Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: Alternative Energy Source?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    who says matter came into the universe? it seems to me it was always here and will always be here, thus the first law is not violated.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    Tesla has the only patent for Radiant Energy from the atmosphere. This patent was part of his early work, it was extremely low powered, and not very effective. There are rumors of a car, and a later boat which ran on free energy, one by Peter Savo who disapeared and one by one of Teslas collegues whose name I forget.
    Tesla was a truly great scientist/inventor/engineer and should not be associated with quackery science like free energy. he was a firm believer in the laws of thermodynamics and all of his theories were backed by real experiments.

    the truth is we cant transport high power energy over long distance wirelessly as of right now. it might be possible in the distant future, but tesla himself realized at some point that its too hard to achieve.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    197
    As a physicist, I prefer to limit the discussion to phenomena which are experimentally observable -- otherwise we enter the domain of theories which are "not even wrong"

    Concerning the expansion of the Universe, this is an observed phenomenon, it is verified experimentally. "Big Bang" is just a name for what happens when we extrapolate back to a time where the Universe was very dense, however beyond a certain point we have no way to experimentally observe what happened. We do not know if the Universe is infinite, it seems to be very very large as far we can possibly observe (the observable Universe is finite). Even if it is infinite, it does not prevent it from expanding -- mathematically this is described as an expansion of space itself, and the pieces of matter present within that space get further and further away from each other as time passes.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    The laws of thermodynamics is one of the building blocks of todays physics, it is an old theory, and very possibly wrong, it is also not based on observation and assumes all mass came out of no where and no more has been created since.
    im not an expert on the subject, far from it, but who assume that mass came out of nowhere? what if mass was always here? can you destroy energy , or do you know of any process that possibly does that? if energy cannot be created or destroyed, isnt it telling us that it was always here, possibly in another form....
    Phil, Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    The only people who claim to be experts and to know everything, are generally misguided or deluded. So we are not alone there.
    I am one of those people that has been around long enough to know a little about a lot of things, and as they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    I was also considered to be an expert on many things when I worked. Expert means getting paid for playing with things that interested me.
    As far as physics are concerned, I can claim to be an expert, meaning that, not knowing everything (my ignorance has no limits), I still know more than most, so my point of view can be considered very valuable I think
    Ernest, droneBEE and HAL9000 like this.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    "If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him"

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    Sorry Phil I missed the point of your quote, what was it. Did you have some input I missed that provoked your response.

    Which branch of science are you involved with, Political, Computer, Chemical, Engineering, Molecular, Astro, Some other specialism?.

    I do not understand the reason for your statement.
    I reacted to your comment that experts would be deluded in thinking they know everything. I think one can be an expert and still conscious of one's limits. The branch in which I am doing research and teaching is physics, more precisely particle physics. The messages I posted which might be relevant to the discussion are these:

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil View Post
    There is a very fundamental principle in physics, which has been verified in all experiments so far (including the double-slit experiment): the conservation of energy. It states that the energy of an isolated system remains constant. I don't think it can apply to the Universe as a whole as it cannot be considered an isolated system. Also nobody has a clue of what was before the Big Bang (such a question actually makes no sense in general relativity because at such energy densities time itself looses its definition).
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil View Post
    As a physicist, I prefer to limit the discussion to phenomena which are experimentally observable -- otherwise we enter the domain of theories which are "not even wrong"

    Concerning the expansion of the Universe, this is an observed phenomenon, it is verified experimentally. "Big Bang" is just a name for what happens when we extrapolate back to a time where the Universe was very dense, however beyond a certain point we have no way to experimentally observe what happened. We do not know if the Universe is infinite, it seems to be very very large as far we can possibly observe (the observable Universe is finite). Even if it is infinite, it does not prevent it from expanding -- mathematically this is described as an expansion of space itself, and the pieces of matter present within that space get further and further away from each other as time passes.
    HAL9000 likes this.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    oh my... the key to effective communication is less talking and more listening. or in our case more reading and less writing....

    @Handy andy this is constructive criticism - please read in full the responses to your comments.
    Last edited by HAL9000; 09-16-2016 at 08:09 AM.
    Phil, Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    I for one do respect phil's knowledge in physics, i remember interacting with him on 2 occasions on the subject of physics, once on radio waves and the other on string theory, and in both cases i immediately went into question mode . not because of worshiping or admiration but because of respect and appreciation of his knowledge.
    Phil and Ernest like this.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    197
    No problem andy -- physicists, engineers, anarchists, mystics, what brings us all up together is that we are, at the core, experimenters

    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    The conservation of energy relating to the double slit experiment, came from something on the cambridge university website from an under graduate, claiming more photons hit the plate than were transmitted, he could of course be mistaken. I dont forget little things like that, it is my twisted brain. I was looking into something else at the time, so didnt follow up.
    I never heard about this, I would need to see the published paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    I will go with matter expanding into space, but not space expanding, expanding into what, I think that is more likely a question of definition, and what is observable, unless space is folding back around on itself in some weird way.
    Perhaps better to refer to the Wikipedia article on "metric expansion of space" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
    This is just a mathematical model, but it describes extremely well our astronomical observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    The conservation of energy laws were originally intended to explain heat systems and old steam engines. There are a number of groups, possibly space scientists(smokers of ???) who claim they do not apply to all conditions, the maths if I am not mistaken based on a closed system, (not including various forces from different directions). Another group I was reading about today have a different angle, and they have definitely got me interested. It is based on something observed on motors, it takes more energy the first time to run them up than subsequent times. I find that interesting.
    Although the law of conservation was originally formulated in the context of thermodynamics, it was since generalised and tested on much more fundamental levels. In particle physics, which describes the fundamental laws starting that everything else is built upon by increasing the number of interacting objects, the conservation of energy is verified to the extent that we can measure predicted values to incredible precision. Would conservation of energy not be observed in an event, one would immediately think that it would indicate an exotic neutral particle escaping detection rather than casting doubt on the principle of conservation itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Handy andy View Post
    Some laws are meant to be broken. I can find no proof or line of experiments demonstrating conservation of energy in a vacuum, in space or the lab. RNA appears in a vacuum in the lab on its own. It appears on meteorites which have traveled through space.

    More interestingly in Particle Physics Quantum Matter appears and disappears does this not also violate the first law on average, it is there on average.
    Again I would need references to peer-review articles for claims of "RNA appearance" (from nothing?) or the like. As Carl Sagan phrased it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

    About quantum fluctuations: this can be seen as a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in the form where one uses time and energy instead of position and momentum. Energy conservation can be violated in a "virtual" way, meaning that if a process occurs in a very short time interval, the energy of the system is undetermined and thus can fluctuate to large values. This can allow effects such as the tunnel effect. However if one measures the energy with high precision before and after the process (in such case time is undetermined, but we can do this after a long enough time interval), energy conservation is always verified.
    Ernest and HAL9000 like this.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1