Conservation of energy (Split from Banana Nominations)

[Cuddles]

I nominate this post, 'cause it's really stupid:

I don't see how that's stupid. The addition of excess heat to the global environment is a real concern, albeit generally too long term to worry about compared to most other environmental issues. In fact, I've read at least one sci-fi story that used exactly that as its premise - a world in which some kind of free energy eliminated all other environmental issues ended up overheating and having serious problems because no-one had ever thought about it.

[GreyICE]

I don't see how that's stupid. The addition of excess heat to the global environment is a real concern, albeit generally too long term to worry about compared to most other environmental issues. In fact, I've read at least one sci-fi story that used exactly that as its premise - a world in which some kind of free energy eliminated all other environmental issues ended up overheating and having serious problems because no-one had ever thought about it.

That seems utterly irrational to me. As we all know, energy can't be created or destroyed, so any heat 'generated' was in fact already here. Since heat is energy, we certainly can't be creating it all willy-nilly.

[Cuddles]

That seems utterly irrational to me. As we all know, energy can't be created or destroyed, so any heat 'generated' was in fact already here. Since heat is energy, we certainly can't be creating it all willy-nilly.

Except that your understanding is clearly complete bollocks. Yes, energy can't be created or destroyed. But the whole point is that it can be changed into different forms. Obviously the heat that we generate was not already here, because until we turn it into heat it wasn't heat. This is an incredibly basic concept, so it seems rather odd that you would fail to understand it. You do understand how things like power stations and motors work right? It's almost as though you're simply trying to have a dig at BenBurch without bothering to think about what you're actually saying.

[Sledge]

That seems utterly irrational to me. As we all know, energy can't be created or destroyed, so any heat 'generated' was in fact already here. Since heat is energy, we certainly can't be creating it all willy-nilly.

I nominate this.

[Pixel42]

Not only that, BenBurch was specifically talking about nuclear fusion, which is a way of turning tiny amounts of matter into large amounts of energy (or will be, if we ever find of way of doing it that is commercially viable). Or maybe GreyICE has never heard of Einstein and his famous equation.

[GreyICE]

Except that your understanding is clearly complete bollocks. Yes, energy can't be created or destroyed. But the whole point is that it can be changed into different forms. Obviously the heat that we generate was not already here, because until we turn it into heat it wasn't heat. This is an incredibly basic concept, so it seems rather odd that you would fail to understand it. You do understand how things like power stations and motors work right? It's almost as though you're simply trying to have a dig at BenBurch without bothering to think about what you're actually saying.

Okay, so you're saying that the heat we generate was 'not heat' before we turned it into 'heat.' It was instead held up in some sort of indescribable form.

If that's the case, doesn't generating electricity actually cool the planet? Since we are taking this 'heat' that we have and making it create some other energy, we turn it into something that's 'not heat!' Maybe Solar Panels could be used to trigger a global cooling crisis :boggled:

[Cuddles]

Okay, so you're saying that the heat we generate was 'not heat' before we turned it into 'heat.' It was instead held up in some sort of indescribable form.

If you consider things like chemical energy, gravitational potential energy and various other forms of energy that tend to be fairly well understood by high school children to be "indescribable", then yes. Although I'm honestly not sure why you're so desperate to keep digging yourself deeper here.

If that's the case, doesn't generating electricity actually cool the planet? Since we are taking this 'heat' that we have and making it create some other energy, we turn it into something that's 'not heat!'

Yes, that's the idea. We take some form of energy and convert it into another form of energy. Congratulations! You've just about reached the level of understanding of an 11 year old. Next, maybe we can move on to advanced concepts such as efficiency, which means that although we'd really like to be able to convert all the energy in, for example, coal to electricity, most of it actually ends up as heat instead. And after that we can move on to the problem that even the energy that we manage to turn into electrical energy is soon turned into heat by things such as friction.

Maybe Solar Panels could be used to trigger a global cooling crisis :boggled:

Sadly no. They contribute to warming as well, by absorbing energy that would otherwise have been reflected back into space.

I must say though, it's very considerate of you to post directly in this thread rather than making people go to the trouble of nominating you. I haven't seen someone fail at science this badly since Malcolm Kirkman claimed air pressure was the source of gravity.

[GreyICE]

If you consider things like chemical energy, gravitational potential energy and various other forms of energy that tend to be fairly well understood by high school children to be "indescribable", then yes. Although I'm honestly not sure why you're so desperate to keep digging yourself deeper here. But that doesn't make any sense. I don't think chemicals work because they have 'more energy.' I mean does that make LSD have more energy than a potato chip? How does that even work:boggled:

And if heavy objects have so much more energy than light objects, why don't we just hook up our power plants to mountains and things? Is it a technological limitation? Are mountains the power source of the future?


Yes, that's the idea. We take some form of energy and convert it into another form of energy. Congratulations! You've just about reached the level of understanding of an 11 year old. Next, maybe we can move on to advanced concepts such as efficiency, which means that although we'd really like to be able to convert all the energy in, for example, coal to electricity, most of it actually ends up as heat instead. And after that we can move on to the problem that even the energy that we manage to turn into electrical energy is soon turned into heat by things such as friction.
Well then why are we using rubber wires? Isn't rubber high friction? Shouldn't we lower the friction by putting something slippery, like oil or water or something in the wires? That just doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't the rubber all melt because of all the friction on the electricity, if that really 'makes heat' out of nothing? Isn't that a big flaw in this idea?



Sadly no. They contribute to warming as well, by absorbing energy that would otherwise have been reflected back into space.

I must say though, it's very considerate of you to post directly in this thread rather than making people go to the trouble of nominating you. I haven't seen someone fail at science this badly since Malcolm Kirkman claimed air pressure was the source of gravity.
Do we need to have all these ad homs? I'm just asking questions.

[Cuddles]

But that doesn't make any sense. I don't think chemicals work because they have 'more energy.' I mean does that make LSD have more energy than a potato chip? How does that even work:boggled:

So there's no such thing as chemical energy? Wow, I guess we should let the industrial revolution know that coal and oil don't actually work.

And if heavy objects have so much more energy than light objects, why don't we just hook up our power plants to mountains and things? Is it a technological limitation? Are mountains the power source of the future?

Um, you have heard of hydroelectric power plants, right?

Well then why are we using rubber wires? Isn't rubber high friction? Shouldn't we lower the friction by putting something slippery, like oil or water or something in the wires? That just doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't the rubber all melt because of all the friction on the electricity, if that really 'makes heat' out of nothing? Isn't that a big flaw in this idea?

OK, I admit you had me for a bit. Not a bad effort at Poe's law there.

Do we need to have all these ad homs? I'm just asking questions.

Yes. I admit I began by mocking you because I thought you were genuinely stupid, and I'm just a bad person. However, since it's now clear that you're simply trolling, insults are probably the most appropriate response.

In the interests of being educational though, I should probably point out that there hasn't actually been a single ad hominem attack aimed at you. Insults are not ad hominem. If you're going to pretend to be the martyr, at least try to get it right.

[Rolfe]

I've suggested the conversation about the conservation of energy be split off, because it truly deserves its own thread.

Rolfe.

[nathan]

I don't see how that's stupid. The addition of excess heat to the global environment is a real concern, albeit generally too long term to worry about compared to most other environmental issues. In fact, I've read at least one sci-fi story that used exactly that as its premise - a world in which some kind of free energy eliminated all other environmental issues ended up overheating and having serious problems because no-one had ever thought about it.

Trantor and Coruscant

[Tricky]

A good proportion of this thread has been sent to AAH for off-topic and bickering.

This thread was split because it had the opportunity to be a legitimate scientific discussion. If you don't want to discuss this topic, then take your discussion to the appropriate place and keep it within the MA.

[GreyICE]

A good proportion of this thread has been sent to AAH for off-topic and bickering.

This thread was split because it had the opportunity to be a legitimate scientific discussion. If you don't want to discuss this topic, then take your discussion to the appropriate place and keep it within the MA.

Point of interest. No it doesn't.

Not sure you can fix this one Tricky, you're going to have to take it out back and shoot it, or move it to the appropriate section (though I find it odd that an 'awards thread' fits legitimate scientific discussion, but discussion of the said 'awards thread' does not. Neither seems especially scientific to me)

[KingMerv00]

Okay, so you're saying that the heat we generate was 'not heat' before we turned it into 'heat.' It was instead held up in some sort of indescribable form.

Chemical potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#Chemical_potential_energy)

[GreyICE]

Chemical potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#Chemical_potential_energy)
I'd say it's gone over your head, but the interesting bits went to AAH, so, yeah...

This thread makes lots of sense now. On the plus side, you were far more polite than the moderator, so thanks :D

[ponderingturtle]

Not only that, BenBurch was specifically talking about nuclear fusion, which is a way of turning tiny amounts of matter into large amounts of energy (or will be, if we ever find of way of doing it that is commercially viable). Or maybe GreyICE has never heard of Einstein and his famous equation.

Or say burned fire wood or turned on an electric heater.