Is the law of conservation of energy right?

Is the law of conservation of energy right?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I do not know.
0 voters

Is the law of conservation of energy right?


Is the universe an isolated system, thus something like a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass?

Those are two different questions. The first, “is energy conserved” is most certainly absolutely true. But the second, “is the universe enclosed”, is certainly absolutely false.

So which did you really want as the poll question?

Yes, of course, and they are meant as two different questions too (therefore the line: " --------- ").

The first one of course. The first one is the title of this thread. So it is also the most relevat question of this thread.

The second one is merely relevant when it comes to bring both questions together, for example when we are referring to results of some thermodynamic experiments that can be (but should be?) and are used as premises for the laws of thermodynamics, thus also for the law of conservation of energy.

Durch_Dampf_betriebener_Motor.gif

I think the universe begins infinite then finds a curve, where the infinite ‘lines’ gain a value probably pi and retract into a finite mass. The amount would be at a rough estimation, ∞ - pi as an exponent, so you quickly get down to a condensation of the infinite energy into a singularity i.e. where the energy can be compressed no more. Ergo there is a limited amount of energy derivative of an infinite amount of it, so it is ‘the whole’ of all energy and hence conserved.

  • answered, yes.

The law of conservation works in every system we have been able to observe so far.
“Universe” is a word that designates everything that exists.
We know very little about its scope or possible limits.

That engine is better functioning when a turbine engine (another that I “re”-invented many years ago).

The conservation of energy, although stated as the first “law” of thermodynamics, is actually first derived by definitions, postulates, and non-thermo experiments (electrical, momentum, and gravitational). It is actually true by definition, and is provably true by logic (regardless of experiments).

“Potential energy” is the term for any situation that can bring about “kinetic energy”. And unknown to most people, “kinetic energy” is the term for whatever brings about a situation of potential energy. And further, the amount of each is determined by how much each can produce of the other. So if a kinetic process did not yield enough potential energy, then the amount of kinetic energy was less … and more often, vsvrsa. It has always been a circular measurement, although I don’t know that they ever realized that.

The second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, should also be considered.

So do you think that the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is true or false?

You will have to state the exact wording of that one before I could answer it. The wording has changed at least 5 times since it was first proposed. Maxwell blew away the original pretty quickly over 140 years ago, but they kept preaching it as their new religion. Since then they keep changing the wording to try to make it into something that is coherent with science evidence.

Sp which version are you asking about? :sunglasses:

We alraedy had this subject in my “Universe and Time” thread:

More:

This one is no longer about the theory, nor the discussion, nor philosophy. It is about the wording. You must state the exact wording for logic to be properly applied toward sensible conclusion.

Exactly state the proposed “law”.

What seems infinite to us may not be to something else. This planet may seem infinite to an insect, but it is not infinite to us. Micro to macro, as above so below.

Energy never ceases to exist, it changes. Evolution perhaps.

Let’s take this statement:

And maybe we can take this in order to answer the question what entropy is:

That is absolutely false.

That is also false. Entropy is not a causal agency, thus cannot “account for” anything. Entropy is merely a measure of what is present, not why it is that way.

That is also false. Entropy is not defined by the state of energy, but of pattern or distribution in space (of anything). An example from Wiki:

An example of the failing of such a law would be what happens to a large spherical chamber of mixed gases out in space over time. Over time, the gases will separate with the heavier gases in the center of the chamber. The end steady state situation is less random than it began - lower entropy.

Both gravity and life (among others) defeats the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”. It is actually not a “law”, but rather a natural propensity. “Maxwell’s Demon” was an abstract concept used to show how it wasn’t a law very long ago. My own “KD project” more physically proved it back in 1972. There have been a variety of systems that over-come randomness, “trapping systems”, and also increase energy state when energy is allowed to randomly enter the system. Subatomic particles defeat the law when first growing and resist the law while maintaining. Objects in space can gradually collect over time due to gravitational migration, becoming less random - lower entropy.

“Yes, Virginia. There really is such a thing as Anti-entropy and Anentropy.”

Did you notice that my quote was a “Wiki” quote?

Thus “Wiki” wrote:

Yeah, but they are merely telling of what the law states. They cannot testify as to whether it is really true. The greatest error is merely in calling it a “law”.

in German it is not called “Gesetz” (“law”) but merely “Hauptsatz” (“main clause” => “main theorem”). :wink:

But do they keep preaching it to be a true theorem?? Or more of a often-true consequence?

Just out of curiosity, how does nature distinguish between ordered and less ordered? Surely it would see different patterns, and randomness as one of them.

It sounds a little strange, but actually “nature distinguishes” (whatever that means) order from disorder by virtue of speed. That which is ordered merely remains closer to as it was for a longer time, thus establishing a “fixed pattern” (for at least a short duration) and thus an “order” to be discerned by a mind, labeled, and used for prediction.

The very first/lowest “order in nature” is that of a sphere of dense EMR noise, known as a “subatomic particle”. Its enduring shape allows for all higher ordered structures to form (atoms, molecules,…). The sphere only forms due to the traffic jam of noise retarding any change in the over all cluster.