The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[gaby de wilde]

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.

Dear shruggedatlas,

Let me first state CoE as I understand it.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can only change from one form to another.  I agree with this statement.

Science is not a state of agreement, you need to empirically observe stuffs and make the evidence hold with the claims. Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO but the likes of such is not something you can just agree with but something that requires to be understood first. One can not agree with something one does not understand.

I don't understand it at all. - LOL - I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me. I'm thus not really in title to say I support this theory or that I reject it. I'm still looking for someone who can explain the logical gist I seem to be missing.

Do you really understand the theorem?

Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen?

[ltseung888]

I have put further discussion related to CoE in:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=240#240

Have fun. 

[chrisC]

Shrug...

Have you not yet perceived that in this thread sensible logical argument is simply ignored and answered with further irrational claims (usually involving cute stories, Chinese cartoon characters and enormous disappointing downloads)? 

It's no use here to ask for actual information or to make eloquently clear arguments.

Humbugger

These eastern philsophers obviously think they still live in the Confucian era where poetry and play acting are sufficient to impress the masses about their supposedly fool-proof postulates.

The real world is very different. The western world measures real values through a rigorous process of substantiating proofs. These guys are NUTS!

I wouldn't take these dreamers and delusionists seriously.

cheers
chrisC

[Mr.Entropy]

Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO
[...]
I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me.
[...]
Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen?

Well, Gaby,

Energy is not what it used to be, and the law of conservation thereof no longer tells us very much about the universe at all.Ã,  As you say, the law derives from Noether's theorem.Ã,  This is a mathematical theorem, i.e., it's about math, not physics.Ã,  It works like this:

Lets say you have a system (the universe, or any isolated system) whose state can be represented by some number of variables.

You have a set of mathematical rules, the "laws of physics", that describe how the system evolves from one state to future states.

If those laws have a representation in Lagrangian mechanics (a particular way of expressing them as the minimization of an integral over time) AND those laws are time-invariant (state q0 at t=0 evolves to state q1 at t=1 means that state q0 at t=x evolves to state q1 at t=x+1, for all x), THEN, by Noether's theorem, there is a quantity (some function of the system's state variables) that those laws will keep constant in the system over time.

That quantity is what we call energy these days...Ã,  REGARDLESS of which laws we're using or what variables we're including in the isolated system.

As we discover and modify our physical laws, our best definition of energy -- what it actually is that is conserved, i.e., that function of the state variables we're considering -- changes.Ã,  Most famously, when we consider E=mc^2, it now includes mass.Ã,  It includes a lot of things, but as long as we can find a Lagrangian formulation for our laws of physics, then there is SOMETHING we can call energy that is conserved over time.

So when some physicists tell you that they have faith in the conservation of energy, they're telling you that:

a) They accept the mathematical proof of Noether's theorem; and

b) They believe that the laws of physics will continue to be expressible in a time-invariant Lagrangian form.

And they'd probably be right.Ã,  The thing is, of course, that this "energy" that is conserved isn't the energy we learned about in grade school, i.e., the "ability to do work".Ã,  It is some "bunch of stuff" plus the "ability to do work", and if that bunch of stuff includes something we don't care about that can be reduced without significant bounds, well, then the "ability to do work" can grow without significant bounds for "free".

So, even if the laws of physics don't allow for "free energy" today, as long as we continue to discover new things about the universe, the definition of "energy" will continue to change, and you can have hope that free energy will emerge as a possibility even though the law of conservation of energy remains inviolate.


Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy

[gaby de wilde]

Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO
[...]
I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me.
[...]
Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen?

Well, Gaby,

Energy is not what it used to be, and the law of conservation thereof no longer tells us very much about the universe at all.  As you say, the law derives from Noether's theorem.  This is a mathematical theorem, i.e., it's about math, not physics.  It works like this:

Lets say you have a system (the universe, or any isolated system) whose state can be represented by some number of variables.

You have a set of mathematical rules, the "laws of physics", that describe how the system evolves from one state to future states.

If those laws have a representation in Lagrangian mechanics (a particular way of expressing them as the minimization of an integral over time) AND those laws are time-invariant (state q0 at t=0 evolves to state q1 at t=1 means that state q0 at t=x evolves to state q1 at t=x+1, for all x), THEN, by Noether's theorem, there is a quantity (some function of the system's state variables) that those laws will keep constant in the system over time.

That quantity is what we call energy these days...  REGARDLESS of which laws we're using or what variables we're including in the isolated system.

As we discover and modify our physical laws, our best definition of energy -- what it actually is that is conserved, i.e., that function of the state variables we're considering -- changes.  Most famously, when we consider E=mc^2, it now includes mass.  It includes a lot of things, but as long as we can find a Lagrangian formulation for our laws of physics, then there is SOMETHING we can call energy that is conserved over time.

So when some physicists tell you that they have faith in the conservation of energy, they're telling you that:

a) They accept the mathematical proof of Noether's theorem; and

b) They believe that the laws of physics will continue to be expressible in a time-invariant Lagrangian form.

And they'd probably be right.  The thing is, of course, that this "energy" that is conserved isn't the energy we learned about in grade school, i.e., the "ability to do work".  It is some "bunch of stuff" plus the "ability to do work", and if that bunch of stuff includes something we don't care about that can be reduced without significant bounds, well, then the "ability to do work" can grow without significant bounds for "free".

So, even if the laws of physics don't allow for "free energy" today, as long as we continue to discover new things about the universe, the definition of "energy" will continue to change, and you can have hope that free energy will emerge as a possibility even though the law of conservation of energy remains inviolate.


Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy

Yeah, that was way out there dude. hehehe Weiw It like confirms all my prejudgements I was trying to suppress. I thank you for the accurate layman explanation.

As an inventor things just don't get pseudoscientific enough for me.

I will explain even tho I know the consequences The thing is zero point energy proves that an equilibrium doesn't exist. The system may want to go there but it never actually gets there. ha-ha!

If we are not going to honestly measure the flows of our so called energy content at each stage of the translation but rather assume it's always the same we are never going to figure it out.  Maybe it was not the physics idea to ignore how the universe works. Maybe we are just spinning some old wheel?

I will tell you that every reaction that ever happened in this universe influenced every other reaction, every particle was a crucial ingredient to make it the way it is today. Analog is really analog and nothing else. One should appreciate what analog means.

What it means is best illustrated with an example.

Say you drop a stone 10 kg from a height of 73 cm.... ..... then that changes everything! The planet will resonate as a whole, the solar system will then vigorously shake as a direct result thereof! Then the galaxy! And eventually you will have absolutely changed the universe as a whole! Nothing will ever be the same again. Equilibrium just doesn't happen in a million years.

So I envision the whole principal of equating things to be wrong. Say there are 3 or more sides to an equation, all with a starting figure and a constant factor of change. Like 3 or more magnets magnetising each other. We already have perpetual motion at the micro and the macro scale. This cant be that hard? LOL! Unless of course everyone is trained to be ignorant up to the point of aggressively attacking the innocent and harmless inventors. Like that the person ain't going to figure out anything, it's not like I have to guess to know.

You know that Lenz law stuffs right? What my most limited understanding can bake of it is that if an electromagnet is attracting a permanent magnet it is squeezed together. If it's repelling one it's wants to expand.

[- +] (-) squeeze

[- +] (+) expand

But what if we make a 3 way equation and have the electromagnet both pull and push at the same time!

[- +] (+) [- +]

Now we get 2 times the work and most of the coil is outside the permanent magnetic flux. It just doesn't draw more current and it doesn't create less electromagnetic flux either.

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary

It's a little less complicated as the Newman motor, Joe Newman used 1 magnet with the coil around it, that way there are 4 interactions with the magnets for each pulse.

Jet, if everything really has to be conservative.... Take a coil and a pm, you get just as much energy back into the coil as that what you put in to attract the pm. There is no way of getting the pm off the coil without making this electricity. The kinetic energy loss from departure is the same as the gain from approach. No energy was used but the mass sure moved, people also call this SMOT ramps (adds pun) There is not much to equate with 3 points of interaction. The reaction forces are very different in size as that what goes in. It may just be a hypothesis I can show you quite good proofs of it.

Thanks again for explaining the theorem.