If you want to revolutionize our current state, you must first give yourself a chance.

 

"Energy can be created... and destroyed!"

Absolute1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

I'm glad that no one go crazy over my post. This shows a great improvement on our swiftness about matter. This is good news.

 

Mr Gamma: No, I do not have links. This comes directly from what I've conclude. I'm glad that you're not against listening. Keep on questioning and the answer automatically come.

 

Tricky: Yes, it's a belief system. Our whole reality is a belief system. People do not know the real power of concious. Religious leaders know this and knows this well. Beliefs are the machine that driven man. I'll explain more if you are interest. One example is this topic. You can see by history that the foundation of this theory is not ridgid, yet modern science is so persistant with its existance and ready to fight to the death to protect their belief. You can even apply this in real life. If you know someone desire, you can manipulate them through their desires.

 

Klaynos: Suppose 2 object with same mass A and B. A goes 5 units of speed, B at rest. After colliding A goes 3 unit speed and B goes 2 units of speed. Momentum is conserve, energy is not for this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Klaynos: Suppose 2 object with same mass A and B. A goes 5 units of speed, B at rest. After colliding A goes 3 unit speed and B goes 2 units of speed. Momentum is conserve, energy is not for this case.

 

I can make up numbers as well.

 

I have a 5kg lump of lead, and a 47 chickens, how many rabbits are under the goatshed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tricky: Yes, it's a belief system. Our whole reality is a belief system. People do not know the real power of concious. Religious leaders know this and knows this well. Beliefs are the machine that driven man. I'll explain more if you are interest. One example is this topic. You can see by history that the foundation of this theory is not ridgid, yet modern science is so persistant with its existance and ready to fight to the death to protect their belief. You can even apply this in real life. If you know someone desire, you can manipulate them through their desires.

 

You think modern science is based on believing things that are not real? I was sure there was experimentation and maths involved somewhere. :doh:

Not meaning to burst any bubbles but I'm not in any way spiritual, I don't "believe" nor do I feel any inclination to follow a belief system, or religious leader.

 

I'm assuming you think science nowadays makes stuff up and believes things to be happening without them actually occurring? If so then, why do you believe that about science, what evidence do you have? Or are you the one believing without any evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservation of kinetic energy is not the same thing as conservation of energy.

 

Conservation laws derive from symmetries of nature; if energy is not conserved, the laws of physics must be changing in time. Conservation of linear momentum similarly is tied with translational symmetry of nature. As long as the laws are the same here as elsewhere, momentum must be conserved.

 

These connections were mathematically proven by Emmy Noether many years after Leibniz and Newton, so any arguments the latter had are completely irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very tired of people completely misunderstanding the billiard ball collisions. Especially when it is pretty much covered in every single university-level physics undergraduate textbook.

 

Let's look at a perfectly elastic collision.

 

Conservation of momentum:

[math]m_1 v_{1i} + m_2 v_{2i} = m_1 v_{1f} + m_2 v_{2f}[/math]

 

where the i means initial (pre-collision) and f means final (post-collision).

 

Conservation of energy:

[math]\frac{1}{2} m_1 v_{1i}^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2 v_{2i}^2 = \frac{1}{2}m_1 v_{1f}^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2 v_{2f}^2[/math]

 

Now, assuming that the masses and the initial velocities are known, you can solve these two equations for the two final velocities:

 

[math]v_{1f}= \frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i} + \frac{2m_2}{m_1 + m_2}v_{2i}[/math]

[math]v_{2f}= \frac{2m_1}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i} + \frac{m_2-m_1}{m_1 + m_2}v_{2i}[/math]

 

So, if we put your example in. Masses equal, object A moving at 5 m/s and object B moving at 0 m/s, if the collision is perfectly elastic, the only solution to that situation result in obejct A moving at 0 m/s and object B moving at 5 m/s.

 

Therefore, we can obviously conclude that the collision is inelastic.

 

To describe inelastic collisions, we have to introduce something called the coefficient of restitution, e.

 

[math]e = \frac{v_{2f}-v_{1f}}{v_{1i}-v_{2i}}[/math]

 

And, using the coefficient of restitution, the equations for the final velocities in terms of the masses and original velocities is:

 

[math]v_{1f}= \frac{(e+1)m_2 v_{2i} + v_{1i}(m_1-em_2)}{m_1+m_2}[/math]

[math]v_{2f}= \frac{(e+1)m_1 v_{1i} + v_{2i}(m_2-em_1)}{m_1+m_2}[/math]

 

And, finally, when there is inelasticity, there is an energy loss due to the deformation of the objects that are colliding. This is given by:

 

[math]\Delta K E = -\frac{1}{4}(1-e^2)(m_1 v_{1i}^2-m_2 v_{2i}^2)[/math]

 

And, guess, what, if you add up the kinetic energy of the two objects post-collision and this loss due to inelasticity... it adds up to all the kinetic energy of the two objects pre-collision! Energy is completely, 100% conserved. This has been shown over and over and over again.

 

So, let's look at your collision again.

 

v_1i = 5, v_2i = 0 m_1 = m_2 = m

v_1f = 3, v_2f = 2.

 

So, let's look at this when we put these numbers into the equation for the post-collisional velocity after an elastic collision:

 

[math] 3 = -\frac{5}{2}e[/math]

 

Resulting in [math]e=-\frac{6}{5}[/math]

 

And, if you put the numbers into the equation for the post collisional velocity of the second, and solve for e, you get [math]e=-\frac{1}{5}[/math]

 

What you get is two different answers for e. In a binary collision, the there is only one coefficient of restitution. That is, the restitution of the first object colliding with the second object is that same as the restitution of the second object colliding with the first. Since there are two different answers, this tells you that in fact, this collision could never happen. The situation you describe is impossible.

 

So, in summary of this long post. The laws of conservation of momentum and energy still hold. You just have to account for all of the energy. I hope this doesn't sound mean, because I don't intend it to be, but the study of collisions is pretty basic stuff covered in any decent university level text. I'd highly recommend you go back to the basics and read up before you declare the exceptionally-well verified laws of the universe broken.

 

edited to correct a small mistake in one of the eqns.

Edited by Bignose
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you don't like conservation of energy, than you need to tell us what new force you discovered. All known fundamental forces in nature are conservative, including gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. So, please describe what new force you discovered that is not one of these.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Might I pipe in to ask if someone can explain in layman terms what does conservation of energy mean?

 

(like if you were to explain it to a non-scientific average person, for example :))

 

Thanks.

 

For any of those kinds of questions, wikipedia is a good place to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA, in the simplest of terms, it is simply that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

The next step is to understand that energy can be converted from one form to another, sometimes easily, sometimes not, but the total amount of energy is still the same. Some examples are burning gasoline which takes the chemical energy in the fuel and turns it into kinetic energy of the motion of the car. Now, that conversion isn't terribly efficient. I.e. if you just took the kinetic energy in the car, it would be a lot less than the chemical energy that was in the gas before it was burned. So, to complete the conservation, you have to look for the other forms of energy. Heat is the big one. Noise is also energy in the form of pressure waves. Energy used to charge the battery via the alternator. The chemical energy in the emissions. etc. etc. If you add up all these other forms of energy, it will equal the total amount of energy that was in the gasoline that was consumed.

 

In the inelastic collision above, the energy available in the kinetic energy of the balls before the collision is equal to the kinetic energy of the balls after the collision plus the energy that was used to deform the two balls (that's pretty much the definition of an inelastic collision). The inelasticisty consumes the energy because work is needed to deform the balls; there is inevitable some heating that occurs during the deformation and noise that will be made.

 

And, this is true in every single situation, with one possible exception. The Big Bang. It isn't that the conservation of energy was violated during The Big Bang -- it is that we don't know exactly what the Big Bang is and what was before the BB.

 

Every other situation has been shown to follow conservation of energy. There are lots of different forms of energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_forms

 

But, if you add up all the forms of energy at one time, then some time later add it all up again, the two sums will be the same. Every time. No one has ever been able to demonstrate any example that breaks that rule. That's why there is no such device as something that can produce more energy than it takes in, and if you've lost some energy, you aren't doing the bookkeeping correctly. If you do it correctly, the sums are always equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bignose

 

Haven't you made a mistake in the third equation?

 

[math]v_{1f}=\frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i}+ \frac{2m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{2i}[/math]

 

Should be written as

 

[math]v_{1f}=\frac{m_2-m_1}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i}+ \frac{2m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{2i}[/math]

 

I know you might think it is trivial, but just for accurate sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignose

 

Haven't you made a mistake in the third equation?

 

[math]v_{1f}=\frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i}+ \frac{2m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{2i}[/math]

 

Should be written as

 

[math]v_{1f}=\frac{m_2-m_1}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i}+ \frac{2m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{2i}[/math]

 

I know you might think it is trivial, but just for accurate sake.

 

 

Easy enough to check: if m1 > m2, then m1 should forward scatter. Only if m1 < m2 will you have backscattering.

 

The top equation is correct. (v2i is taken as zero by using the appropriate coordinate system) The bottom equation predicts phenomena that can't occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I see what your arguments are. Basically, people said science is reality, rational and have nothing to do with belief or the conscious. Well, if you don't consider the possibility, then my argument is not for you.

 

Ah.... coefficient of restitution. If the equation of the universe is a Taylor series, can you find the exact equation? Can you approximate the equation? We all know that as human being, we try to describe nature with accuracy. How we do that is pluck and chuck until the equation seems reasonable. In the black body radiation case, scientist pluck and chuck a numerous time just to get the best fit curve, then they start rationalize it. Even the most fundamental equation F=mg is uncertain because it accompany with a constant. Any constant derive from experiment proof that we do not have understand in that area.

 

The law of nature is plain and simple for an average person. The fact remains still we do not understand what a force is, what energy is, what gravity is. Energy is all around us. Free energy is everywhere. If we establish the correct understanding of nature, even a kid can make an energy source. Gravity is an energy multiplier. Only your curious mind can take you where you want to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think absolute is talking about energy at zero or little cost. It is typical crackpottery. He seems to be claiming that even a child can make a free energy device but someone (scientific community?) is repressing it.

 

The only "energy source" that a child can make is a lemon battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_battery Even that isn't going to be "free" energy. It is energy that comes from the sun to grow the lemon tree. Energy always come from somewhere and always goes somewhere.

 

absolute, if you aren't going to back up any of your claims, why even bother posting? For example, what is exactly meant by "gravity is an energy multiplier"?!? Typical word salad crackpottery in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BA, in the simplest of terms, it is simply that energy cannot be created or destroyed.....

........

Thank you Bignose, great explanation! I finally understand (and realize that for the most part I did understand this before, just didn't know it's the definition for conservation of energy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.