> > once you change the board, the rules becomes meaningless.
Once you change the board on which the game is played,the rules becomes meaningless. On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:06 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > This is what I have been saying. > > Energy conservation is only true and other normal observations of physics > are only true until the fabric of space and matter (aether, GR space-time) > is changed, once you change the board, the rules becomes meaningless. > > This is why all the reports of the weird and wonderful (Free Energy, > Antigravity, ghosts, aliens etc) all have multiple weird phenomena. > > It is changing reality, if you can do so to the right degree you just get > some heat and transmutation, a bit of EM thrown in. > > If you go further levitation and various other effects can pop up. > > If the vacuum/aether/space time/dark matter/energy is conditioned > carefully then the effects can be exact and limited to what is being sought. > > Consider a computer game version of monopoly, there is only so much money, > and money is neither destroyed or created, it can only be earned, spent, > maybe borrowed and repayed. > > As soon as you hack the game, the money supply can be changed since it is > being done outside the system, externally to where such limitations have > any meaning. > > There is no reason that the same can't be done with energy potentially, it > could be fabricated as long as one works from outside the game of energy. > > John > > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:37 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Energy is not conserved >> >> >> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ >> >> quote >> >> <<I like to think that, if I were not a professional cosmologist, I would >> still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the >> world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of >> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were >> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the >> theory would be a lot less popular. >> >> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists >> have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s >> been well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in >> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.) >> >> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, >> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. >> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, >> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not >> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer >> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in >> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through which >> particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not >> conserved*. >> >> >> >> Harry >> > >
