Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 894791
• Total Topics: 15739
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 6
• Guests: 25
• Total: 31

### Author Topic: DESTROYING Energy  (Read 12710 times)

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3271
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2018, 06:43:24 AM »
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy. You cannot transfer momentum and expect the same energy because they have different equations.

IF a 100% transfer of energy between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec

Mass 1kg. Energy=2.5J

V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 2.5/1)
=sqrt(5)
=2.236 m/sec

E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(5)^2/2
=5/2
=2.5J

Ask any "top physicist" (or just a "normal" physicist, for that matter) and they will tell you the same.

The 1kg mass moving at 5 m/s has 12.5J and not 2.5J as you have falsely asserted above!  More false assertions by you!

If a 100% transfer of momentum between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(25) m/sec - 5 m/sec and not the sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec as you have falsely asserted!

Mass 1kg. Energy=12.5J

V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 12.5/1)
=sqrt(25)
=5 m/sec

E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(25)^2/2
=25/2
=12.5J

One false assertion after another from EHT!

Gravock

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2018, 06:43:24 AM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3271
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2018, 06:59:38 AM »
Firstly, I have made no claims. Secondly, even if I did decide to do so, I would not need any of your "support", thank you.
Lastly, all the relevant math was in my rebuttal. If you want to argue, show me where it is wrong.

Your math, based on false assertions, is shown to be wrong in my previous post (reply #48)

Yes, I agree that you do not need any support in making false assertions and in misleading and misdirecting the reader!

Case Closed!

Gravock

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3340
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2018, 12:03:08 PM »
kg * m / s

kg * m^2 / s^2

think more slowly

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2018, 12:03:08 PM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3271
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2018, 06:44:52 PM »
kg * m / s

kg * m^2 / s^2

think more slowly

Time should play the part instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and the shortest Time between two points is a curved path!  Mass travels faster on a curve than it does a straight line.  In reality, it's a rectilinear motion through space.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.   The impulse is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied .  Without motion, then there is no Time for the force to impart momentum to it.  Without Time, then there is no force to impart momentum to an object, thus there would be no motion.

The centrifugal force is described by classical mechanics as being a fictitious or fake inertial force.  The Coriolis force is also described by classical mechanics as being a fictitious force.  The Euler force is once again described by classical mechanics as being a fictitious force.  Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame.  Without these three fictitious forces, classical mechanics can't properly describe motion in a rotating reference frame.  Physics also speaks of virtual photons, etc.  Below is a snapshot at wiki on the "Fictitious Forces".  Both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics can't properly describe this universe as being real without fictitious forces, virtual photons, etc.  There is only one thing in this universe that is real, and that is Spirit/Consciousness!  Everything else is an illusion!  The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on what appears to be the same nutbar logic as classical mechanics (fictitious or virtual forces, virtual particles, etc).  Once we realize science has nothing to bring forth that is real, then we can move onto the next level of technological advances.

Think outside of your little deceitful box, which is scientism ( a science falsely so-called)!

Gravock

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3340
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2018, 07:15:08 PM »

The momentum does not have the second unit of time
Because momentum is a relative term.
We require the other relation to determine energy.
It is not energy, it holds no energy, and cannot
Until you interact with it from another relative reference.
If I move at the same velocity as your Kg
It has no momentum.
In fact it has no velocity
We are both standing still

When your Kg impacts something, Then there is energy
Because you do not have one velocity, but Two
m/s * m/s = m^2/s=2
The velocity of your Kg, and the velocity of what it hit.
This is a relative term.

you did not “impart energy into your Kg”
but rather you increased the Kg’s relative velocity with
Which equates to a Kinetic Energy potential, to your reference.
The energy you put into it to change the velocity
is also respective of your reference.

Change the reference, change the energy
Because the relative velocity has changed.
You can do this without making any changes to the Kg.

If your Kg is standing still
and the Earth moves towards it at 1000m/s
it will have the same momentum as if the Kg were moving
1000m/s and the Earth stood still.

without a stationary inertial frame, we don’t know the true
velocity of anything.
only it’s movement relative to our own.

Momentum by itself, cannot be related to Energy.
you need the other factor.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2018, 07:15:08 PM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3271
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2018, 08:33:42 PM »

The momentum does not have the second unit of time
Because momentum is a relative term
.
We require the other relation to determine energy.
It is not energy, it holds no energy, and cannot
Until you interact with it from another relative reference.
If I move at the same velocity as your Kg
It has no momentum.
In fact it has no velocity
We are both standing still

When your Kg impacts something, Then there is energy
Because you do not have one velocity, but Two
m/s * m/s = m^2/s=2
The velocity of your Kg, and the velocity of what it hit.
This is a relative term.

you did not “impart energy into your Kg”
but rather you increased the Kg’s relative velocity with
Which equates to a Kinetic Energy potential, to your reference.
The energy you put into it to change the velocity
is also respective of your reference.

Change the reference, change the energy
Because the relative velocity has changed.
You can do this without making any changes to the Kg.

If your Kg is standing still
and the Earth moves towards it at 1000m/s
it will have the same momentum as if the Kg were moving
1000m/s and the Earth stood still.

without a stationary inertial frame, we don’t know the true
velocity of anything.
only it’s movement relative to our own.

Momentum by itself, cannot be related to Energy.
you need the other factor.

"The momentum does not have the second unit of time, because momentum is a relative term".  That is total B.S.!  Energy, like velocity, is also a relative measurement!

Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2.  Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity?  We have the same question with the equation E = mc2.  Why square the speed of light?  Why should the energy depend on c2?  Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving particle, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?

The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement.  A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us.  If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength.  Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.

The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact.  What we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

Gravock

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #51 on: May 25, 2018, 03:42:43 PM »

@EHT

Have you built the testbed?

respectfully

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #51 on: May 25, 2018, 03:42:43 PM »

#### Reiyuki

• Full Member
• Posts: 131
##### Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #52 on: May 25, 2018, 03:57:12 PM »
Thanks EHT, you've started a really interesting thought experiment (and maybe soon some actual experiments).