Really? Man! Sounds like I'm missing out on my reading. I'm not familiar with any theories that are concordant with currently accepted science that makes such claims. Do you have a link... preferably to a peer-reviewed article, or a preprint?

It's the "center of the universe" part that I was especially wondering about

Think back to mathematics people... an equation (basic algebra for those who don't follow this field professionally):

16 = 8x + 24

how do you solve for x? set the equation to equal to zero and solve. (it's -1 to simplify things a bit :P )

My point being that you cannot create energy without using energy. Every time you go to do so you are setting your convertion equation to zero.

Hope that helped ^^

16 = 8x + 24

how do you solve for x? set the equation to equal to zero and solve. (it's -1 to simplify things a bit :P )
How does the above logically lead to:

My point being that you cannot create energy without using energy. Every time you go to do so you are setting your convertion equation to zero.
?

Purpose of saying that was to show that you always have the two things cancel out (both sides of an equation OR the energy needed to create the potential energy to turn into kinetic)

Rational thinking and a low tolerance for ignorance is all that is needed.

dst
How does the above logically lead to:

?

By definition, loss in energy of type X = gain in energy of type Y. Hence loss + gain = 0.

By definition, loss in energy of type X = gain in energy of type Y. Hence loss + gain = 0.
Thank you for explaning that dst.

To be a bit more correct it would equal a negative number because there is never a perfect convertion in nature... there is always friction, momentum, weight, etc to deal with ^^ but I don't believe people get the point... the point is that you cannot simply just tap into a system of energy in hopes to harness it without having to put energy back into that system (through potential or kinetic energy... the example of the Niagra Falls is a good one... ^^).

I do wish you are following.

Last edited:
So the analogy of energy conservation was to that of a simple algebraic equation?*
I disagree with your reasoning here. You've shown that x=-1 in that example, thats it.

Also: I can write down an equation where conservation of energy is broken, it doesn't mean it is so. You cannot use mathematics to show the conservation of energy. Although from Noether's theorem, if you have physical 'laws' with invariance under time translation then you have conservation of energy.

Even this strong result means nothing if someday we measure the physical constants to have changed slightly and there is nothing logically stopping this from happening. Reality is the feedback for all of our models, what we do on paper is wonderful (and fun but it is reality that will win out.

*{sounds like the opening line to some rap song :P}

dst
So the analogy of energy conservation was to that of a simple algebraic equation?*
I disagree with your reasoning here. You've shown that x=-1 in that example, thats it.

Also: I can write down an equation where conservation of energy is broken, it doesn't mean it is so. You cannot use mathematics to show the conservation of energy. Although from Noether's theorem, if you have physical 'laws' with invariance under time translation then you have conservation of energy.

Even this strong result means nothing if someday we measure the physical constants to have changed slightly and there is nothing logically stopping this from happening. Reality is the feedback for all of our models, what we do on paper is wonderful (and fun but it is reality that will win out.

*{sounds like the opening line to some rap song :P}

Not at all. Energy conservation is something that can only be proven inductively in reality. Saying otherwise is religion (and really is, a core concept in Abrahamic faiths), not science.

Breaking conservation of energy leads to breaking conservation of mass and that is where things get out of hand. Outside of that, I can't see why not.

Not at all. Energy conservation is something that can only be proven inductively in reality. Saying otherwise is religion (and really is, a core concept in Abrahamic faiths), not science.
You can prove things inductively in maths, not in measurement. For as long as we have measured properly, the conservation of energy principle has not been broken. We are assuming that it will continue to do so. We are in fact saying a similar thing here though, I'm just weary of using the word proof outside of mathematics.

Breaking conservation of energy leads to breaking conservation of mass and that is where things get out of hand. Outside of that, I can't see why not.
How do you mean?
Mass is energy.

What you and I can both agree on though, is that it is reality (i.e. What we can measure), that beats paper and pencil.

dst
Inductively, as opposed to deductively. This you can do for anything. I don't mean mathematical induction

Yes, mass is energy. Hence what I said. It does not seem immediately apparent to most people as to why we cannot have a free lunch (although the careful intuition will find it blindingly obvious). On the other hand, how many crackpots have you seen talking about creation of mass?

In the case of an electric generator operated by a waterfall, the energy comes from the sun. The water flows down, the water evaporates, it rains on the land upstream from the waterfall, it flows down again.

Last edited:
If mass is energy, then thus all energy can be created into mass, hence possible a mass>energy conversion.

Thats what $$E=m_0c^2$$ means, the rest mass of an object multiplied by the speed of light squared is the the energy that the mass has intrinsically.

Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
hence possible a mass>energy conversion.
This is the process which drives nuclear reactors in power stations, submarines etc.

Thats what $$E=m_0c^2$$ means, the rest mass of an object multiplied by the speed of light squared is the the energy that the mass has intrinsically.
Firstly, I'm a beginer when it comes to this, so don't quote me on anything...

To elaborate even further, this also means that an object with no mass will behave as if it has a mass equal to that relation. That is, a photon (that has no rest mass) will act as if it has $$fh/c^2$$ mass. To explain, we get that by realizing f=frequency, h=plancks constant, multiplying them yields the energy of the photon. The rest of the equation as $$E=mc^2$$ moved around, that is, $$E=mc^2, E/c^2=m, E=fh$$, so we get $$fh/c^2=m$$ So a photon with a frequency, f, will act as if it has a mass of $$fh/c^2$$.

Speaking of energy being made, I read something about zero point energy, virtual particles, or vacuum energy if you will.
I heard few educated people saying that energy actually can be "destroyed and made" such as in the Casimir Effect.

Not at all. Energy conservation is something that can only be proven inductively in reality. Saying otherwise is religion (and really is, a core concept in Abrahamic faiths), not science.
For a conservative system the mechanical energy of that system can be proved to be conserved, i.e. it is a theorem. However the general law of the conservation of energy cannot be proven. It is a Law of Physics (aka axiom, postulate). Laws of Physics are used in physics as basic principles. All derivations of physical theorems are based on theorems and laws. Eventually one gets to a point where something has to be postulated and used as a basic starting point.

You're assertion that Saying otherwise is religion its about the furthest thing from the truth. Religion is an idea which is based on the concept of God (or gods). That certainly has nothing to do with science.

The following statement was originally drafted by the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) of the American Physical Society, in an attempt to meet the perceived need for a very short statement that would differentiate science from pseudoscience. Am. J. Phys. 67 (8), August 1999. The question being answered is What is Science? The answer given by the American Physical Society is as follows
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to:

(1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials;

(2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.

Therefore Laws (aka postulates aka axioms etc.) are part of science in the most strictest sense of the term.
Breaking conservation of energy leads to breaking conservation of mass and that is where things get out of hand. Outside of that, I can't see why not.
Incorrect. Conservation of mass is a theorem which can be derived from the principle of relativity and the law of conservation of 3-momentum (which is postulated to hold in all inertial frames of reference). That's not too hard to prove either. Would you like to see the derivation?

Pete

You can prove things inductively in maths, not in measurement. For as long as we have measured properly, the conservation of energy principle has not been broken. We are assuming that it will continue to do so. We are in fact saying a similar thing here though, I'm just weary of using the word proof outside of mathematics.

How do you mean?
Mass is energy.

What you and I can both agree on though, is that it is reality (i.e. What we can measure), that beats paper and pencil.
The topic of mass-energy conversion is currently being discussed in another thread. If you'd like to review it then you can find it at