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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
[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.
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.
[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.