Proof the Law of Conservation of Energy is Wrong

From: vignesh (vignesh28_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/16/05 

Date: 16 Feb 2005 07:17:18 -0800

EXAMPLE ONE

Consider two identical space rockets in the vacuum of space well away
from the effects of any gravitational field. Both, in parallel, burn
their engines at full power on two separate occasions of exactly equal
duration. However the second rocket, immediately after its first burn
does an about turn such that its engine is pointing in exactly the
opposite direction just in time for the second burn.

In such a situation it is obvious that the first rocket will continue
accelerating with the second burn while the first will start to
decelerate, losing the velocity it had gained from the first burn. It
is also apparent that by the end of the second burn the second rocket
will have lost all the velocity it had gained from the first burn while
the first rocket will have exactly doubled the velocity it had gained
after the first burn.

Now consider that the law of the conservation of energy informs us that
'energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed'.
Each rocket can be considered as a closed system and both have had the
same amount of energy supplied to it by its engine. However there is
one striking difference. Even though the first had all its power from
its engine transformed directly into kinetic energy, the second rocket
is now stationary compared with the first, relatively speaking, and has
zero kinetic energy. Now considering that the law of conservation tells
us that energy can 'neither be created or destroyed, only
transformed', what exactly has the kinetic energy of the second
rocket's two burns been transformed into? It would appear that as the
two burns were directed precisely counter to one another, the kinetic
energy from both has exactly cancelled out. Such a destruction of
energy is completely counter to the laws of conservation.

Since there is no known process in the frictionless environment of
space by which kinetic energy can be transformed into heat or any other
form of energy, we can only assume that the kinetic energy in question
has been destroyed as the result of a vector consideration such that
the law of the conservation of energy as currently stated that
'energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed' has
not been fulfilled.

EXAMPLE TWO

When a body such as the Moon orbits the Earth it takes a curved path
which approximates to a circle. According to Newton's First Law all
bodies continue in a straight line unless acted upon by an external
force. This external force is supplied by the Earth's gravity which
causes it to accelerate. Since this force has clearly deviated the Moon
from its original straight line course, surely work has been done upon
it as a result of the equation Work Done = Force x Distance. Indeed on
opposite sides of the Earth the Moon's velocity vector is the
complete reverse resulting in the fact that every orbit its overall
directional polarity reverses twice. Considering the size and mass of
the Moon surely it would take mega, mega joules to achieve this and yet
this process has been accomplished time and time again for literally
aeons? What is the source of all this energy and why does it never
dwindle? Of course the source of all this energy is the Earth's
gravitational field which most certainly will never dwindle despite the
sheer number and mass of objects it may happen to attract towards
itself. But does such a scenario not contradict the very law of the
conservation of energy?

To put the above observation in an entirely different perspective
consider a space rocket which seeks to perform the exact same movements
as the Moon about the Earth but in a gravity free environment within
the depths of space. Of course in such an environment there is no air
resistance and hence no aerodynamics so to perform this motion the
rocket would have to do the following : with a forward velocity
identical to that of the Moon, thrust would need to be applied from its
rockets at an exact right-angle to its direction of motion. The craft
would also need to rotate exactly once every 'orbit' (in the exact
same plane as that of its pseudo-orbit) so as to keep it accelerating
at a right-angle to its direction of motion. Of course such a feat
would require an enormous amount of fuel and hence an equally enormous
amount of energy. However the Moon gets all this energy for 'free'
from the Earth's gravity so can we not assume that the Earth's
gravitational field is an unending, ever bountiful source of energy in
this respect and that this observation contradicts the most basic tenet
of classical physics concerning the conservation of energy?

EXAMPLE THREE

In the case of the classical equation for kinetic energy, K.E. =
½mv², it would appear that the law of conservation of energy is
contravened every single time it is applied. This results from the fact
that the kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared such
that, for example, when the velocity is increased from v to 2v, four
times as much kinetic energy is obtained than was previously the case
when the velocity was just v. However with any powered vehicle, surely
the same amount of fuel would have been used to increase the velocity
from 0 to v as was used to increase the velocity from v to 2v? So where
has the extra energy exactly come from? This must surely contravene the
law of conservation of energy?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obliterating the Rocket Equation with a Torusail
    ... >> some unexpected science breakthrough (ala Cold Fusion), ... >>sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy per kg ... >>two and take the square root to get the exhaust velocity ... >Trip dynamics are governed by the power of the rocket. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: A small rocket-science brain teaser
    ... then you have an ineffective rocket that will not overcome ... Therefore I can neither prove nor disprove your assertion that the Army ... >> energy of the warhead. ... >> If the burn ends prematurely, i.e. before the target is reached, kinetic ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Velocity and Kinetic Energy
    ... His initial velocity relative to the fixed point ... He energizes the rocket for a moment, ... 200 joules worth of velocity to himself. ... joules of energy to his velocity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cannon in space, how much more propellent efficent are they than missiles?
    ... The kinetic energy comes from heat, ... velocity from the nominal exhaust velocity. ... into the rocket, not the exhaust. ... consider a 2:1 mass ratio. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Cannon in space, how much more propellent efficent are they than missiles?
    ... propellant available which is probably the same as rocket fuel. ... If the desired "muzzle velocity" as any decent fraction of the ... if the muzzle velocity is a small fraction of the exhaust velocity. ... there's a particular amount of energy ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)