Energy Conservation - Revision history

Frobnicat: /* Kinetic Energy Implications */

2015-08-07T22:09:07Z

Kinetic Energy Implications

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 7 August 2015
Line 44:		Line 44:
	</math>		</math>

	So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is ~~exponential~~, and the velocity and energy input is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.		So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is quadratic, and the velocity and energy input is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.

	[[File:kvt.png\|50px]]		[[File:kvt.png\|50px]]

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument */

2015-06-07T03:55:47Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 6 June 2015
Line 56:		Line 56:
	''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''		''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

	== ~~The free~~-energy ~~paradox for the EM Drive should not become~~ a ~~straw man argument~~ ==		== Free-energy is a just a consequence of incorrectly assuming that constant acceleration will result from constant input power ==

	This "paradox" is not longer a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just ~~addresses~~ a ~~possible misunderstanding~~. ~~The~~ misunderstanding of making the assumptions that		This "paradox" is not longer a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just a result of unwarranted assumptions. It is a misunderstanding that arises from making the assumptions that

	1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and		1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and

127.0.0.1 at 03:51, 7 June 2015

2015-06-07T03:51:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 6 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument ==~~

	This "paradox" is not longer a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the assumptions that

	~~1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and~~

	~~2) that one can ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.~~

	Initially, that the acceleration cannot be constant at constant power may not be obvious. But once this becomes obvious (and @frobnicat made an excellent argument to explain this) to continue to use these assumptions becomes unwarranted and eventually it becomes a straw man argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

	This is not a debunking proof, all that the "paradox" proves, is that one cannot have free energy: that the assumption of constant acceleration at constant power is untenable. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

	== Implications of Constant Thrust ==		== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

Line 62:		Line 50:
	There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s in the direction of the constellation Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.		There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s in the direction of the constellation Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.

	~~===~~In Summary~~===~~		In Summary

	If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or special relativity falls, or both.		If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or special relativity falls, or both.

			''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

			== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument ==

			This "paradox" is not longer a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the assumptions that

			1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and

	'~~'See [[Talk~~:~~Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this~~.''		2) that one can ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

			Initially, that the acceleration cannot be constant at constant power may not be obvious. But once this becomes obvious (and @frobnicat made an excellent argument to explain this) to continue to use these assumptions becomes unwarranted and eventually it becomes a straw man argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

			This is not a debunking proof, all that the "paradox" proves, is that one cannot have free energy: that the assumption of constant acceleration at constant power is untenable. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument */

2015-06-06T22:34:55Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 6 June 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Initially, that the acceleration cannot be constant at constant power may not be obvious. But once this becomes obvious (and @frobnicat made an excellent argument to explain this) to continue to use these assumptions becomes unwarranted and eventually it becomes a straw man argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.		Initially, that the acceleration cannot be constant at constant power may not be obvious. But once this becomes obvious (and @frobnicat made an excellent argument to explain this) to continue to use these assumptions becomes unwarranted and eventually it becomes a straw man argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

	~~All~~ that the "paradox" proves, is that one cannot have free energy~~, and~~ that the assumption of constant acceleration at constant power is untenable. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.		This is not a debunking proof, all that the "paradox" proves, is that one cannot have free energy: that the assumption of constant acceleration at constant power is untenable. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

	== Implications of Constant Thrust ==		== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

127.0.0.1 at 22:33, 6 June 2015

2015-06-06T22:33:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 6 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument ==		== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive should not become a straw man argument ==

	This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the ~~'''unwarranted'''~~ assumptions that		This "paradox" is not longer a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the assumptions that

	1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and		1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and
Line 7:		Line 7:
	2) that one can ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.		2) that one can ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

	~~The paradox can~~ be ~~viewed as~~ a ~~strawman~~. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.		Initially, that the acceleration cannot be constant at constant power may not be obvious. But once this becomes obvious (and @frobnicat made an excellent argument to explain this) to continue to use these assumptions becomes unwarranted and eventually it becomes a straw man argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

	All that the "paradox" proves~~, again~~, is that one cannot have free energy. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The main argument against the EM Drive has always rested on conservation of momentum. That is what needs to be addressed: conservation of momentum. There is no author that has proposed abandoning the law of conservation of momentum. All authors have come up with one way or another to satisfy conservation of momentum, but there is no convincing proof that momentum can be conserved in the EM Drive to this date.		All that the "paradox" proves, is that one cannot have free energy, and that the assumption of constant acceleration at constant power is untenable. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

	== Implications of Constant Thrust ==		== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument */

2015-06-06T20:30:33Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 6 June 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The paradox can be viewed as a strawman. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.		The paradox can be viewed as a strawman. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

	All that the "paradox" proves, again, is that one cannot have free energy. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The main argument against the EM Drive has always rested on conservation of momentum. That is what needs to be addressed: conservation of momentum. There is no author that has proposed abandoning the law of conservation of momentum. All authors have come up with one way or another to satisfy conservation of momentum, but there is no convincing proof that momentum can be conserved in the EM Drive to this date.		All that the "paradox" proves, again, is that one cannot have free energy. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The main argument against the EM Drive has always rested on conservation of momentum. That is what needs to be addressed: conservation of momentum. There is no author that has proposed abandoning the law of conservation of momentum. All authors have come up with one way or another to satisfy conservation of momentum, but there is no convincing proof that momentum can be conserved in the EM Drive to this date.

	== Implications of Constant Thrust ==		== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument */

2015-06-06T20:30:10Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 6 June 2015
Line 5:		Line 5:
	1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and		1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and

	2) that one can ignore the 2nd ~~law~~ of thermodynamics.		2) that one can ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

	The paradox can be viewed as a strawman. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.		The paradox can be viewed as a strawman. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument */

2015-06-06T15:36:01Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 6 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument ==		== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument ==

	This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the '''unwarranted'~~''''Italic text~~'' assumptions that		This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the '''unwarranted''' assumptions that

	1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and		1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument */

2015-06-06T15:35:45Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 6 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument ==		== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument ==

	This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the unwarranted assumptions that		This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the '''unwarranted'''''Italic text'' assumptions that

	1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and		1) one can have constant acceleration at constant power ad infinitum and

127.0.0.1: /* The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a strawman argument */

2015-06-06T15:34:40Z

The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a strawman argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 6 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a ~~strawman~~ argument ==		== The free-energy paradox for the EM Drive is a straw man argument ==

	This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the unwarranted assumptions that		This "paradox" is not a proper paradox (a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true), but like most paradoxes in Physics it just addresses a possible misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of making the unwarranted assumptions that
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The paradox can be viewed as a strawman. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.		The paradox can be viewed as a strawman. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition (that there can be an EM Drive) by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") (that EM Drive implies constant acceleration at constant power) and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") (that the EM Drive necessarily implies free energy) instead of the original proposition.

	All that the "paradox" proves, again, is that one cannot have free energy. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The main argument against the EM Drive has always rested on conservation of momentum. That is what needs to be addressed: conservation of momentum. There is no author that has proposed abandoning the law of conservation of momentum. All authors have come up with one way or another to satisfy conservation of momentum, but there is no convincing proof that momentum can be conserved in the EM Drive to this date.		All that the "paradox" proves, again, is that one cannot have free energy. It certainly does not prove that there cannot be an EM Drive that respects the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The main argument against the EM Drive has always rested on conservation of momentum. That is what needs to be addressed: conservation of momentum. There is no author that has proposed abandoning the law of conservation of momentum. All authors have come up with one way or another to satisfy conservation of momentum, but there is no convincing proof that momentum can be conserved in the EM Drive to this date.


	== Implications of Constant Thrust ==		== Implications of Constant Thrust ==