On Law of Conservation of Energy and its misuse

<!– @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } –>

On Law of Conservation of Energy and its misuse

By Euler

06/04/2006

One the most cited reason for the outright rejection of overunity phenomena is the law of conservation of energy, namely the output can’t be greater than its input. Thus it follow from such ‘logic’ that such invention must be invalid. This commentary is to expose the faulty logic at work there.

First, unlike most overunity inventor intended to challenge the validity of such a statement, I concur with this statement as a tautology can never be wrong. Please notice this position is differ from the dogmatic scientific community who accept this as ultimate truth of universe. There are two senses of validity of a statement: internal validity and external validity. i.e. The dogmatic scientific community accept this concept is both internally valid(logical) and externally valid(an accurate description of reality) And my position is that as a statement this can never be wrong, though it is still an open question of the external validity.

Extended from my perspective also is the conclusion this concept can never be conclusively proven wrong by any experiment in philosophical sense. Why? There is no way to argue with the assumptions inherited in this law of conservation of energy this law could be invalid. The idea is essential a derivate of concept of object permanence: Something there WITHOUT change will always be there. The asserter of this law can NEVER prove this statement without discarding all the assumptions behind this law. Ask them to devise an experiment that would definitely prove or disprove this law is not much different from ask Christian to devise an non-refutable argument for Atheism.

The idea of devising an definitive experiment to test this law as an assertion rest at the heart of this discussion. One thing we just don’t admit is that there is simply impossible for our technology to account for all the energies and all the respective transformation of all the energies in any simple physical process. It is doubtful that the technologies who ever able to accomplish that. There is an inherited technicality to do this experiment. The more challenging part would be to base this measurement not on any assumptions inherited in this law.

Even if it is technical possible to account for every joule of energies, the mere coincidence of decrease of one coupled with increase in another doesn’t prove the transformation of one form of energy to another form does happen. It can be explain by an alternative hypothesis that energy is dissipated in one form and recreated in another form. There is never going to be a way to distinguish between two hypothesis without restoring to utilize the assumption inherited in this law.

The reality is that this hypothesis has been applied many times in many places then we assume that is an accurate description of reality. But please don’t forgot that in most of the cases, this hypothesis is dealing with well-understood physical process in mechanical realm. In such cases, we can simply draw a flow chart to explain the details of the physical processes. Could we therefore draw conclusion from this familiar processes to those which we are less familiar(like electromagnetic field)? The unstated and untested assumption is that those two realms has shared enough similarity to warrant this hypothesis derived from one realm to be applied in another realm. This is the second problem.

The third and the biggest problem in misapplication of this law is the accountability assumption: Although we can account with reasonable precision the processes of energies transformation in one set of phenomena, can we be equally confident that we can account for all the processes of energies transformations in another set of phenomena? Given we don’t understood much about the true nature of gravity and electromagnetic phenomena, to make such a conclusion is unscientific . And then the biggest faculty logic ever appear in the science: If there is an amount of energy which I can’t figure out the sources and processes, then it follow that amount of energy can never exist!

In my understanding of scientific processes, theory itself can never be used to over rule validity of fact. If a claimed overunity process can be tested and experimented repeatedly and openly, then no amount of theorization could rule out this fact. All science should start with fact and end with theory. The law of conservation of energy is a tautology can never be refuted, there is not such thing as an overunity process but only a physical process that we are not understood completely.(therefore fail to locate the sources of energy) The existence of overunity phenomena demonstrate the inadequacy of existing framework of science. We could use this law to rule out some design that obviously wouldn’t work, but we can’t we use this law to predict what design we would have.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: