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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> 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 >
