I love it when thoeretical science and modern science clash.
Ummmmm. . .they’re one and the same thing. That’s like saying “when statics and mechanical engineering clash”.
Heres how the conversation usually goes…
TS - Hey, I discovered this new way of doing things.
MS - No you didnt, because that breaks the rules, and once we say what a rule is it cannot be broken.
TS - But check it out, there is something interesting going on here, why dont you guys come check this thing out.
MS - Because it isnt interesting, it is actually freaky voodoo magic not worth the attention of science.
TS - But maybe this is a discovery that can shed light on some of the mysteries of the universe
MS - No, it cant. Listen, I have a phd and already know everything and clearly you dont understand that everything Einstein said was correct, just like Newton, and Darwin. So go back to your garage and build a new toy and when you can prove me wrong then i’ll listen.
No, actually, that’s not how it usually goes. As you can tell, for example, by the new discoveries and the new applications of old discoveries that are announced daily. In this case, the scientists asked the people who made the device to show anything in favour of their claims, and those people could produce nothing. The scientists and engineers then spent literally years looking into this claim. . .and found nothing. Not just that they couldn’t figure out how it was producing more energy than it used, but they couldn’t even find that it was producing more energy than it used.
Like the whole perpetual motion example, exothermic chemical reactions in biological systems are loosely explained using conservation.
In large part due to there never, ever, ever having been a case where the laws of conservation have not worked. Which is part of what makes them laws, y’know. Plus, of course, we can actually look at these chemical reactions and see what’s going on.
Incidentally, you do realise that exothermic reactions are by definition non-closed systems, don’t you?
The one problem I have is that the law of conservation states that energy can neither be created or destroyed,
Not quite. For one thing, there are different laws of conservation. But I think the one you’re going for is the one about conservation of mass and energy. Which is a bit more detailed than what you seem to be thinking it is. It basically states that in a closed system, the total amount of energy and mass cannot be increased or reduced. . .but that they can swap places, or turn into different forms of theselves (such as potential energy being changed into kinetic energy).
except of course in the case of the big bang, which is how all energy and matter was created…..from nothing.
Who ever gave you that idea? I don’t know of any physical cosmologist who claims such a thing. Rather than “starting from nothing”, the Big Bang started from everything. But it was everything really really really really small.
But the universe started as a singularity you say, which contains an infinite amount of energy. Thus, it created the universe, which by all modern acounts is not infinite. So was energy destroyed or created in this process, or neither. Any answer is illogical unless the “singularity” does not contain infinite mass, then by definition, it is not a singularity. Just another case of an unproven theory existing in some minds as a reality.
No, you just have the wrong idea about singularities, infinite energy, and suchlike. Ummmm. . .it would take a very lengthy and complicated explanation to get into the subject, though, and I don’t really know all of it myself. But I do know enough about it to know that the seeming contradiction you pointed out above exists in your mistaken picture of the theory, rather than in the theory itself. Things such as volume and infinity exist in somewhat different manners in singularities than they do in ordinary space.