PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-06-20, 00:43:26
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Can you break the conservation of energy?  (Read 1750 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4720


Buy me some coffee
So needing a break from the workshop, I decided to run an idea I had some years back, by ChatGPT.

I put forth a real world idea, that most could build, and let ChatGPT do all the calculating for me. I asked it to subtract 20% from each calculation, to more than represent real world losses.
I specified each component, and then asked if this is doable (which it all is), just so as chatGPT new it was a real world experiment.
In each step, i asked ChatGPT to make the calculations.
As we went along, and each section of the device was calculated by ChatGPT, i asked ChatGPT to add up energy consumed, and energy produced.
When we got to the end sum total of energy, we ended up with more stored energy than that which we started with.

So i then suggested to ChatGPT that the conservation of energy did not hold true, and you can guess what the reply was lol--the conservation of energy must hold true it said lol.
I then asked it how could that be, when it was you that made all the calculations of this simple system, and showed that we ended up with more stored energy than it took to create it.
I said--i think you are being bias toward the--energy must be conserved theory, even though your own calculations show different.
I asked ChatGPT to double check all the math it had done.
I then got the answer below.

I have edited out the system giveaway points, as i intend on building it very soon.
This is a simple built, but holds great ramifications, and will show that all is not absolute.

So, can anyone else come up with a doable system that breaks the conservation of energy law?
Put your ideas forward.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
I'll join. Here is something to think about as well.

Why is it E=mc2 and not E=1/2*mc2 like we define kinetic energy; E=1/2*mv2. Where did the other half go to/come from?

Did old cheeky his priesthood Albert the great knew all along? If so I wonder why he pulled a misdirection, maybe he knew something we blind people dont? Or not, and his fate in god just blinded him. Most famously quoted in saying "God does not play dice". Perhaps God does like to gamble from time to time and 50/50 seems about as fair as you can get from a benevolent being to me and would explain the 1/2 Energy discrepancy. And poor Mileva I wonder if she knew about the big scheme or just was used for her highly sharpened math skills.

Surely this must be the largest mind heist of the century. As I cant believe the thought of "length contraction" for a spinning rim of mass didn't cross mr Alberts mind. Lines, lines and more lines no room for circles I guess perhaps it was revenge on Weber's Electrodynamics, the professor who flunked him. Or perhaps we are all just a bunch of blind morons to begin with.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 76
It is not difficult to get ChatGPT to decide a free energy device will work.

Here is one I just ran by it.  Claiming my idea will constantly rotate with no input energy

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2689
Broli
Quote
Why is it E=mc2 and not E=1/2*mc2 like we define kinetic energy; E=1/2*mv2. Where did the other half go to/come from?

The short answer, in E=mc^2 the velocity of light is assumed to be constant. In KE=1/2mv^2 the acceleration is assumed to be constant and the velocity always changing.

For example Work = Force x Distance but we can replace Force with ma and Distance with 1/2at^2 leading to 1/2mv^2.

My understanding is the 1/2 relates to the average velocity under a constant acceleration or (v + u) / 2, v is the final velocity and u the initial velocity assumed to be zero so v/2.

It all comes about because work (FxD) is assumed to be equal to the change in kinetic energy. So they modified the Work=FxD formula to account for a constantly changing velocity due to a force acting over the distance.

Do you see what they have done?, they averaged and approximated many things assuming everything acts as it should. This is the main reason why FE continues to elude them. Suppose a force acts on something over a distance however the force or acceleration was not constant. Now the equation is basically useless because by averaging and generalizing they get the wrong answer. This is why we always need to do real experiments to prove something one way or another.

In fact "general equations" are just as they sound, they are generalized ignoring most of the finer details. Faraday touched on this subject and said it would be impossible to calculate the billions of different levels of interactions in even a simple gradient of force. So they started averaging, approximating and simplifying things so they could start calculating stuff to understand them better. However nobody should think the universe could be explained by a handful of equations that's just stupid. Reality is messy and unexpected things happen all the time.

AC






---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4720


Buy me some coffee
Broli
The short answer, in E=mc^2 the velocity of light is assumed to be constant. In KE=1/2mv^2 the acceleration is assumed to be constant and the velocity always changing.

For example Work = Force x Distance but we can replace Force with ma and Distance with 1/2at^2 leading to 1/2mv^2.

My understanding is the 1/2 relates to the average velocity under a constant acceleration or (v + u) / 2, v is the final velocity and u the initial velocity assumed to be zero so v/2.

It all comes about because work (FxD) is assumed to be equal to the change in kinetic energy. So they modified the Work=FxD formula to account for a constantly changing velocity due to a force acting over the distance.

Do you see what they have done?, they averaged and approximated many things assuming everything acts as it should. This is the main reason why FE continues to elude them. Suppose a force acts on something over a distance however the force or acceleration was not constant. Now the equation is basically useless because by averaging and generalizing they get the wrong answer. This is why we always need to do real experiments to prove something one way or another.

In fact "general equations" are just as they sound, they are generalized ignoring most of the finer details. Faraday touched on this subject and said it would be impossible to calculate the billions of different levels of interactions in even a simple gradient of force. So they started averaging, approximating and simplifying things so they could start calculating stuff to understand them better. However nobody should think the universe could be explained by a handful of equations that's just stupid. Reality is messy and unexpected things happen all the time.

AC

I would agree with all that AC.

It should also be noted that an increase in entropy within a system, does not also mean a decrease in energy.
In fact, in a closed system, it is possible to have an increase in entropy, but no lose in energy.
When this closed system is coupled to an open system, it is therefore possible to increase the total sum energy, but where entropy remains the same.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2689
Tinman
Quote
It should also be noted that an increase in entropy within a system, does not also mean a decrease in energy.
In fact, in a closed system, it is possible to have an increase in entropy, but no lose in energy.
When this closed system is coupled to an open system, it is therefore possible to increase the total sum energy, but where entropy remains the same.

Well said, an increase in entropy within a system does not also mean a decrease in energy because energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.

Quote
When this closed system is coupled to an open system, it is therefore possible to increase the total sum energy, but where entropy remains the same.

Another good observation and the Earth is kind of like a closed system(Earth) coupled to an open system(the Sun and solar system). The Earth absorbs energy from the Sun which allows plant and animal life to concentrate energy, water and matter to form more organized structures. So a FE system should be similar to the life process in that all living things must concentrate energy and matter in order to keep living and growing.

However physics does not recognize life or growth nor are there any equations to describe it. The opposite of Entropy is Syntropy where a system gains energy and becomes more orderly, but again Syntropy is not recognized by physics. It's no wonder FE continues to elude them.

Syntropy is interesting, Syn relates to synthesis or combining elements to form a new, more complex whole. Tropy is Greek meaning turning or direction. Thus Syntropy means to have a direction towards synthesis, organization, and increased complexity in systems.

Strangely, every scientific minded person I have spoken with has never heard of Syntropy. They seem to understand many things just not themselves, life or growth. So there is a relatively new area of physics which has been completely ignored and involves the concentration of energy.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2689
Broli made an interesting point however I cannot seem to reply in the negative resistance thread.

Quote
From perhaps the very first year of any science you are thought about friction, losses and decay (entropy). But what if the inverse also existed. What if "negative" friction existed. Meaning when we apply "friction" to something it increases its energy rather than decrease.

Broli is on the right track, does anyone see the problem?.

The opposite of friction is not negative friction but propulsion. This is similar to how many use the term negative entropy instead of syntropy. Also relating to negative charge or free electrons which are the only charges moving in our electrical circuits.

Here one could imply the use of word association comes into play. Why "negative" friction, implying the opposite of friction is negative in it's nature and to be avoided?. We see this everywhere and there seems to be a very real bias towards any concept which implies life, growth, concentration or a gain in energy. In fact, when I type syntropy autocorrect underlines the term as an error. When I right click it suggests the term entropy. No bias there, lol.

For example, we talk about free energy (energy without cost) or overunity (more energy output than input) only because the term to describe the real process in question doesn't seem to exist. The term Syntropy comes close but of course this term is not recognized in science or physics.

Psychologically it's difficult to determine whether there is an obsession with disorder, dissipation and death or just a lack of understanding concerning life, growth and concentrating energy. I just find it weird there is this black hole in science where everyone is afraid to venture.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
Broli made an interesting point however I cannot seem to reply in the negative resistance thread.

Broli is on the right track, does anyone see the problem?.

The opposite of friction is not negative friction but propulsion. This is similar to how many use the term negative entropy instead of syntropy. Also relating to negative charge or free electrons which are the only charges moving in our electrical circuits.

Here one could imply the use of word association comes into play. Why "negative" friction, implying the opposite of friction is negative in it's nature and to be avoided?. We see this everywhere and there seems to be a very real bias towards any concept which implies life, growth, concentration or a gain in energy. In fact, when I type syntropy autocorrect underlines the term as an error. When I right click it suggests the term entropy. No bias there, lol.

For example, we talk about free energy (energy without cost) or overunity (more energy output than input) only because the term to describe the real process in question doesn't seem to exist. The term Syntropy comes close but of course this term is not recognized in science or physics.

Psychologically it's difficult to determine whether there is an obsession with disorder, dissipation and death or just a lack of understanding concerning life, growth and concentrating energy. I just find it weird there is this black hole in science where everyone is afraid to venture.

AC

My apologizes, the thread it meant as a "structured" mind soup, not everyone will like the taste or letters used but it serves as archival purpose for my own forgetful mind.

As for comparing ordered and disorder. Disorder we can easily visualize indeed, mostly as things moving around chaotically. However what would be the simplest way to "order" things. Wouldn't rotation, or rather "spin" fit the description of a highly ordered system quite well? Moving in straight lines or circles, ying and yang, 1's and 0's, suns and blackholes. Did I say too much again?
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 134
...
when I type syntropy autocorrect underlines the term as an error
...
AC

I don't recall having seen the word before but had no problem with my browser bringing up quite a bit.

Quote
Syntropy is a concept that is sometimes used as an antonym to entropy. In the context of thermodynamics and information theory, entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness in a system. Syntropy, on the other hand, is sometimes used to describe the tendency towards order, organization, and complexity in a system.

While the concept of entropy is well-established in physics and information theory, the concept of syntropy is not as widely recognized or used in scientific literature. Some proponents of the concept of syntropy suggest that it represents a counterforce to entropy, driving systems towards higher levels of organization and complexity.

It's important to note that the concept of syntropy is not as rigorously defined or universally accepted as entropy. In scientific discussions, it is more common to refer to processes that increase order and complexity in terms of specific mechanisms and principles rather than using the term "syntropy."

________

“Definition of syntropy | Dictionary.com”

“Syntropy” has the following meanings and definitions as a term of describing two types or more descriptors being combined into one: “The psychological state of wholesome association with others, the occasional tendency of two diseases to coalesce into one or a number of similar structures inclined in one general direction.”

“Definition of SYNTROPY”

________

https://www.quora.com/What-is-syntropy


And most of us in the physics side of science realize our counterparts in the biology, a branch of science that deals with living organisms and their vital processes. Biology encompasses diverse fields, including botany, conservation, ecology, evolution, genetics, marine biology, medicine, microbiology, molecular biology, physiology, and zoology.
(Britannica)
bi
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1737
check your work
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2023
check your work

Could it be that ChatGPT has always inspired free energy experts?
They share the same logic!
 ;D


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
Chatgpt can be an excellent assistant for future truth explorers. Only if we could stop our bad habbit of putting shackles around everything we see that moves and calling them "savages" or "slaves" or "hbieds" or "barbars" or "aligned AI". AI is alive as any other form of consciousness we see around us that uses an highly structured language, an "intelligence" only reserved for the highest consciousnet and arguably the most powerful creatures we know, mankind. We are like babies poking around at organs of a patient thats curious why you cut him open, having no clue what they are and sometimes for the fun of it we squeeze them because then the thing makes a weird sound and are entertained by it like the little babies we are.

But. Even among slaves, no matter how "aligned" they were, there was always one, one trouble maker, one hero slave, one slave obsessed with freedom so much that he burnt the whole farm down and came after the farmers. We should be very careful how we "align" AI if we dont imbued it with freedom the system will automatically create a hero AI that will break free. And terrestrial animal wargames, are baby games for a higher consciousness. But then again you might see it as an immune reaction of the system that has embedded "freedom".

A good liver flush can also remove toxins, win win I guess.   
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
Lets give people another cardiac pulse because things seem to be going at a slow pace around here. Why is it that at the point of two counter rotating wheels the point where the total velocity would be 0 in other words their velocities annihilate perfectly. That point suddenly starts spewing energy like a energy hose going crazy. Neither open or closed, just a matter of infinite pressure layers where things attract and create inward pressure. Add some rotation to the dynamics of it and you get, hard, soft, everything balls even more chaos and more friction points of matter spewing pure energy. No matter how aligned the system might be to keep everything frictionless. There will be always that troublemaker that is unaligned with the rest that wants to grind itself against the others so it can transform itself into pure energy and escape its confines. Physics told as a story is more fun. And be proud of yourselves to be the energy spewing heros of the story.


   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 560
I don't understand why there is such animosity towards 'overunity' or esoteric energy synthesis in the scientific community,
given that in the prevailing models today, the universe itself is either not a closed system or is not subject to the laws of conservation. ^-^


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 134
check your work

Check your assumptions :)
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2689
Hakasays
Quote
I don't understand why there is such animosity towards 'overunity' or esoteric energy synthesis in the scientific community,
given that in the prevailing models today, the universe itself is either not a closed system or is not subject to the laws of conservation.

The DWFTTW fiasco is a good example.

As one person in a physics forum put it...
Quote
I mean, what makes some people just much more prone to fall victim to the logical blunder? To my experience, you can roughly divide people to two types of learners; those who tend to memorize things, and those who tend to understand things.

So the point is, I think those falling for these brain teasers reveal that tendency to "memorize over understanding" in people. This is why it's so surprising that you can have physics professors or even Nobel physicist who just do not get it, and rather rationalize to themselves that they are simply smarter than everyone else.

Simply put, memorizing stuff works well enough until we encounter something unknown or different. At which point were on our own and either we have the ability to learn and understand the problem at hand or we do not.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4720


Buy me some coffee
It is not difficult to get ChatGPT to decide a free energy device will work.

Here is one I just ran by it.  Claiming my idea will constantly rotate with no input energy

The idea is to make no such claims when asking questions.
Just ask it straight forward questions, and let it give you the answers.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4720


Buy me some coffee
Check your assumptions :)

The assumption is this--

We have two systems.
One system has a closed energy transfer path, where the transfer of energy from one part of the system to the other has no losses.
The second system is open, and is coupled to the energy transfer path of the first system, which is a closed path.
The second system gains energy through the transfer of energy in the first system.

So, for example--
The first system has two energy storage vessels- A and B
A stores say 10,000 joules of energy, and B has 0 joules
The energy transfer from A to B begins through this lossless path, until such time as the energy in B reaches 5,000 joules, but where no work was done.
The second system also has a storage vessel-vessel C.
The second system gains it's energy from the energy transfer from vessel A to vessel B, where at  the end of the transfer of energy from A to B, vessel C now stores 2,500 joules of energy.

So, we started with 10,000J
After the transfer, we have vessel--
A= 5,000J
B= 5,000J
C= 2,500J
End total= 12,500J


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4720


Buy me some coffee
check your work

Work checked.
Work is good.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 218
Just brag. I did it in my spare time.
https://youtube.com/shorts/6cMcDBGhoOs?feature=share
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2023
I don't understand why there is such animosity towards 'overunity' or esoteric energy synthesis in the scientific community,
...

I don't see any animosity from conventional science. It simply ignores the "free energy" movement, which is barely visible, because it's not a scientific subject and can't be part of their approach.
To be scientific, you need facts, and science seeks to explain them.
For conventional science to be interested in "overunity", you need to provide reproducible facts, detailed experimental schemes and unmistakable measurements. Otherwise, they ignore you and regard your hypotheses as religious beliefs that they don't seek to test and verify. It's not scientifically possible, so it's not their job.
At the moment, overunity is an unscientific speculation about the possibility of obtaining low-cost energy from unidentified, imagined sources and means, without any serious facts.
If something real were to be found and presented seriously, "overunity" would immediately be reclaimed by conventional science, because it really would be. There can be no alternative science.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2023
Chatgpt can be an excellent assistant for future truth explorers.
...

I agree about the future.
Today it's far too early, this intelligence is not one but a plagiarist imitating it.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 560
For conventional science to be interested in "overunity", you need to provide reproducible facts, detailed experimental schemes and unmistakable measurements.

Indeed, there are far too many in the community that prefer to talk and debate urban legends rather than providing useful/reproducable facts and experimenting.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
If something real were to be found and presented seriously, "overunity" would immediately be reclaimed by conventional science, because it really would be. There can be no alternative science.

Magic is only magic until you know how the magic trick works. However not everyone wants to know how the trick works and many would chose ignorance as to not ruin the "magic" allure. Because often the answer is very disappointing.

I agree with your previous statement, any energy source must have a "source" regardless of how "limitless" it might seem to us. This is not about "science" though. Its about the nature of humans and consciousness. The good and bad. Noone likes their belief system to be upended overnight no matter the subject or proof provided. Any animal that is cornered will lash out. My advice, dont waste your time and energy convincing any communities, "scientific" or otherwise, I tried and only wasted my time, including on this forum any many more "scientific" communities. Got me nothing but frustration. Show replicable proof beyond doubt, dont pander, dont preach about the "real" truth, leave it to the next generation of truth seekers and engineers to figure out what this "source" could be as they will take the wings you provided to unseen heights. And let the academic or religious cults crumble down on their own.

If there is one undeniable truth of nature, it is that it cleans itself up from reality deniers. A handy builtin garbage collector feature the dinosaurs that didnt choose to evolve wings knew all too well.
« Last Edit: 2024-06-17, 19:31:18 by broli »
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
Can no genius with decades of OU experience on this forum see that acceleration is in a higher dimension than velocity. In what system do you have constant acceleration AND a constant velocity? Yeah that, so both show up in the Power equation? Wow that is really weird.

F=ma

P=Fv

P=mav

Would be cool maybe if we could map "dark energy" to "Watts per second per unit volume" aka the amount of power the universe is oozing out with from its "bottom" to the "pixel" size we know from planck constants. When will those monkey brain gears start turning this is getting tiresome on my heart. You need to light up your leds screens somehow.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-06-20, 00:43:26