Is there always a fixed amount of energy?
#1
Posted 26 May 2008 - 07:55 PM
according to our determinedly dopey Prime Minister Mr Brown, Obama also has a beach in Normandy named after him. If that can't win you an election, what can?
#2
Posted 26 May 2008 - 08:04 PM
Oh, and if conservation of energy is true, then converting the potential energy into electricity, while retaining the potential energy would obviously require creating new energy, which you've said is impossible.
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#3
Posted 26 May 2008 - 08:37 PM
according to our determinedly dopey Prime Minister Mr Brown, Obama also has a beach in Normandy named after him. If that can't win you an election, what can?
#4
Posted 26 May 2008 - 09:38 PM
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#5
Posted 27 May 2008 - 10:12 AM
1) High object with potential energy
2) Potential energy converted to electricity
3) High object with no potential energy
4) Gravity acts upon object so object now has potential energy
according to our determinedly dopey Prime Minister Mr Brown, Obama also has a beach in Normandy named after him. If that can't win you an election, what can?
#7
Posted 27 May 2008 - 08:54 PM
anyway, trying to bring back low-value energy to a more useful medium is, as far as we know, just waste of high-value energy. We can turn lead into gold, but it's not worth it
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#8
Posted 27 May 2008 - 09:36 PM
You know, I had thought of that before. If you put two portals above each other, you'd get a wind tunnel. But eventually the continuous force acting on earth from the air particles would cause it to be lodged from orbit.get portal gun, make some giant tube with water flowing through a generator at the bottom, profit.... or would it ultimately cause the destabilization of the earth's trajectory because we are stealing energy from its gravity?
#9
Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:57 AM
according to our determinedly dopey Prime Minister Mr Brown, Obama also has a beach in Normandy named after him. If that can't win you an election, what can?
#10
Posted 28 May 2008 - 04:22 PM
The energy that would be gained from the falling object would inevitably be being used to push the object back up, thus keeping it in a state of permanent equilibrium and producing no excess.
It is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but no conversion of energy into one form or another is 100% efficient. Even if your hypothetical infinite-energy solution were even possible, it would fail because so much of its energy would be lost in a) keeping it suspended and b) as heat or sound or whatever.
Edited by Ash, 28 May 2008 - 04:22 PM.
#11
Posted 28 May 2008 - 06:25 PM
I know exactly what you're saying, I was trying to get you to see how what you were saying was wrong based on what you yourself said. It didn't work, and there is a much better explanation of potential energy now than I was willing to waste time typing up.Ok I'll try to make you see what I'm saying:
1) High object with potential energy
2) Potential energy converted to electricity
3) High object with no potential energy
4) Gravity acts upon object so object now has potential energy
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#12
Posted 29 May 2008 - 12:27 AM
You are holding a box as you climb a mountain. As you climb higher, the potential energy of the box inside the gradient of gravity increases. Where does that energy come from? From the work you performed on the box as you lift it higher. Eventually, you've reached a certain height. Now if you dropped the box and let it fall down again, the work you performed will be turned into kinetic energy by earth's gravity. As the box falls, most of its kinetic energy will be turned into heat. And when the box hits the ground, the energy will be transferred to the Earth as well as more heat.
What if there's no gravity? You need a force to be able to perform work. And when you lift the box, you exert a force to counter gravity. Without gravity, you need no force to lift the box and therefore perform no work while it is moved to the top of the mountain.
#13
Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:02 PM
There is no limit to energy nor to the power it can create
Streamer of Rise of the Reds, Mental Omega and other mods
#14
Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:27 PM
#16
Posted 10 November 2009 - 11:53 PM
(Since we're back on course) Sure, the Universe has a fixed amount of energy. Suns and planets are just collections of atoms that floated through space that met up and can live in a symbiotic sphere of matter. Well... most planets. Some skipped a thousand steps and just broke off of other planets and formed their own. Until we prove that theory wrong, we scientists will still be saying it.
Where did the atoms come from?
Don't you dare say the Butterfly Effect! More plausible than the Big Bang, but still...
There... elaborated. Topic dead again.
Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 10 November 2009 - 11:54 PM.
#17
Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:42 AM
Atoms were created when the universe settle down enough so that they didn't get destroyed the instant they were created. They were being created even before then but the forces just ripped them apart straight away.
or something like that.
#18
Posted 11 November 2009 - 11:22 AM
LOL. That's the beginnings of a standing joke, right there! I'll keep it in mind for future necroposters.I got a momentary chuckle when i first saw this post and ash was the latest posted. Just the fact that someone necro'd this thread and then someone from the undead user group made a post.
#19
Posted 11 November 2009 - 01:15 PM
#20
Posted 18 November 2009 - 09:52 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users