The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Far attraction to prove the non conservation of the energy
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Far attraction to prove the non conservation of the energy

  • 3 Replies
  • 1919 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LB7 (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 454
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Ludovic Bavay Ubeda
Far attraction to prove the non conservation of the energy
« on: 30/04/2018 14:38:42 »
My theoretical device works and I try to prove it works with gravity and mass too. For that, I use an external planet, very far from my device and the planet move in translation when my device is deformed.

Case 1/ the energy is conserved:


* z1.png (38.05 kB . 1068x655 - viewed 2416 times)


* z2.png (8.42 kB . 1068x656 - viewed 2394 times)

Case 2/ the energy is conserved, I move out the white parts from the bottom and I move the same white parts between the rectangles:


* z3.png (57.26 kB . 1068x654 - viewed 2407 times)


* z4.png (10.08 kB . 1066x653 - viewed 2361 times)

Case 3/ The energy is not conserved, I move out the white parts and I move in water:


* z5.png (57.23 kB . 1065x654 - viewed 2412 times)


* z6.png (10.54 kB . 1069x656 - viewed 2395 times)
Logged
Ludovic Bavay 19011971 Valenciennes
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31102
  • Activity:
    9%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Far attraction to prove the non conservation of the energy
« Reply #1 on: 01/05/2018 19:39:12 »
Have you allowed for the work done by or against gravity when the planet moves with respect to the device?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline LB7 (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 454
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Ludovic Bavay Ubeda
Re: Far attraction to prove the non conservation of the energy
« Reply #2 on: 02/05/2018 09:56:28 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/05/2018 19:39:12
Have you allowed for the work done by or against gravity when the planet moves with respect to the device?

I have. I compared 3 cases. The last case can't keep constant the sum of energy is the two first keep constant the sum of energy.
Logged
Ludovic Bavay 19011971 Valenciennes
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31102
  • Activity:
    9%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Far attraction to prove the non conservation of the energy
« Reply #3 on: 02/05/2018 19:38:34 »
How have you calculated the gravitational energy change?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.334 seconds with 32 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.