B Can a Planet Made of Glass Generate Free Energy?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of whether a planet made of glass with mirror walls could generate free energy through light blueshifting in a gravitational field. It is noted that while light can blueshift when moving down a gravitational well, it experiences a corresponding redshift on the return journey, resulting in no net energy gain. The initial premise of vacuum antigravitating and generating energy is deemed incorrect. Consequently, the inquiry into the potential for free energy from such a system is considered flawed. The thread concludes that the premise does not hold, leading to its closure.
Pony
Messages
39
Reaction score
10
As far as I know, if vacuum antigravitates, it makes the light that travels through it redshift, e.g. in a very large empty box with mirror walls, light will just lose energy.

I am interested in the reverse effect, if we had a very large box or planet with mirror walls, that is filled with something that gravitates, will that make the light inside of it blueshift, and generate free energy (negentropy)? ((Thus allowing mankind to exist forever, at least according to the currect state of physics.))
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Pony said:
As far as I know, if vacuum antigravitates...
It doesn't, and without that premise the rest of the question makes no sense. Light can be blueshifted as it moves down in a gravitational well, but there is a corresponding redshift on the way back up so no net energy gain from bouncing the light back and forth through the planet.

As it is based on a mistaken premise this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Likes Delta2, Motore, anorlunda and 2 others

Thread 'Jackson: justification of the Poynting vector by GR'

The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Energy loss of a photon
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Where the extra energy comes from?
Replies
9
Views
2K
B Why doesn't cosmic inflation violate conservation of energy?
Replies
3
Views
3K
B Can Dark Matter Explain Black Holes and the Mysterious Planet-Nine?
2
Replies
73
Views
8K
A How Does a Particle's Energy State Change in a Non-Uniform 2D Corridor?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
Replies
21
Views
5K
A Spacetime Engineering by Superposition of GWs: Feasible in Theory?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Dimension change of opening through concrete slab expansion
Replies
6
Views
3K
Can Solar Power Be Used to Produce Fuel from Air for Nighttime Energy Storage?
Replies
19
Views
3K
Passive offshore desalination plant
Replies
4
Views
3K