Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / NoConservationOfEnergy

Go To

Dec 30th 2019 at 1:51:08 PM •••

It\'s commonly explained that the energy used in magic attacks does come from somewhere; it exists everywhere similar to dark matter, and the users are just manipulating it, making it seem like the energy comes out of nowhere. Would that be a subverted example, an example, or not an example at all?

May 9th 2012 at 12:44:08 AM •••

Couldn't the reject dials from One Piece be explained (handwaved) as having 10 times the POWER of the attack they receive, so that they give the energy back 10 times as quickly (and from a smaller focal point) while obeying conservation of energy, which would have the effect of doing more damage, as a smaller timeframe means that each closest part of the target has to take more of the total energy at once before it can transfer it to other structures in contact with it?

Jan 2nd 2011 at 1:59:12 PM •••

Isn't Superman canonically solar powered these days? Wouldn't that Hand Wave him like the other heroes mentioned?

Sep 12th 2010 at 1:18:37 PM •••

  • Another prime offender in Stargate is Naquadah and it's various sub-forms which can somehow turn a normal nuclear bomb into a continent buster among other insanity. Calculations by fans indicate it must have an energy density greater then antimatter, which is not physically possible.

antimatter has no special energy density, so this doesnt make sense. also the bomb doesnt need to violate the conservation of energy, since it isnt said how much of the bombs mass is converted to energy in the process.

maybe someone who knows more then me about stargate or the fans calculations can clarify this?

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 19th 2010 at 9:44:20 PM •••

I believe what it's trying to say is that the bombs release more energy for their mass than a matter-antimatter annihilation using the same mass would.

Jun 24th 2010 at 7:55:26 AM •••

  • "Inertial dampeners" are a big energy conservation violator, as "inertia" and "energy" are equivalent (according to Einstein's famous equation, often misstated as E=mc^2). For those who care, the full formula is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2.

Sorry, but this smacks of "reading somewhere the "Common Knowledge" is wrong and not looking into it further."

First off, inertia and gravity are equivalent, and mass and energy. It is true that an object's energy will rise with its momentum (as seen in that equation, where p is momentum), but that comes from Newton, not Einstein, although Newton's formula is, like all his mechanical formulas, off by a usually negligible amount (his being ΔE = ∫(dp/dt)Ědl, where if you don't understand the notation, it would take a semester or so to explain it).

E = mc^2 is the proper, universal formula showing mass-energy equivalency (it's essentially a unit conversion). In that other formula, m is actually the rest mass, or what the mass would be if the object were still. The object, however, has increased in mass by virtue of being moving, just as it's increased in energy, since they're the same quantity.

In any case, depending on what the "inertial dampeners" are, they don't seem to violate conservation of energy any more than the impulse drive. In space, no one can see your contrail.

Edited by TwinBird
Jun 5th 2010 at 2:10:47 PM •••

Last time I checked mass was energy (ok. setting c = 1) - is there a need to specify those laws separatly - if mass was created necessary energy had been created and vice versa.

Hide/Show Replies
ccoa MOD
Jun 5th 2010 at 6:47:52 PM •••

I would say yes, because most people think of them as separate. It's important to recall that not everyone is scientifically minded, so they won't necessarily think of, say, Shapeshifter Baggage as violating Conservation of Energy.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report