Energy from nothing?.

[to.late]

a little of topic but anyone have an answer?.

We are taught that you cannot create energy from nothing as this violates the laws of thermodynamics, but a few nights ago i watched a programme describing the beginnings of the universe and how it was supposedly formed!.

Well this is all well and good but they said that the whole universe came from a single point in space........essentially it came from nothing (Their words not mine!).

How can this be true?, if we are taught you cannot create energy from nothing how does all the mass and energy in the universe come from.......well nothing?, doesn't this violate the laws the scientists stand by?.....or will the laws not apply as the universe which they are based around hasn't been created yet?.

Anyone?.

Chad,
Most scientists will say the energy came from another universe.
What they will not address is the origin of matter.
The Big Bang as it is called is supposed to be a super dense particle where all matter in our universe was so densely packed that it could literally exist in a space smaller than a dime.
At present, theorists have suggested that the velocity of light is not a fixed constant, C (186,000 mps, 300,000 kps). But at the initial expansion of the universe accelerated past C and slowed as matter formed, it slowed to it's known constant.
Again, this is theoretical and might not be accepted as proven. And yet. It is called time dilation.
Also, George Smoot is supposed to have proven the Big Bang did in fact occur. Some of his work included demonstrating that background radiation at the edge of our universe was left over from the Big Bang and has basically paved the way for expansion of our universe.

[greendoor]

Yep - it's all just wild speculation and conjecture. Which means everything is up for grabs, and even the basic "axioms" that we take for granted are not as secure as the most hard-nosed conservative skeptics would hope. Ultimately - we can't "prove" anything, and science becomes nothing more than a faith based exercise. We are forced to choose what we want to believe for the purposes that we wish to achieve. But look too deeply, and it's all just a house of cards waiting to be toppled ... which I guess is why guys like Bessler are too scary for some people ...

I can't prove aether theory to anyone. BUT, imo it has more going for it than anything else. And you still have to tell me what is waving when we talk about waves traversing space.

Can particles behave like waves? I don't think so. If we dispense with a medium for waves, then what we have is particles colliding with other particles, and (we assume) obeying the laws of conservation of momentum. There is no mechanism to explain 'force at a distance'. Gravity would have to be a particle ... wtf?

But can waves behave like particles? They certainly can. A good example would be a smoke ring generator. We can make powerful smoke rings by pulsing a fluid through a small hole. This can be done in water or air or any fluid, and the result is a small toroid 'donut' waveform that travels through the fluid medium just like a particle. But it is really a wave in the fluid. Ultimately, I believe particles of mass are waves in the fluid medium I call aether - which explains why we can have waves or particles. The existance of a massless fluid medium allows for waves to travel through space. It allows for action at a distance. It allows for all the physical properties that vacuum is known to have - background temperature, electrical properties. It is even a good explaination for Inertia - if there is "nothing" to oppose the acceleration of mass, why do we have inertia? If mass must be accelerated through a massless fluid medium, inertia starts to look less mysterious ...

Aether isn't my idea, so I don't have to prove it. Countless great minds have included aether into their reasoning, and there are plenty of good internet sites for those who wish to study it.

I find the theories that have dispensed with aether do not have the weight of evidence required. Michelson Morley is about the only reason given - and the logic and history of these experiments are highly questionable.

It comes down to faith. People believe what they want to believe, to justify what they want to do.

[Fletcher]

Aether theory makes good sense at an emotional level I'll agree - a massless medium is more problematic because every wave medium I can think of does have mass & as you say the momentum is carried thru so why should this medium be any different ?

Fortunately not being a theoretical physicist or an astrophysicist I also don't have to justify these theories & loose any sleep about them being right or wrong - think I'll stick with the much simpler task of solving & proving Bessler's gravity wheel principle which will be much more earthly & less rarefied ;7)

[Chad]

Thank you gentlemen for your input i have really enjoyed reading it.

So as far as i can fathom at the moment the laws are safe, the energy seems to have been there in a super condensed state to begin with and not quite "nothingness", i think the word "Nothingness" is misleading choice of word to begin with.

I like the idea that everything could have came from a singularity. because to me this would mean that the birth of our universe could possibly be a cyclic event.

If we can imagine that black holes will eventually consume all mass and energy...and then consume each other to form one super black hole, maybe this is where the birth happens?.

Maybe once the super black hole reaches a certain state like that of a nuclear bomb (critical mass), then maybe it explodes giving birth to our universe yet again?.

We can test for radiation from the "Big bang" giving a idea to the age of our known universe, but if everything is consumed then spat out in a cyclic event ...then maybe our universe has had many birthdays?.

lots of maybe's i know, but if everyone else has a theory i think i may as well have one lol

[Fletcher]

That's the argument chad - a cyclic event that's perhaps happened many times already or ... the big expansion to lights out & cold.

That's why there is a race to find dark energy & dark matter if it exists because they think this is driving the acceleration - the universe is still expanding & this is accelerating according to the scientists - some don't see a big crunch at the end of it but a continued expansion till all other galaxies are over the horizon so to speak then as each star runs out of fuel the lights go out & it gets colder.

The real problem is finding out what's driving this accelerating expansion - I think they used the doppler light shift to determine this increasing expansion & perhaps you can see why I'm a bit jaundiced about M&M's experiment by comparison & that Einstein came up with his theories partly because of that earlier no doppler shift result - so both Einstein & the current researchers into the expansion of the universe can't be right about the speed of light unless I've missed something ? - where does that leave Einstein's famous theories or the accelerating expansion ?

[Ealadha]

Get a mental picture of a wheel , ok , if you have done that you have created energy .
The picture you made is composed of energy .
Simple as that .

[Grimer]

I don't believe in the big bang theory. As you correctly point out, it explains nothing. It's just a theory - right up there with the Earth being supported on a turtle's back.

The basic problem is that Einstein threw out the baby with the bath water. His peers and predecessors, of which he stole so liberally, required an Aether for their theories and formulas to work. We talk freely about waves of all descriptions, but a wave is meaningless unless there is a medium in which to create and support those waves.

We have an inverted view of the universe, which is a large part of the problem. We are taught that space is mostly empty - and that only matter and energy have any value in this big empty universe.

There are many reasons to believe that this simply is not the case. IMO, matter and energy are aberations in a universe that is infinitely powerful, infinitely present (i.e, there is no place where the universe is not - no matter how far we travel, or how finely we dissect the fundamental particles - there is "something" connecting everything), AND infinitely intelligent.

This seems too far out? True. But it is no more far out than suggesting that the universe existed as a singularity at one point in time, which contained all the mass/energy of the universe, AND all the "laws" and intelligence that makes the whole thing work the way it does.

Both views are outrageous. But my view that matter and energy can pop out of the aether at any time makes more sense and fits more of the facts.

Quantum Tunneling just suggest to me that the waveform in the aether that IS the original particle hits the barrier, and the waveform gets propagated to the other side and continues on it's way as a new version of the same waveform. Exactly like sound can travel through a barrier. Nothing spooky or time travely required. Although I don't believe we are limited to just 4 dimensions, and so time travel is a possibility.

I take issue with the basic concept of Energy at a more basic level. It's a maths trick that serves some purposes well, but I don't believe it is a fundamental truth of the universe in the way that conventional scientists stake their faith.

The mere fact that Velocity is a completely relative quantity (not absolute, and dependent on frames of reference) means that Energy (being 0.5 x Velocity Squared) is on shaky ground as being any sort of absolute quantity as far as the universe is concerned ...

Quite so - as opposed to angular velocity which relates to an absolute frame of reference.

I agree with the rest of your post too.

[Kirk]

... but you'd think an aether could be proved conclusively if it exists - it must be a real & tangible substance able to be measured i.e. have inertia & viscosity etc !?

The need for an aether was obvious to the biggest brains in physics - a wave needs a medium to wave. Otherwise not just light needs to be a particle, but the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and gravity too ... a force cannot propagate instantaneously through nothing ...

The need for an aether is overwhelming .. so on what basis was it thrown out? The 'best brains' that you mention will refer to Michelson Morley ... which is one of the many embarrassing frauds and cover ups of physics.

The stupid assumption that made an ass out of Michelson, Morley, Einstein et al was the assumption that IF an aether existed, that the Earth was rotating relative to it. Why was this assumption made? Logically (to me at least) IF all mass is composed of Aether, then Earth will be so completely embedded into the Aether that there can be no relative difference in velocity at all ...

Anyhow - on the basis of measuring the speed of light traveling with the rotation of the earth, and comparing the speed of light traveling against the rotation of the earth, they found no relative difference. Actually - there is reason to believe that the actual results of this and subsequent tests at higher altitude had a lot of noise and this conclusion was fairly fraudulent anyway. But even supposing that there is actually no relative velocity difference - is this sufficient reason to throw out the requirement for an aether medium for waves?

Some of the academics who we venerate were just 20 something year old kids who, in all probability, didn't have the life skills to fix their car if it broke down. We have a strange faith in the ability of these people to be able to think straight ... academics don't necessarily live in the real world. Just because they can baffle us with bullshit about the intellectual house of cards they have constructed doesn't mean it actually models our universe.

I can't see any valid reason why the aether was dispensed with so thoughtlessly. And I see not logical response to the question that won't go away: what is the medium that is being waved?????????????????????????

The Kasimir Effect gives us a solid reason to believe that empty space has substance. But that's essentially just restating the obvious that space IS full of waves which can be shielded. A study of the night sky should convince us that waves DO travel through space, and that they can be shielded. Or do we just dispense with waves?? That would make much more sense, if we have to dispense with the wave-medium. But then we must call all waves particles and assign them with mass. And then what about the experiments that proved that waves were waves and not particles ...

Throwing out the aether was just dumb, and served no purpose. It greatly assists the faith of those who believe that God does not exist. I suspect that is the greatest appeal of this concept. It is far more difficult to dispense with the concept of God in the face of an invisible yet all powerful, all present, and apparantly all intelligent medium pervading an infinite universe ...

But in it's place, it creates a requirement to believe that all the matter and energy, and all the rules of the universe, existed at one time in a singularity that exploded ... solves nothing, and doesn't explain anything at all. Just postpones the inevitable.

an expert is someone from out of town

the big bang stretches credulity

[aStillMoreGloriousDawn]

A few months ago, I found a compelling video entitled "A Universe from Nothing". It is a lecture by Lawrence Krauss. It is a little long, but if you have an hour to spare, I think it would be worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[teokox]

Hi there,

Energy from nothing is impossible. It is a fact!

Squeezing energy by gravity is possible, but gravity is not a source of energy. It is only a medium (flux lines) to get energy.

If you get energy from something, something else loses the same energy.

The first question is:
Usign gravity to get energy, who or what loses the same energy?

The second question is:
How?

Respond to the questions correctly is the first step to discover a working device that gain energy from gravity.

Best wishes,

tk

[DrWhat]

If gravity is the only source (maybe) its like you need to "create mass" and then "eliminate" the same mass in order to get a bias on one side of the wheel. If this was the technique used. I don't know of any way this can be done. I guess we have been using various leverage techniques to try to achieve a mass-less side of the wheel to no avail. :-(

[Grimer]

If gravity is the only source (maybe) its like you need to "create mass" and then "eliminate" the same mass in order to get a bias on one side of the wheel. If this was the technique used. I don't know of any way this can be done. I guess we have been using various leverage techniques to try to achieve a mass-less side of the wheel to no avail. :-(

Or maybe you need to attenuate the acceleration due to gravity more on one side of the wheel than on the other.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1294#81294

[path_finder]

A way to do the job is here (drag the red plate with your mouse):
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/f/f.htm
Remember the weight don't change, only the location of the COG.

[satanspawn]

Your small mind is trapped in the idea of "Time"...this is why you say "from"... expand your ideas beyond the simplistic idea of "Time" and you will know...

[Kirk]

...sorry Fletcher..."photons have no rest mass"

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

...and for a better read on how a radiometer works, try:

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/light-mill.html

(it DOES NOT work at all in a vacuum...
so it is driven by heated gas, NOT momentum of photon's mass.)

Wiki is not the undisputed voice of truth. Energy is a property of matter. Only journalism majors belive in beams of pure energy. Since it is relativistic the rest mass is small - but there all the same.