# Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)

• 55 Replies
• 7559 Views
?

#### Master_Evar

• 3381
• Well rounded character
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #30 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.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 21172
• All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #31 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:

Same crashing.

One of them is %0 lost energy, the second one %100 lost energy. This is a lie, this is a nonsence.
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:

?

#### Master_Evar

• 3381
• Well rounded character
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #32 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:

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.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

#### Teutarch

• 114
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #33 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 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

#### FalseProphet

• 3696
• Life is just a tale
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #34 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.

#### Pezevenk

• 14053
• Militant aporfyrodrakonist
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #35 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?
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

#### FalseProphet

• 3696
• Life is just a tale
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #36 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.

?

#### TigerWidow

• 67
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2016, 03:14:50 PM »
Ladies and Gentlemen. Intikam is here now.

The man is a fucking maelstrom of crazy.

#### Conker

• 1557
• Official FES jerk / kneebiter
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2016, 03:48:09 PM »

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.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2016, 03:29:53 PM »

#### UpstartPixel

• 195
• Troll with intellectual aspirations
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #40 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.

?

#### origamiscienceguy

• 2138
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2016, 02:19:56 PM »
Holy Necro Batman.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?

#### rabinoz

• 25579
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2016, 03:58:13 PM »
Ladies and Gentlemen. Intikam is here now.

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

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #43 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?

?

#### ceciestuncompte

• 22
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2016, 05:05:10 PM »
Ladies and Gentlemen. Intikam is here now.

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.)

#### rabinoz

• 25579
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #45 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.

#### johnnyorbital

• 867
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #46 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.
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

#### rabinoz

• 25579
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #47 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

― Albert Einstein

#### Sam Hill

• 642
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #48 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.

#### Bullwinkle

• Flat Earth Curator
• 18109
• "Umm, WTF ???"
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #49 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.

?

#### Empirical

• 1307
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #50 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

?

#### origamiscienceguy

• 2138
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #51 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.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37820
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2016, 06:27:53 PM »
So, it is conserved, unless it is converted into something else?

?

#### origamiscienceguy

• 2138
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #53 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.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?

#### rabinoz

• 25579
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #54 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.

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #55 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.