Exploring Theories that Violate Conservation of Energy Law

[raptor5618]

[crackpot link deleted]

I came across this document when I did a Goggle on theories that violate the conservation of energy law. As I read about Einstein he felt it necessary to look at every ting cynically, even universally accepted laws such as those developed by Newton.

Later on I also read that as he was working on a theory one of the requirements was that it did not violate the conservation of energy law. I wondered if there were theories that attempt to reconsider this law.

This paper states that not only are their ideas how this law can be violated but presents some examples of when it is violated. Other than the expanding universe example I have to think the others seem to be more of a marketing gimmick than a factual representation.

So is this document at least partially valid? Are there theories that attempt to dispute the conservation of energy law?

 

[Dale]

Hi Raptor,

You might want to look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy" page.

The basic idea of Noether's theorem is that all conservation laws arise from some symmetry principle. For the specific example of conservation of energy the symmetry is time translation. So, if your theory consists of a set of laws that are invariant under time translation, then your theory must conserve energy.

 

[russ_watters]

I've asked some other mentors to comment specifically on the points made in that link, but I've deleted the link itself. That site is the personal website of a very famous crackpot and it should be obvious from looking at the "paper" that it is mostly just crackpot ramblings, complaining about the "establishment".

edit: I've only actually found one point in it: He claims the "nram effect" violates CoE. I'm not familiar with that, but since it states there that it is a resonance phenomena, my gut tells me this is just another example of a relatively common problem: people don't understand resonance. Resonance is an increasing amplitude of oscillation due to repetitive input force in phase with the oscillation. It does not violate CoE.

He also claims that dark matter is a violation of CoE. It isn't. He's just bellyaching there.

And that's really all he has there. Not much. I'm going to lock this pending input from other mods.

In any case:

So is this document at least partially valid? Are there theories that attempt to dispute the conservation of energy law?

You miss the point of the article. The author is not trying to show that conservation of energy is invalid, he's trying to shoot down relativity because [he says] it violates conservation of energy.

 

[HallsofIvy]

And, by the way, Einstein looked at thing "critically", not "cynically". I doubt that Einstein was ever cynical.