"Energy cannot be created"?

[KAS]

1st law of thermodynamics:

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form of energy to another�

I have often wondered why 2 different theories (and lets not forget that these are theories after all) can be proclaimed in one sentence.

The fact that energy changes form throughout its life is beyond doubt. It happens all the time in nature and is proven however, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed�? This has never been proven.

There is a school of thought that believes that dark matter is spent energy at the end of its natural life. It is hard to prove this theory with current technology because it is so difficult to detect. Despite this, Studies are being carried out in deep and dark abandoned mines where particle contamination is minimal. Also, some of the results from experiments with particle accelerators have surprised scientists.

Then there’s “Energy cannot be created�. Energy must have been created at some point.
Sir Stephen Hawking believes it happened with the big bang. Others think that it was down to divinity. It doesn’t matter which way you think, it had to have been created. So this “law� must be questioned.

I don’t want to get too philosophical but we should keep it mind that if one of us succeeds with creating a self perpetuating device, then like it or not, energy will have been created according to current physical laws. Kind of wakes you up doesn’t it?

Kas

[Bessler007]

Hello Kas,

I come to the table of perpetual motion seekers with my eyes wide open. I have understood the implications of a solution for some time.

You can't hardly discuss the philosophy of the impossibility of energy creation without getting philosophical.

deep thoughts...

[Thomas]

I also don't want to get to philosophical, but what about this.

What if energy has always existed?


After all, we're used to measuring everything in time, and with a beginning and an end. So the concept of something always having existed might be difficult for some of us to comprehend.

Just a thought,

Tom

[Techstuf]

So the concept of something always having existed might be difficult for some of us to comprehend.

You have my vote for understatement of the month!.....(lol)


TS

[Fletcher]

Here is a wikipedia page on the Conservation of Energy [from which the First Law of Thermodynamics is derived] - it gives a good discussion about Perpetual Motion Machines & Bessler's wheels - well worth a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

[Bessler007]

Hello Tom,

If mechanical or heat or any form of energy is eternal then the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false.

...
What if energy has always existed?
...

[Thomas]

Bessler007,

Then perhaps this is the loophole, which will allow us to solve Bessler's riddle. =)


Tom

[rlortie]

Interesting link I ran into while researching for Bessler-Desagulier connections. An interesting page and worth reading all of it. Seems to fit in with this thread.

http://www.themasonictrowel.com/books/t ... ter_44.htm

Ralph

[KAS]

Fletch and Ralph,

That was a good read!

I still find it weird that axioms (unproven theories) like the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics could be accepted as laws by every known educational and official establishments.

When even the most famous of physicists accept that there is allot of supposition and enigmatic scepticism in such things.

Strange!

Kas

[ovyyus]

I still find it weird that axioms (unproven theories) like the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics could be accepted as laws by every known educational and official establishments.

Laws in physics are accepted because they're supported by observation and measurement. To disprove or modify such a law, some physical processes must be seen to act contrary to its rules. I don't know of any instance of a physical process which operates contrary to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

[Bessler007]

Hello Tom,

...
Then perhaps this is the loophole, which will allow us to solve Bessler's riddle. =)
...

I think the paradox between the 1st and 2nd law isn't as much a loop hole proving perpetual motion as it is an example of flawed reasoning. The combination of the two doctrines of the materialists is their attempt to eat their cake and have it too.

Below is a quote that describes the paradox more closely than I've managed to.

If the first law is true, and has always been true, then the universe has always existed.

If the second law is true, and has always been true, then if the universe has always existed, by this "time" it would have achieved complete entropy.

Physicists in Australia using differences in frequency of light have been making the most precise measurements at the quantum level and it appears to them from time to time at that very small level there are abnormalities in the 2nd law.

The point is there are examples of violations. That in combination with the obvious, blatant paradox of the first two generalizations leads me to think we haven't arrived at an accurate view of reality.

When you consider also Bessler claimed to have found an answer to this puzzle the doubt increases.

[Fletcher]

The point is there are examples of violations. That in combination with the obvious, blatant paradox of the first two generalizations leads me to think we haven't arrived at an accurate view of reality.

When you consider also Bessler claimed to have found an answer to this puzzle the doubt increases.

Quantum entanglement, the observation that two particles, physically separated by some means, will react at the exact same instant [but with say opposite spin] to stimuli or from observation, even if separated by large distances, appears to be completely at odds with Relativity & space/time [Einstein's "spooky action at a distance"] - I'd say we don't have an accurate view of reality yet [just subsets of it].

Bessler found the answer to FE, which based on the looser definition of his era, he called PM - todays definition is much more narrow - nowhere have I been able to find where Bessler himself describes what he considers constitutes HIS definition of PM, for those times - I find that odd, that he didn't enter into the frey or even comment on it, unless his machines were operating on the fringe so to speak.

Bessler also said that the principle could be seen by children playing in the lane & he also said that he had found it in nature [paraphrased - can't find the quotes] - this means that it was a process of this world, an everyday occurence, something that fitted within the accepted laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy & entropy.

[Bessler007]

Mr. Fletcher,

I found this on the front page of this site. Bessler's claim was his wheel was 'self-moving'.

Welcome to BesslerWheel.com

In 1712, Johann Bessler built a machine that he claimed was self-moving. By 1717, he had convinced thousands of people, etc, etc, etc.

Henry Dirks published a meaning in 1861 similar:

1. In the classic ages, Invention was restricted almost exclusively to Poetry and Painting, hence to however remote a period we may trace the history of manual arts, we find it barren of all interest, save that which always attaches to a comparatively primitive character. Except as considered Metaphysically and Mathematically, we can't but feel surprised how the idea of a self-motive mechanical power should have originated, or at what eriod it could have been called into existence. etc, etc, etc...

Key in both those descriptions is the idea of self or from within the device.

I think the understood meaning of perpetual motion in Bessler's day through Dirk's to the present is motion derived from within the device.

From Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum, Bessler's description is:

The mechanical wheel not only bears the name of the long sought perpetual motion machine; it deserves to be named for such motion. It uses one of the best known implements for mechanical power, namely, a true circular wheel which rotates about its central axis.

That long sought perpetual motion machine.

Where are you getting the differences between perpetual motion in Bessler's day compared to today's meaning? From what I can tell it has always meant a device without any external input of energy operating merely on gravity.

[Techstuf]

Fletcher stated:

Bessler also said that the principle could be seen by children playing in the lane.

Johann said this because compound pendulums are to be found throughout nature. This includes, of course, the swinging arms and legs of little children.


Peace,


TS

[Bessler007]

I would agree.

this means that it was a process of this world,...

yes, something right under our noses. :)

..., an everyday occurence, ...

Now this statement is a leap of faith with no visible means of support.

... something that fitted within the accepted laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy & entropy.