Triple, how do you know that the earth revolves around the sun? Have you read the papers on every test conducted to confirm this? If you haven't observed all of the tests first hand how do you know that the claim that the earth revolves around the sun is true?

I suppose in short answer it makes perfect sense and you can google the information and pretty much every scientist and every space administration would verify this. My answer to you is similar to this. I've read a few articles on the methodology and findings of studies that set out to overturn the Conservation of Energy principle, but why is that relevant? Like I said everything we know about energy indicates that it can neither be created nor destroyed.

No one has ever provided an example of Energy being created, and no one has ever provided an example of it being destroyed. Now if you feel that you have the wherewithal to knock down the principle of Energy Conservation, be my guest.

Energy in it's simplest form, no. There are indeed different hypothetical forms of energy such as Dark Energy but even their proponents don't suggest that energy can be destroyed. What evidence exactly is there that energy can be destroyed triple? The simple fact of the matter is that there's no evidence that energy can be created or destroyed and if there were you should be able to present it through a link or something.

 Your standard that unless I have absolute and perfect knowledge of every paper on every study ever done then I can't draw a reasonable conclusion backed by decades of research and an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is absolutely ludicrous. My last post opened up with a question intended to illustrate the absurdity of such a notion.

Cute triple. Maybe the conversation would be moving along quite well if you'd actually be honest enough to answer the questions I asked you throughout the course of the discussion, but since you seem to want to play dirty and show a clear double standard I'll play... I won't play dirty, but I'll play.

No, Triple, I said I haven't read every single paper on every single study ever done. I have read plenty on the subject myself, including articles addressing the methods and findings of various case studies. Also, the absence of a controversy among scientist testifies to the consensus among scientist, and the constant failure of every study (including one that was finished up just last week) to overturn the principle of energy conservation also testifies to the strength of the principle. Companies have been funding research into perpetual turbines and what have you for almost a century now, all to no avail, and even before that dead end rat race people were experimenting with "perpetual motion" devices.

I challenge you to present some evidence suggesting that energy can be created or destroyed. Cite a single article, link me to a single webpage, but at least do something besides sitting there trying to undermine the notion of reasonable certainty.

So to answer my question that was asked previously, you don't know if it will be this way tomorrow?  

Triple, in order for a statement to be accepted as law or theory it must be falsifiable and the law of Energy Conservation is the penultimate example of the falsifiable. If even one experiment showed that energy could be created or destroyed then the law of energy conservation would be debunked. It holds up under the most intense scrutiny, Michio Kaku predicted that the LHC would finally disprove it and do you know what we found? Even when smashing Matter and Anti-Matter together, the energy isn't destroyed, but instead released as Gamma Rays and other forms of radiation (not the outcome Kaku had expected and hoped for).

In any event, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed is a negative statement, but one that's always held up. It's concise and to the point. Maybe it should be worded slightly differently, but Black Holes shouldn't be called Black Holes because they aren't actually holes and the Big Bang shouldn't be called a Bang because that suggests sound, and don't even get me started on the subject of Time.

I agree that the wording of it may not be the best, but in Science for something to be law it must be falsifiable and never falsified. To answer your question again, I'm reasonably certain that the law of energy conservation will never be overturned but I am not absolutely certain. Then I'm not absolutely certain that I'm not just a brain in a vat being fed sensory data via the matrix, I'm reasonably certain that's not the case but there's no way to actually know to the degree of absolute certainty you seem to expect. Like I said, presented with evidence that energy could be created or destroyed I would change my position and so would the scientific community, science is self correcting after all.