Science says "energy can not be created or destroyed."

It's a sophistry. Once energy has been dissipated into a temperature gradient of sufficient smoothness, it is functionally gone. You don't need to know more than that unless you're an engineer, a physicist, or a scientific hobbyist, in which cases I wouldn't expect you to be asking the question here.

>>19372214
Its based on observation of local phenomena that suggest the universe is compact, and therefore there is a fixed amount of energy in existence. We do not have empirical proof that the universe is, in fact, compact. Nor do we know the total energy content (hence the prolific interest in, and use of, gauge theories at the cosmological scale). For our purposes, though, the laws of thermodynamics have worked well enough. Moreover, examination of the typical over-unity device reveals internal power supplies, hidden motors, or various other tactics used to create the illusion of perpetual motion.

Why compactness? The net content of a scalar field defined over a compact manifold is conserved, as compactness requires zero net divergence in the gradient of said field (see: "the hairy ball theorem"). In other words, there appears to be no "outer universe" into/from which energy can transfer. Ergo, it is all trapped here.

I'm familiar with the various claims behind the device pictured (the SEG). I believe Searl once made claims about its over-unity nature, then later retracted them in place of claims that its essentially some kind of electro-thermal reaction which causes a cooling effect. Note also, his original claim was that it could serve as some kind of propulsion system, and that his first prototype flew away, never to be found again (such claims are typical of cranks, including the survival of supposed visits from MIB).

>>19372221
it's not gone, guy, it was turned into heat. your own words state the same. and yes, phD engineer here.

Energy can not be created or destroyed, at least that we've ever seen, which means 99.9999% sure that's the case. it can be converted to heat or matter however. e=mc^2.
freshman physics, look into it.
not shitting on your question, but yes, there is no debate. it's true

>>19372214
I want to piggy back on this and ask where air goes in the vacuum of space. Does it just fly around like a deflating balloon and join some air bubble in space? Or just dissipate into molecules and join the void?

>>19373566
"air" doesn't GO anywhere. it's just MUCH more widely dispersed and rare. again, freshman physics. c'mon people

>>19373566
Atoms of the atmosphere carried away into space generally remain intact. They can be broken down due to collisions with other fast moving particles, but they don't "deflate".

From Earth, they are carried away by the solar wind - other charged particles - which are either captured by the gravitational pull of a planet on their way out, or they might enter interstellar space where they join other atoms, possibly participate in the formation of a gravity well and then a star.

You know how when lava reaches the surface it hardens into rock? What I'm curious about is what happens when the lava on the sun hardens. Is that how planets are formed?

It's some half-wit's opinion which serves no purpose.

>>19373579
>>19373580
Thanks to both.

Just wondering because after decompression under water the air immediately rises to the top. Just wondering how that would work in ye olde space.

>>19373582
The Sun is formed of burning hydrogen and contains no lava.

>>19373586
Believe it or not, interstellar space is filled with highly ionized hydrogen atoms.

Also, generating very high vacuum requires a special kind of pump, called a turbomolecular pump. Essentially, just a turbine that very rapidly "paddles away" any molecules that get near it. This is necessary, since "suction" is actually due to a lower pressure on the other side of the pump, and since there are so few atoms at high vacuum, there is not enough there to push what remains towards the valve. This is also why we can't create perfect vacuums.

>>19373586
appreciate the thanks, but again, underwater, where there are significant forces of buoyancy and gravity and surface tension, etc. is a very much different state than that in space. Which is not a true vacuum, but very much close.
other dude, >>19373580
is also correct. I was over simplifying, but honestly some research into basic physics will likely answer your questions better than 4chan ever will. although, surprisingly, it's done fairly well thus far. . .
keep wondering. you can't learn properly without questioning
cheers

>>19372214
As far as we know, it's true.
Then again none of these free energy devices like the one in your pic claim to create energy, they claim to draw it from some unknown source.

>>19372221
>>19373561
Unless that heat is used to create more. But there will always be a loss in the process, Which is where efficiency comes into play.

>>19372214
Energy can be created. Since the universe is infinitely expanding, energy is being infinitely created.

>>19373711
sorry, no. as far as we understand, neither energy nor matter is being created. It's just being stretched thinner. . .
doesn't anyone take physics anymore??

>>19373727
>muh freshman physics
we get it bro

>>19373727
Energy is required to stretch something.

>>19372214
Unless you can tap into an external force the universe is the limit of what can be harnessed.

File: 1497312856960.jpg (33KB, 534x566px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 534x566px

>>19372214
What third world school system taught you that. Have you seriously never heard of E = m*c^2?

>>19373582
the sun is a dense cloud of super hot gas.
Almost like plasma.
Sun spots are just areas of slightly cooler gas.
The average surface temperature is 6000c

>>19373733
that's where the head death of the universe comes into play.
The universe is expanding and as such cooling to compensate

>>19373767
>the sun is a dense cloud of super hot gas
Nah m8, pretty sure it's a lava ball

>>19373732
Apologies. Again, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I've just had a few frosty beverages and have been around things of this nature for so long these questions seem rudimentary to me. but I often forget I'm generally dealing with a younger audience. I'd never want any of you to quit wondering or asking questions. You are our future (dear god help us *wink & smile).
Cheers

If you get into micro physics the concept of energy no longer makes sense. It's a simplified concept. A more consistent simplified statement would be that particles can't be created or destroyed, only transformed. Particles not having the traditional meaning of having mass.

Wow! This thread is SUPER spooky and totally paranormal! Not /sci/-related at all :^)

This is from a book I'm reading right now:
"If a body moves, it moves because another body has exerted pressure upon it, and its energy is called kinetic energy; but a body may be subject to pressure and not move appreciably, and then the body is said to possess potential energy. Thus, a bent spring and a raised weight are said to possess potential energy. In either case, an energized body receives its energy by pressure, and has ability to produce pressure on another body. Whether or not it does work on another body depends on the rigidity of the body it acts upon. In any case, it is simply a mechanical action—body A pushes upon body B (Fig. 1). There is no need to assume anything more mysterious than mechanical action."

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29444

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29444/29444-h/29444-h.htm

>>19373936
micro-physics is spooky as fuck

>>19373936
I agree.
>/x/
>/sci/
Pick one.

>>19373878
My god you are a faggot.

>>19373936
What's happening here is OP is having 6 different conversations with himself

>>19372214
It's as true as the simulation running the laws you speak about.
So completely arbitrary outside of the system, but true within it.
Think of the opposite law, "energy can be created or destroyed from nothing"
This means there is an infinite amount of energy. But what would this simulation look like? What would be the nature of it? I think infinite. Maybe all possible permutations of energy. But what would this thing be? God's mind?
I propose that our universe is one simulation within the greatest simulation, GOD'S MIND.
So looking at the inverse of our universe, you find god.
We literally live in the matrix, the most limited universe possible, which isn't even a real universe to begin with, it only looks like this limited universe is all there is.
THE DEMIURGE