Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)

  • 55 Replies
  • 7574 Views
*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« 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.



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.



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.



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

Notice: Thanks to FalseProphet for translation.  :)




« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 11:13:50 PM by İntikam »
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:


Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #1 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.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2418
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #2 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?

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 06:54:58 PM by FalseProphet »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #4 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #5 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.
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:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #6 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.

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:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #7 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.  :)
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 11:15:23 PM by İntikam »
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:


*

rabinoz

  • 25594
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #8 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.

Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2016, 12:14:40 AM »


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.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #10 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) Density: 19.30 g/cm3
(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.
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
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2016, 01:10:01 AM »


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?
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:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #12 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)
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:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #13 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.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 01:17:32 AM by İntikam »
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:


*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #14 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?

*

rabinoz

  • 25594
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #15 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!

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #16 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.  :)
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:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #17 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.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 04:51:21 AM by İntikam »
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:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2016, 05:11:28 AM »
just think about it:



The reality is in your front if you want to see it.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 05:14:43 AM by İntikam »
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:


*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2016, 05:16:22 AM »
Lets all watch the personal attacks. They are against the forum rules.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #20 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)".
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 05:39:22 AM by Master_Evar »
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
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #21 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.



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:


*

rabinoz

  • 25594
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2016, 05:37:49 AM »
just think about it:


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.

Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #23 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.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #24 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.
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
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #25 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.
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 #26 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).
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
  • 21178
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #27 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.

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:


*

rabinoz

  • 25594
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #28 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.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« Reply #29 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.
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!