# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: wise on April 21, 2016, 02:52:26 PM

Title: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 21, 2016, 02:52:26 PM
:-X

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls.

(http://i.imgsafe.org/6152e63.jpg)

If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy on the first attemp? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

Exampe 2: The Wave Energy is not conserved:

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy.

(http://i.imgsafe.org/71f422d.jpg)

So there energy gets lost.

Exampe 3: Potential Energy is not conserved:

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/ea42cd3.jpg)

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Notice: Thanks to FalseProphet (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=946164) for translation.  :)

Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Inkey on April 21, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
There are no words to describe this post in the English language. I feel dumber having read it.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Mikey T. on April 21, 2016, 04:04:48 PM
Did you eat paint ships as a kid or something?  You really shouldn't make the argument "I don't think this happens therefore since its now missing, your formula disproves itself"
Wait are on an alt account of cikjamas?
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: FalseProphet on April 21, 2016, 06:23:43 PM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2016, 08:28:22 PM
When the materials collide a direction opposite from , kinetic energy is reduced. so the total energy too . but populer science just says a lie to save itself : Such as  The sound energy,  light energy , etc bla bla bla occurs. But these unseen energies never give enough value . Everytime there is a loss of energy.
Actually, most of the energy lost is due to various forms of friction in the form of heat energy.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 21, 2016, 10:33:25 PM
Did you eat paint ships as a kid or something?  You really shouldn't make the argument "I don't think this happens therefore since its now missing, your formula disproves itself"
Wait are on an alt account of cikjamas?

You are still dumb so nothing is changed.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 21, 2016, 10:43:15 PM
When the materials collide a direction opposite from , kinetic energy is reduced. so the total energy too . but populer science just says a lie to save itself : Such as  The sound energy,  light energy , etc bla bla bla occurs. But these unseen energies never give enough value . Everytime there is a loss of energy.
Actually, most of the energy lost is due to various forms of friction in the form of heat energy.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/ea42cd3.jpg)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 21, 2016, 11:11:46 PM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Thank you i changed the first post like your transtation. I think it is better than the first one.  :)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 12:07:48 AM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Thank you i changed the first post like your transtation. I think it is better than the first one.  :)
Now I understand! İntikam does not understand physics so the earth must be flat and all scientists must be satanic.
I thought all it proved was that  İntikam does not understand physics!
And he is trying to pull the whole flat earth movement down to his level.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Ecthelion on April 22, 2016, 12:14:40 AM
(https://i.imgsafe.org/ea42cd3.jpg)

When objects crash, they usually deform. Deforming costs energy.

If they deform very little (like Billiard balls) they move away in opposite directions after the crash. In your example, A and B would not stop dead if you crashed them head on.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 12:19:27 AM
For example 1:

Let's say that the balls are made of gold. Gold is very dense, so there will be plenty of kinetic energy, and only a small portion will be lost through air resistance.

Some significant physical properties:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold)) Density: 19.30 g/cm3
(http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/database/Specific_Heat_Capacity_Table.html (http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/database/Specific_Heat_Capacity_Table.html)) Specific Heat Capacity: 0.129 J/gK

Let's say a ball in a certain newtons cradle made of gold weighs about 100 grams. The strings are 15 cm long. This is larger than your normal newtons cradle, btw. Now we can have a few different scenarios, each including raising two of the balls on opposite sides up so that the string is horizontal. At this point the balls are 15 cm high from the lowest point they can reach, so their potential energy (which is then all converted into kinetic energy) is Ep = m*H *g. Ep = 0.1 kg * 0.15 m * 9.83 m/s2 (at poles, where gravity is strongest for greatest potential energy) = 0.14745 J (No rounding).

First scenario, optimal one: Cradle consists of two balls only. When we drop the balls and they collide, their kinetic energy is turned into heat. We can calculate how much they heat up using the formula Eheat = m*c*T, where c is specific heat capacity and T is temperature. We can write this formula as T = Eheat/(m*c)
Since there is only two balls, each ball absorbs their own kinetic energy into heat. So each ball will heat up by T = 0.14745 J / (100 g * 0.129 J/gK) = 0.01143 K (or °C) (Rounded). The balls will get 0.01143 °C hotter.

I don't think we need to do the other scenarios, as they will get lower values (more balls, so a normal cradle. That's more mass, so the energy will spread more and heat up less). Some of this energy turns into sound as well (so you can't see this blabla energy, but you can actually hear it). And no, the contact areas won't be a lot hotter. Each individual atom in the balls carry their own kinetic energy, and turns it into heat energy which only themselves and their neighbors absorb. So the heat is spread out evenly. I think you are misjudging the amount of energy this experiment works with.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
(https://i.imgsafe.org/ea42cd3.jpg)

When objects crash, they usually deform. Deforming costs energy.

If they deform very little (like Billiard balls) they move away in opposite directions after the crash. In your example, A and B would not stop dead if you crashed them head on.

Öyle bir şey yok.

Kinetik enerji tamamen sıfırlanır çünkü karşıt yönden geliyorlar. Bu dediğinin olma nedeni, tam aksine hafif bir deformasyon olması ve o deformasyonun yay etkisi yapmasıdır. sert cisimler aynı hızda ve kütleye sahipse, çarpıştıklarında tamamen dururlar. herhangi bir enerji de açığa çıkmaz. sadece "ses enerjisine" dönüştü diyebilirsin. oysa aynı enerji, birisi durup diğeri ona çarptığında da ortaya çıkar ama yine de enerji o örnekte tamamen aktarılır.

Is somebody can translate this?
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 01:12:47 AM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Thank you i changed the first post like your transtation. I think it is better than the first one.  :)
Now I understand! İntikam does not understand physics so the earth must be flat and all scientists must be satanic.
I thought all it proved was that  İntikam does not understand physics!
And he is trying to pull the whole flat earth movement down to his level.

If you are true, then you should to help me for you debunk the flat earth theory.  ::) So why are you still insult about me? because you are a liar.  8)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 01:14:53 AM
This is just a bit warning.  8)

Physics can throw garbage altogether . We have strong to do this but this not our preferred problem.

Do not bother us in order to demoralize us.

I think this is clearly understandable that don't needed to explain by someone.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: FalseProphet on April 22, 2016, 03:18:31 AM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Thank you i changed the first post like your transtation. I think it is better than the first one.  :)

Are you...hehe...sure that you do not want my rendering of your 3rd example alter a little?...or abandon it altogether?
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 03:51:43 AM

Now I understand! İntikam does not understand physics so the earth must be flat and all scientists must be satanic.
I thought all it proved was that  İntikam does not understand physics!
And he is trying to pull the whole flat earth movement down to his level.

If you are true, then you should to help me for you debunk the flat earth theory.  ::) So why are you still insult about me? because you are a liar.  8)
I insult you because you incessantly insult us and lie by calling us satanic and because you have such a poor knowledge of physics.
And, I am not a liar, I tell you the complete truth:

You say:
Quote
1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

You call this lost energy "blabla-energy" simply because you do not understand it! Just because you (or I) don't understand something does not prove it false. It just proves that you do not understand it!

In this case your "blabla-energy" is simply energy converted to other forms such as heat or sound. Just because you can't measure it doesn't prove anything at all.

Just because "you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit" means nothing.
Don't you know anything about thermodynamics and entropy?
Energy can be converted from say electrical energy, which is readily converted to other forms (say kinetic, potential or heat) to forms of energy which cannot be converted back - it just becomes waste heat.

Conservation of energy does not say that a particular type of energy is conserved, just that total energy is conserved.

Some of this energy might even by radiate away (for example as light or other EM waves), but that still does break conservation of energy.

I had better not say much more as Thermodynamics is not really my thing.
You are İntikam and
you certainly have not disproved Conservation of Energy!
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 04:45:20 AM

Now I understand! İntikam does not understand physics so the earth must be flat and all scientists must be satanic.
I thought all it proved was that  İntikam does not understand physics!
And he is trying to pull the whole flat earth movement down to his level.

If you are true, then you should to help me for you debunk the flat earth theory.  ::) So why are you still insult about me? because you are a liar.  8)
I insult you because you incessantly insult us and lie by calling us satanic and because you have such a poor knowledge of physics.
And, I am not a liar, I tell you the complete truth:

You say:
Quote
1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

You call this lost energy "blabla-energy" simply because you do not understand it! Just because you (or I) don't understand something does not prove it false. It just proves that you do not understand it!

In this case your "blabla-energy" is simply energy converted to other forms such as heat or sound. Just because you can't measure it doesn't prove anything at all.

Just because "you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit" means nothing.
Don't you know anything about thermodynamics and entropy?
Energy can be converted from say electrical energy, which is readily converted to other forms (say kinetic, potential or heat) to forms of energy which cannot be converted back - it just becomes waste heat.

Conservation of energy does not say that a particular type of energy is conserved, just that total energy is conserved.

Some of this energy might even by radiate away (for example as light or other EM waves), but that still does break conservation of energy.

I had better not say much more as Thermodynamics is not really my thing.
You are İntikam and
you certainly have not disproved Conservation of Energy!

You are clearly a liar.  :)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 04:48:38 AM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Thank you i changed the first post like your transtation. I think it is better than the first one.  :)

Are you...hehe...sure that you do not want my rendering of your 3rd example alter a little?...or abandon it altogether?

1rd sample : I think old version of it a little did not match with the original. I just changed there.

3rd sample :  I changed the graphic to the better one.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 05:11:28 AM

(https://i.imgsafe.org/aa2ed13.jpg)

The reality is in your front if you want to see it.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Pongo on April 22, 2016, 05:16:22 AM
Lets all watch the personal attacks. They are against the forum rules.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 05:20:43 AM
Continuation on first example: If you only lift one ball and then release it, it will gain momentum. Because of conservation of momentum, when the ball then collides with the others, the momentum is transferred to the ball on the opposite side of the cradle. In order to move, that ball needs energy. Therefore, the ball absorbs the energy which would normally turn into sound energy (because most of the energy actually turns into sound). Sound is pressure waves, and they travel better through solid material. This is why not all the sound escapes into the air, but most of it travels through the balls and into the last one. The last one has no next ball in the way, so the pressure waves causes it to move, using the energy and momentum it's carrying. If you do the scenario I described in the other post, lifting two balls, it'd make a sound more than double as loud as just dropping one ball, because in that scenario nearly all of the energy converts to sound. Therefore, conservation of Energy holds.

EDIT/NOTE: Loudness is not the same as sound intensity. By ten-folding the intensity, loudness is doubled. So when I say "more than double as loud", that also means "more than ten times the energy (as sound)".
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 05:29:34 AM
Continuation on first example: If you only lift one ball and then release it, it will gain momentum. Because of conservation of momentum, when the ball then collides with the others, the momentum is transferred to the ball on the opposite side of the cradle. In order to move, that ball needs energy. Therefore, the ball absorbs the energy which would normally turn into sound energy (because most of the energy actually turns into sound). Sound is pressure waves, and they travel better through solid material. This is why not all the sound escapes into the air, but most of it travels through the balls and into the last one. The last one has no next ball in the way, so the pressure waves causes it to move, using the energy and momentum it's carrying. If you do the scenario I described in the other post, lifting two balls, it'd make a sound more than double as loud as just dropping one ball, because in that scenario nearly all of the energy converts to sound. Therefore, conservation of Energy holds.

Did you see the last sample? About same sample 1 and 2. Just a few different energy but momentum is completely same. About same crashing.

Same crashing sometimes causes to lost energy, sometimes not. Who determines whether or lost ? Do the laws of physics ? If they are that, so these are wrong.

Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 05:37:49 AM

(https://i.imgsafe.org/548e88e.jpg)

The reality is in your front if you want to see it.
You claim that there is not other way, but that is completely untrue. Just because you are using simplified highschool physics does not mean that you know the whole story.
Even in the first case a little energy is always lost as heat or maybe sound. If you can hear the collision, there IS sound!

In the second case at least two quite different things can happen:
• If the objects are "perfectly elastic" each will bounce back. If the objects were the same mass and were travelling with equal and opposite velocities, then they will bounce back with same magnitude of velocity - same total energy. Other masses and velocities can be calculated by solving both conservation of energy and momentum.
• At the other extreme, if the objects are like "putty" and just squash when they collide, all the original kinetic energy will be converted into heat.
In any practical situation we have real objects which are not perfectly elastic, though some like hardened steel ball bearings are very close, so the situation is almost like the first case, but with a slight loss. The Newton's cradle is like the first case, with a little loss. The swing gradually gets less.
So the lost energies are not a lie because they are quite explainable! Energy is conserved.
And it has nothing to do with Einsten anyway, the Conservation of Energy and Momentum go back hundreds of years. So please stop wasting everyone's time!

The losses are not a lie! The losses you can't account for are mainly heat and sound. I simply cannot understand why you cannot see that!
Hear and sound and just as much forms of energy as potential and kinetic energy.
Just because YOU refuse to accept it does not make it untrue or a lie.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Teutarch on April 22, 2016, 05:39:32 AM
If you pull both balls back and then release they will both bounce back by the same amount actually, they do not stop dead.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 05:40:39 AM
Continuation on first example: If you only lift one ball and then release it, it will gain momentum. Because of conservation of momentum, when the ball then collides with the others, the momentum is transferred to the ball on the opposite side of the cradle. In order to move, that ball needs energy. Therefore, the ball absorbs the energy which would normally turn into sound energy (because most of the energy actually turns into sound). Sound is pressure waves, and they travel better through solid material. This is why not all the sound escapes into the air, but most of it travels through the balls and into the last one. The last one has no next ball in the way, so the pressure waves causes it to move, using the energy and momentum it's carrying. If you do the scenario I described in the other post, lifting two balls, it'd make a sound more than double as loud as just dropping one ball, because in that scenario nearly all of the energy converts to sound. Therefore, conservation of Energy holds.

Did you see the last sample? About same sample 1 and 2. Just a few different energy but momentum is completely same. About same crashing.

Same crashing sometimes causes to lost energy, sometimes not. Who determines whether or lost ? Do the laws of physics ? If they are that, so these are wrong.
I'll look at them. Also edited a note to the end of the post btw.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 05:48:10 AM
If you pull both balls back and then release they will both bounce back by the same amount actually, they do not stop dead.

This knowledge is not true.

Sometimes you see it because you never find a twins of materials have same mass, shape, velocity , so kinetical energy.

You need to learn first what is a momentum and kinetic energy.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 05:51:50 AM
Example 3 is exactly the same as example 1. In 3.2, energy turns into heat (which, unless you crash cars together, you won't be able to measure without advanced lab equipment) and a lot of sound (for which an increase of 10x sound intensity only doubles the loudness. IF we continue, 100x sound intensity gives 4 times loudness, and 1000x intensity gives 8x loudness).
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 05:55:48 AM
Example 3 is exactly the same as example 1. In 3.2, energy turns into heat (which, unless you crash cars together, you won't be able to measure without advanced lab equipment) and a lot of sound (for which an increase of 10x sound intensity only doubles the loudness. IF we continue, 100x sound intensity gives 4 times loudness, and 1000x intensity gives 8x loudness).

If you heard a sound it's not prove the energy conserved. You must measure it . and must return . not starting from the first formula , just measure or turn the operation back.

Do you know what are you doing? Look.

energy is  conserved. You are saying this. Ok.

Egergy is conserved so energy turned to sound and heat. why? because the the energy is conserved. So calculate it:

0+lost energies. What is the value of the lost energies? You find it with the theory of "energy is  conserved". If it is wrong, so your calculating is wrong too.

Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 05:58:27 AM
This is just a bit warning.  8)

Physics can throw garbage altogether . We have strong to do this but this not our preferred problem.

Do not bother us in order to demoralize us.

I think this is clearly understandable that don't needed to explain by someone.

And just who do you think you are warning! You have no power or authority to warn anybody

You can't throw out physics, you simply do not understand it. That is why you think you find all these things wrong with it.

I simply do not understand why you think you know so much but you really do not.

Look, aren't there some good places of learning in Turkey where you get get some instruction on these matters because truly you need it.

Even if your purpose is to "debunk physics (you will not succeed!)", you will do a much better job if you understand it.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 06:05:27 AM
And where the energy goes is decided by the laws of physics, which we have approximated by performing experiments and measuring stuff. We are pretty sure that there is no energy loss, because we have never observed one. In the cases we thought we observed one, we examined further and found out something new which explained it.

For example, sound are pressure waves (and there is a lot of evidence for it). The waves has a thickness, a pressure, and a surface. Multiplying surface by pressure gives a force. Multiplying the force by the thickness (a distance) gives a value with the unit Nm (Newton-meters). Nm is the unit for work, and work is a change in energy. Therefore, it can be concluded that sound is a form of energy. So, when you ask for where the heat is, you aren't considering other factors which you carry away the energy, such as sound. There are formulas for sound and energy, and there are tools for measuring sound intensity. These tools can be used to calculate how much energy is turned into sound. If the combined heat and sound energy doesn't equal lost energy (within acceptable bounds. Not all tools are perfect) then you may have observed a violation of conservation of energy. But you have to make this observation, then do the math to claim that energy is lost, and account for all factors that could lead energy away.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 06:11:25 AM
Example 3 is exactly the same as example 1. In 3.2, energy turns into heat (which, unless you crash cars together, you won't be able to measure without advanced lab equipment) and a lot of sound (for which an increase of 10x sound intensity only doubles the loudness. IF we continue, 100x sound intensity gives 4 times loudness, and 1000x intensity gives 8x loudness).

If you heard a sound it's not prove the energy conserved. You must measure it . and must return . not starting from the first formula , just measure or turn the operation back.

Do you know what are you doing? Look.

energy is  conserved. You are saying this. Ok.

Egergy is conserved so energy turned to sound and heat. why? because the the energy is conserved. So calculate it:

0+lost energies. What is the value of the lost energies? You find it with the theory of "energy is  conserved". If it is wrong, so your calculating is wrong too.

I don't have time to do these calculations, or to set up these test. Also, you have to face the harsh reality: your claims go against commonly accepted knowledge/facts, which the majority of people who thinks about this stuff agrees with. We have no reason to spend a lot of energy just to prove anything for one person. In these kind of situations, it's the minority which has to use their energy to prove their claims/opinions/knowledge right.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: wise on April 22, 2016, 06:44:49 AM
Example 3 is exactly the same as example 1. In 3.2, energy turns into heat (which, unless you crash cars together, you won't be able to measure without advanced lab equipment) and a lot of sound (for which an increase of 10x sound intensity only doubles the loudness. IF we continue, 100x sound intensity gives 4 times loudness, and 1000x intensity gives 8x loudness).

If you heard a sound it's not prove the energy conserved. You must measure it . and must return . not starting from the first formula , just measure or turn the operation back.

Do you know what are you doing? Look.

energy is  conserved. You are saying this. Ok.

Egergy is conserved so energy turned to sound and heat. why? because the the energy is conserved. So calculate it:

0+lost energies. What is the value of the lost energies? You find it with the theory of "energy is  conserved". If it is wrong, so your calculating is wrong too.

I don't have time to do these calculations, or to set up these test. Also, you have to face the harsh reality: your claims go against commonly accepted knowledge/facts, which the majority of people who thinks about this stuff agrees with. We have no reason to spend a lot of energy just to prove anything for one person. In these kind of situations, it's the minority which has to use their energy to prove their claims/opinions/knowledge right.

It don't been proven anything further this prove.

Look at the graphic:

(https://i.imgsafe.org/548e88e.jpg)

Same crashing.

One of them is %0 lost energy, the second one %100 lost energy. This is a lie, this is a nonsence.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Master_Evar on April 22, 2016, 06:47:48 AM
Example 3 is exactly the same as example 1. In 3.2, energy turns into heat (which, unless you crash cars together, you won't be able to measure without advanced lab equipment) and a lot of sound (for which an increase of 10x sound intensity only doubles the loudness. IF we continue, 100x sound intensity gives 4 times loudness, and 1000x intensity gives 8x loudness).

If you heard a sound it's not prove the energy conserved. You must measure it . and must return . not starting from the first formula , just measure or turn the operation back.

Do you know what are you doing? Look.

energy is  conserved. You are saying this. Ok.

Egergy is conserved so energy turned to sound and heat. why? because the the energy is conserved. So calculate it:

0+lost energies. What is the value of the lost energies? You find it with the theory of "energy is  conserved". If it is wrong, so your calculating is wrong too.

I don't have time to do these calculations, or to set up these test. Also, you have to face the harsh reality: your claims go against commonly accepted knowledge/facts, which the majority of people who thinks about this stuff agrees with. We have no reason to spend a lot of energy just to prove anything for one person. In these kind of situations, it's the minority which has to use their energy to prove their claims/opinions/knowledge right.

It don't been proven anything further this prove.

Look at the graphic:

(https://i.imgsafe.org/548e88e.jpg)

Same crashing.

One of them is %0 lost energy, the second one %100 lost energy. This is a lie, this is a nonsence.

Actually, the first one has a small loss of energy (because you hear a sound). All "losses" of energy is just energy turning into sound and heat. If you have evidence that the energy from the sound and the heat doesn't add up to the energy loss, please provide it. These graphs contains no such information.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Teutarch on April 22, 2016, 06:55:14 AM
If you pull both balls back and then release they will both bounce back by the same amount actually, they do not stop dead.

This knowledge is not true.

Sometimes you see it because you never find a twins of materials have same mass, shape, velocity , so kinetical energy.

You need to learn first what is a momentum and kinetic energy.

I'm afraid you are wrong. see 1:36 of this video (http://)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: FalseProphet on April 23, 2016, 02:30:22 AM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Thank you i changed the first post like your transtation. I think it is better than the first one.  :)

Are you...hehe...sure that you do not want my rendering of your 3rd example alter a little?...or abandon it altogether?

1rd sample : I think old version of it a little did not match with the original. I just changed there.

3rd sample :  I changed the graphic to the better one.

Now the 1st example makes no sense, because you filled in a 'not' where there shouldn't be one.

The 3rd example didn't make sense from the very beginning. But now the text doesn't even fit to the picture.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Pezevenk on April 25, 2016, 01:03:28 PM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

Satanic Physics asserts that Energy is always conserved. I can prove you, that this is sometimes, but not always the case.

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

Take what he calls Newton balance balls. If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop. The kinetic energy thus is not conserved. Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.

2. Example

Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy. So there energy gets lost.

3. Example: Potential Energy

Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.

I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.

Excuse my curiosity, but can you give me a general idea of how his original post was?
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: FalseProphet on April 25, 2016, 02:00:21 PM
Excuse my curiosity, but can you give me a general idea of how his original post was?

A fragment of example 1 has survived as quoted by markjo:

Quote
When the materials collide a direction opposite from , kinetic energy is reduced. so the total energy too . but populer science just says a lie to save itself : Such as  The sound energy,  light energy , etc bla bla bla occurs. But these unseen energies never give enough value . Everytime there is a loss of energy.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: TigerWidow on April 25, 2016, 03:14:50 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen. Intikam is here now.

(http://s31.postimg.org/x0td7umk9/the_horror.jpg)

The man is a fucking maelstrom of crazy.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2016, 03:48:09 PM
:-X

1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving.
Wrong, this only happens in perfectly inelastic colisions. Most of the time, some energy will be lost, but the balls will usually bounce back with slightly less momentum.

Quote
So there kinetic energy is lost.
Correct. And since energy neither is created nor destroyed, it must come from somewhere. In fact, if we do very accurate measurements, we will notice the balls are slightly hotter, and perhaps slightly bent. Those two changes in state are where the lost energy went to.

Quote
Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat.

Preciselly! So you get it!

Quote
But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict.

Where are you getting that from? Can you quote a source? Because that doesnt match what I tested myself.

Quote
So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.
The "assumption" of the conservation of energy is not an assumption, but both an empirical law and a provable consequence of Noether's theorem on momentum and energy, both of which are symetric, and therefore conserved.

Quote
Take what he calls Newton balance balls.
[img]
If you move the first ball, the kinetic energy translates to the next ball, and the kinetic energy is conserved. But if you move the first and the last ball simultanously (let them fall on the other balls), the movement will stop.
Depends on the balls, but yeah, most do.

Quote
The kinetic energy thus is not conserved.

There is no conservation law of kinetic energy, since kinetic energy transforms all the time. Throw a ball upwards, and it will lose kinetic energy, then fall back and gain it again, then bounce and lose a bit on the bounce, etc.

Quote
Satanic physicists will say, it has transformed into babla-energy. But can you see any blabla-energy on the first attemp? No. Therefore the Satanic physicists are wrong.
Yes, you can. Measure the strength of the sound. Measure the change in shape of the balls. Measure ejecta. Measure the change in temperature. If you could measure the entire system's energy, you would observe that energy conserves. If not, free energy would be piss easy to do!

Quote
Exampe 2: The Wave Energy is not conserved:
Waves of opposite amplitude can be annihilated by interference. Waves are energy.
Waves are not energy. What do you mean exactly by waves? Electromagnetic waves? Mechanical oscillations? Phonons? Quantum wave-particle duality? You are going to have to define your thing before I can bite into it.

Quote
[img]
So there energy gets lost.
Assuming you are refering to mechanical oscillations, energy "destroyed" during destructive interference partly dissipates as heat, partly oscillates the layer surrounding the oscillation node (sound), and partly goes to even more conspicuous effects such as compression of certain substances, etc. Energy is conserved, as you can measure yourself.

Quote
Exampe 3: Potential Energy is not conserved:
Although the diagram shows that potential energy turns into kinetic energy, I somehow do not recognize that and say, potential energy turns into 0 + blabla-energy. Since there is no blabla-energy I have proven that the potential energy is getting lost.
What are you trying to say there? We can measure the energy loss of kinetic systems. There are even aparatuses designed to do so, such as calorimeters. Or are you saying heat is not energy? Im so confused.

Quote
[img]
I have thoroughly debunked conventional physics. I'm Intikam.
Boy was that easy. None of those years of PhD research. It just so happens that there isnt a single person in academia who got it right. But you did. Congratulations. I'm wating for your peer reviewed paper.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Dog on April 26, 2016, 03:29:53 PM
*personal incredulity* (OP)

(https://giant.gfycat.com/PowerlessEmbellishedEthiopianwolf.gif)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: UpstartPixel on September 10, 2016, 01:46:20 PM
I have the honor to translate it into Common English.

I believe you are what they call an enabler.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 10, 2016, 02:19:56 PM
Holy Necro Batman.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2016, 03:58:13 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen. Intikam is here now.

(http://s31.postimg.org/x0td7umk9/the_horror.jpg)

The man is a fucking maelstrom of crazy.
??? ??? As if we didn't know! ??? ???
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 10, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
I vote we just let this thread die the slow death of obscurity.

Crap, I just bumped it didn't I?
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: ceciestuncompte on September 10, 2016, 05:05:10 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen. Intikam is here now.

(http://s31.postimg.org/x0td7umk9/the_horror.jpg)

The man is a fucking maelstrom of crazy.
??? ??? As if we didn't know! ??? ???

One question.
Did that post really need that much red ?

I mean, jokes aside, writing like this              makes you look crazy, whatever the actual content of your post. If that's the effect you're going for, great.
Most of the time, though, you should try and settle for basic plain text.
It's much easier and just as fun to read, and people will tend to take you more seriously.

(I'm assuming this wasn't intentional. If it was, félicitations, I have made a great fool of myself. Yet again.)
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2016, 05:41:11 PM

??? ??? As if we didn't know! ??? ???

One question.
Did that post really need that much red ?

I mean, jokes aside, writing like this              makes you look crazy, whatever the actual content of your post. If that's the effect you're going for, great.
Most of the time, though, you should try and settle for basic plain text.
It's much easier and just as fun to read, and people will tend to take you more seriously.

(I'm assuming this wasn't intentional. If it was, félicitations, I have made a great fool of myself. Yet again.)
The red underlining was TigerWidow's effort, the comic sans etc was all my own work!
But I won't claim that I was trying to be taken seriously!

But, no need to apologise.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 11, 2016, 02:47:42 AM
Intikam - you have been shown where your calculations are wrong

are you going to accept some things you have been corrected on? or are you going to carry on claiming you've disproven physics?

Now I understand! İntikam does not understand physics so the earth must be flat and all scientists must be satanic.
I thought all it proved was that  İntikam does not understand physics!
And he is trying to pull the whole flat earth movement down to his level.

If you are true, then you should to help me for you debunk the flat earth theory.  ::) So why are you still insult about me? because you are a liar.  8)
I insult you because you incessantly insult us and lie by calling us satanic and because you have such a poor knowledge of physics.
And, I am not a liar, I tell you the complete truth:

You say:
Quote
1st Example: Kinetic Energy.

When two bodies move in opposite direction and collide with each other, both of them will stop moving. So there kinetic energy is lost. Satanic physicists will tell you, that the energy has transformed into a kind of blabla-energy like sound or heat. But the value of the blabla-energy that  can be detected is always smaller than the value that the theory would predict. So there is loss of energy. Otherwise you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit. This is not the case, so the assumption, that there is no loss of energy is not provable and probably wrong.

You call this lost energy "blabla-energy" simply because you do not understand it! Just because you (or I) don't understand something does not prove it false. It just proves that you do not understand it!

In this case your "blabla-energy" is simply energy converted to other forms such as heat or sound. Just because you can't measure it doesn't prove anything at all.

Just because "you could not transform the blaba-energy back into kinetic energy without a deficit" means nothing.
Don't you know anything about thermodynamics and entropy?
Energy can be converted from say electrical energy, which is readily converted to other forms (say kinetic, potential or heat) to forms of energy which cannot be converted back - it just becomes waste heat.

Conservation of energy does not say that a particular type of energy is conserved, just that total energy is conserved.

Some of this energy might even by radiate away (for example as light or other EM waves), but that still does break conservation of energy.

I had better not say much more as Thermodynamics is not really my thing.
You are İntikam and
you certainly have not disproved Conservation of Energy!

You are clearly a liar.  :)

I thought you didn't agree with personal insults?
also, when someone challenges your guesses with evidence, you're supposed to present your reasons for your position.. not just say 'you're a liar'

Lets all watch the personal attacks. They are against the forum rules.

there are no forum rules, or moderators, anyone can say what the fuck they like in this bitch

the supposed 'moderators' are offensive, insulting, belittling, they post totally unrelated comments, they post low content comments too

they are setting the pace, they've given us consent by showing us the way

there's a suggestions and concerns section, but if you're complaining, the mods just lock your thread

so just do what you like
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on September 11, 2016, 05:42:43 AM
Intikam - you have been shown where your calculations are wrong

are you going to accept some things you have been corrected on? or are you going to carry on claiming you've disproven physics?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I had better not say much more as Thermodynamics is not really my thing.
You are İntikam and
you certainly have not disproved Conservation of Energy!

You are clearly a liar.  :)

I thought you didn't agree with personal insults?
also, when someone challenges your guesses with evidence, you're supposed to present your reasons for your position.. not just say 'you're a liar'

Lets all watch the personal attacks. They are against the forum rules.

there are no forum rules, or moderators, anyone can say what the fuck they like in this bitch

the supposed 'moderators' are offensive, insulting, belittling, they post totally unrelated comments, they post low content comments too

they are setting the pace, they've given us consent by showing us the way

there's a suggestions and concerns section, but if you're complaining, the mods just lock your thread

so just do what you like

But İntikam does not believe he has done anything wrong! Anyone who dares disagree with İntikam must be telling lies,
because İntikam knows that he knows everthing.

Of course, it has been said that
The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
by Albert Einstein

Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Sam Hill on September 11, 2016, 07:08:17 PM
As to Intikam's claim that no heat is produced in these collisions: there is a way to demonstrate that he is wrong about that, which is used during Infrared Thermographer training: you can bounce a room temperature steel ball off a room temperature carpet, and the spot where it hit will show slightly warmer than room temperature.  In fact, you can actually take a COLD object and bounce it off the floor, and the spot will be warmer than room temperature.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 11, 2016, 07:41:04 PM
As to Intikam's claim that no heat is produced in these collisions:

Intikam is a broken tool. It can't be fixed. Throw it away.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Empirical on September 12, 2016, 03:37:37 PM
Why is this disproving Einstein? It's possible for energy to not be conserved in GR.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 12, 2016, 04:36:04 PM
If you convert mass into energy, then energy is conserved. It can be converted into mass though.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 12, 2016, 06:27:53 PM
So, it is conserved, unless it is converted into something else?  ???
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 12, 2016, 07:05:47 PM
Mass is equivalent to a lot of energy. If you take all the energy in the universe, including the mass (E=mc2) it will always be constant.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: rabinoz on September 13, 2016, 01:38:40 AM
So, it is conserved, unless it is converted into something else?  ???

Yes, maybe we should have a topic "Einstein claims: energy is not conserved"
because since Einstein's SR we realise that it is not energy nor mass that are separately conserved, but mass-energy that is conserved.
Title: Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
Post by: zork on September 13, 2016, 03:45:42 AM
As to Intikam's claim that no heat is produced in these collisions: there is a way to demonstrate that he is wrong about that, which is used during Infrared Thermographer training: you can bounce a room temperature steel ball off a room temperature carpet, and the spot where it hit will show slightly warmer than room temperature.  In fact, you can actually take a COLD object and bounce it off the floor, and the spot will be warmer than room temperature.
There is video on youtube where there is demonstration how rubber bands heat up when stretched and cool down when they shrink. Kind of same idea, deformation of object and temperature change.