"Energy cannot be created"?

[Gregory]

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.

Then I for one support it! :)
I would be a little disappointed if Bessler's wheel would found to be a "quantum mechanical macro effect generator". Even if I saw a few strange things or visions.

The quest is to find an answer for the mystery, and not to prove any theory wrong, which may or may not happens spontaneously after a re-discovery...

[10x]

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

My opinion is a compound lever which allows kids to move.

[10x]

Also remember energy is such that e= m*C squared. By this idea energy nor mass are such that they always exist.

Not sure I believe that formula. I still think there is a fundamental opposing force that goes against matter.

[Bessler007]

The idea that energy can't be created is a response to the very idea of creation. It stems from 'nothing comes from nothing' and among the conclusions of this premise is creation is impossible.

If it were a matter of a wheel that utilized some thermal gradient within the wheel and that difference was significant enough to supply the energy I'm sure the idea would have come to fruition long before this.

If a bessler type of wheel were one that made use of areoplanes on strings flying around the axle then what's the hold up? Make it. We know a lot about areodynamics. Launch it!

The reasonable conclusion is that Bessler's wheel and any replication of it will create energy.

It's impossible to consider the options of this question without looking at the roots of the philosophies. On the one hand there is creation and on the other there is its denial.

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

[ovyyus]

The idea that energy can't be created is a response to the very idea of creation...

That might be true for those trying to substantiate their personal beliefs. For others, whether or not energy can be created might be based less on an idea than it is on observation.

...On the one hand there is creation and on the other there is its denial.

On the one hand there is your belief. Any other hands are just a mirage :D

[Bessler007]

ovyyus,

In the statement of the first law of thermodynamics:

Energy can not be CREATED nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form.

...the idea of creation is present. Now whether the Grecian premise that 'nothing comes from nothing' was the product of an analysis of the Hebraic notion of creation or not is possibly up to speculation. What is knowable is in that day there wasn't much written and philosophers were privy to most all that was. The Torah was a known document.

To the point of the denial of energy creation or not, it is the basic premise of the first law. It has nothing to do with personal belief. It's present in the very declaration of the doctrine.

But when you consider the creation of our reality and think of it in terms of the definition of energy from physics you know that without mass and movement there is no energy. The denial of the creation of energy in the first law essentially is a denial that creation is possible.

Declaring this is a matter of personal belief or opinion doesn't address the salient facts.





:d

[ovyyus]

The denial of the creation of energy in the first law essentially is a denial that creation is possible.

I think it's an observation that, "energy can not be CREATED nor DESTROYED, it can only be changed in form". What is the purpose of attributing denial to an observation, if not to further a personal belief?

[james kelly]

Think about the atomic bomb. Explain the aftermath. was energy created, was it desroyed. life? rethink what you are saying. is the bomb still detonating?

[Fletcher]

If a bessler type of wheel were one that made use of areoplanes on strings flying around the axle then what's the hold up? Make it. We know a lot about areodynamics. Launch it!

The reasonable conclusion is that Bessler's wheel and any replication of it will create energy.

Since that part seems to be addressed at me - well, for a start, the theory I am testing is no where as simple as aeroplanes on strings flying around the axle - I have built the superior overbalance system [that was the easy bit] - I have about three variations of the AL PM & each would appear to have slightly different strengths & weaknesses - I haven't settled on which one to build yet as I have to think ahead of future consequences should I prematurely choose one over another - suffice to say that although the theory is based on AL it is not an obvious application of it & based on what we know of aerodynamics IMO is counter-intuitive - I am personally also finding it quite difficult to build - it will remain a theory of mine until the PM experiments are completed which will test all three variations - then perhaps I will know if I drew the correct conclusions & made the right choices.

It is not a reasonable conclusion that Bessler's wheel & any replication of it will create energy, as you say - energy can not be created nor destroyed, just have its state changed - this goes as far as robbing energy from one system to supplement another, so that one system has its energy quotient depleted & the other has an addition by the same amount, but the overall energy sums remain unchanged.

[Bessler007]

...
I think it's an observation that, "energy can not be CREATED nor DESTROYED, it can only be changed in form". ...

I think you're wrong. What makes this an appeal to authority is the disagreement among physicists as to violations of the 1st and 2nd law at the quantum level. There is disagreement among authorities. It further asserts a universal experience. There is no doctrine of science that asserts it is omniscient.

The more accurate statement:

The creation of energy has never been observed with the naked eye.

admits the conclusion 'energy can't be created' is a matter of probability.

None of this however addresses the salient points. One point is the conflict between the 1st and 2nd law. If indeed energy (or in other words mass in motion) is impossible to create then there has always been mass and it has always been moving.

Given there has always been energy changing from one form to another then sufficient time has existed for a balance of this energy.

Both the 1st and 2nd laws can't be true.

The negation of the premise:

Energy can't be created.

is

Energy can be created.

Both the premise and it's negation make a statement of creation. It is unreasonable to think both are true.

Stating the obvious, fault premises are subject to question. I believe there is good reason to question the premise.

[ovyyus]

You disagree that the thermodynamics laws are based on observation???

It's "an appeal to authority" because of disagreement among quantum scientists???

"There is no doctrine of science that asserts it is omniscient". Can you suggest other disciplines with doctrines that do in fact assert they are omniscient?


http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html

The field of thermodynamics studies the behavior of energy flow in natural systems. From this study, a number of physical laws have been established. The laws of thermodynamics describe some of the fundamental truths of thermodynamics observed in our Universe. Understanding these laws is important to students of Physical Geography because many of the processes studied involve the flow of energy.


First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = mc2

In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.


Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.


Third Law of Thermodynamics

The third law of thermodynamics states that if all the thermal motion of molecules (kinetic energy) could be removed, a state called absolute zero would occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvins or -273.15° Celsius.

Absolute Zero = 0 Kelvins = -273.15° Celsius
The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. The current temperature of empty space in the Universe is about 2.7 Kelvins.

[AB Hammer]

Well I guess we are trying to be like good lawyers and manipulate the law.

[rlortie]

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

Many forms! Is not gravity a form? A form that can neither be created or destroyed as it is considered "conservative.

E = mc2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

This implies that their is no gradient between energy and matter which is in contradiction to the next part of these laws!

Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.

How can they become less useful as time goes on if the quantity of energy and matter is fixed? If they were unified in the big bang and there is now less, then there is gradient in the equation E=mc2 and therefore not fixed. The laws of physics also state that where there is gradient there is energy.

From an earth bound view, mass is increasing with each passing season. Earth is growing in circumference as plant life absorbs energy from the sun which eventually becomes soil and adds to the crust of the planet.

All laws are debatable!

Ralph

[Bessler007]

My, my, would you lookie here. One spends the time to breathe the energy of life into commonly known facts creating a being of real information then the demons of ignorance and stupidity, hand in hand, doing the bidding of entropy, suck the very life force out of it.

No matter. I have the power to resurrect it.

You disagree that the thermodynamics laws are based on observation???

I said nothing of the sort. The similarities are the letters and some of those words yet the meaning has been butchered beyond recognition. I would never attempt to defend this absurd proposition attributed to me.

The answer to the question is , 'no.'

Now what I did say was there is a universal experience of all time and space. Within that universal set is the subset of human empirical understanding. That understanding is a partial look at all of reality over all time. The assertion:

I think it's an observation that, "energy can not be CREATED nor DESTROYED, it can only be changed in form".

implies that with a partial look one can generalize all of reality over all time. That's patently absurd.

All that is needed to falsify this reasoning is to look at the very instant of the singularity of the big bang. Putting it kindly, the Lucasian Professor said, 'the laws of physics weren't applicable to the first instances of the big bang.' I suppose it's a good thing they weren't because if they were it would be a case falsifying the dogma 'energy can't be created.'

It's "an appeal to authority" because of disagreement among quantum scientists???

That statement is precisely correct. Some experts in physics imagine the 1st and 2nd laws are falsifiable at the quantum level yet there are other experts that disagree.

At issue is whether there are instances the 1st and 2nd laws are falsifiable.

When the experts are in disagreement there's no sound reason to choose one expert merely because their opinion agrees with you. That's appealing to the authority you agree with. Until the experts settle on an answer there's no reason to think we are experts. Even if you are, there are peers that disagree.

The meaning of this is there are times when the generalization 'energy can't be created' is falsifiable.

[Fletcher]

I probably shouldn't go here but FWIW

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

Many forms! Is not gravity a form? A form that can neither be created or destroyed as it is considered "conservative.

Gravity is not energy, it is a catalyst to create motion/movement between masses causing them to close the gap - if you remember, Ken was an advocate of a subset of Relativity that explained an increase in Ke of a falling mass in a gravity field as being compensated for by a miniscule decrease in the mass of the object as it built up velocity - this was to balance the energy sums where energy & mass were interchangeable ala Einstein, & so a mass with greater velocity brought about by a gravity field [where no energy was consumed to give the mass more momentum] must have a decrease in mass.

E = mc2 .. In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

This implies that their is no gradient between energy and matter which is in contradiction to the next part of these laws!

Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.

How can they become less useful as time goes on if the quantity of energy and matter is fixed? If they were unified in the big bang and there is now less, then there is gradient in the equation E=mc2 and therefore not fixed. The laws of physics also state that where there is gradient there is energy.

Energy is associated with velocity & temperature - as the universe is expanding the gaps between clumps of matter is increasing [assuming a fixed amount of matter] - since temperature is related to how closely packed together molecules are & how often they interact with their neighbours, then as the distances get greater between them the matter cools as entropy naturally occurs - as the average temperature decreases so the molecules slow down & are in a less excited state until they cease all movement at 0 Kelvin - in a lesser & lesser state of motion as they cool it is less useful [a temperature sink occurs], though I think the term useful is a bit wishy washy.