PopularFX
Home Help Search
Advanced search 
Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2025-05-01, 23:07:11
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Is this evidence of COP>1 ?  (Read 38062 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 495


Buy me some coffee
The fundamental flaw in physics understanding and why Tesla's earthquake machine is overunity.

Smudge is of the opinion that in Tesla's earthquake machine is:   energy in = energy out.
Not so:  it's impossible.
Tesla's machine  is an overunity device.

His tapper consumes no more than a couple of watts.
If it is active for 15 minutes = 2/4 = 1/2 watt total  power.
There is NO WAY that that amount of power can cause an earthquake effect.

So where is the flaw in our understanding??

Put simply:  at the end of each stroke the pendulum becomes weightless.

If you push at that point, then the effect is the same as if you were in outer space and pushed against  the walls of your space ship. So a little force creates a HUGE effect.

You can think of the ten storey building as an upside down pendulum.
By tapping the building at the precise moment when the building becomes -  weightless
you get maximum "bang for your buck".

So the fundamental flaw in physics is that they fail to take into account
the changing G forces on a swinging pendulum.

AREN'T YOU GLAD YOU THOUGHT OF THAT. :D
(To quote Don Smith).


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Aking.21
Quote
The sat nav in your car would be way out if special relativity was not taken into account.
And guess what? Einstein's maths stack up perfectly.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

So a device most of us use every time we are in a new-to-us location needs to take into account the
time field.

Every time you fly G P S (SAT NAV)  ensures you get to your destination.

Actually no it is not special relativity nor it is a time field... I mean really a time field?. Does it seem wise to give a measure of something it's own properties because then we are speaking of the measure of a measure which is absurd in my opinion. Why we may as well give every measure it's own properties... can inches bend?, can weight compress? or velocity curve?. Well no that is quite ridiculous and yet that is exactly what we have done isn't it?. We have inferred properties to a measure of something because we do not believe that something might change in a way we never considered.

Let me ask you a question, which seems more likely...
1) when something moves the rate at which time changes varies within the whole of the universe or...
2) when something moves the fundamental rate of oscillation of the particles which constitutes the mass changes in some way giving the appearance that time has changed when it is a property of matter which has changed.

I mean what exactly do you think OU is my friend?, do you believe it is something from nothing or maybe just maybe we might be able to change the properties of matter in some way which most all have believed cannot change and must be constant?. It is like you are standing on the sand on the beach and you believe it is firm and then I walk up with a simple machine which vibrates the sand and it becomes fluid. At which point you sink like a rock up to your neck and you are left wondering what has happened here?, how can this be?... it is simple physics and I have changed the properties of something you have taken for granted.

Time variance is sheer delusion and I have seen no real proof which makes any sense in my opinion. They forgot to apply Occam's razor to themselves and the simplest solution is that matter has changed in some way not the passage of time in the whole universe.... that is quite insane. However if we could change the properties of matter then what do you think we might be capable of in the future?...why almost anything in my opinion. Wine into water, lead into gold... but nobody wants to go there do they?.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1979
I must say that I agree with AC, it is rods and clocks and even human bodies that change to give the appearance of altered time.  Warped space-time is just a math means of accounting for those physical changes.  I have studied Einstein's SR and GR and understand the math, but I don't really believe that time itself actually changes in any way.  I do accept that we have to take account of those changes to make things like GPS work, so the math is important.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Aking.21
Quote
If gravity did not compress space (we'll leave the time bit out for now) then gravitational lensing would be impossible.
The fact is that gravitational lensing is a major facet of current astronomical research,
because it enables us to see light years beyond normal Hubble space telescope resolution.

So, like it or not, objects such as feet and inches and centimeters are different in different
areas of space.

Once again we may apply Occam's razor, now which seems more likely...
1) Gravity which nobody really understands because they don't know what it is changes space (a measure) and time (another measure) creating an effect which bends light called gravitational lensing or...
2)Light is bent near a massive object with a strong gravitational field for reasons we do not fully understand because we do not know what Gravity is.

I think it is a case of wishful thinking to support their own theories which they have a vested interest in because if they were wrong after all this time and effort then that wouldn't look very good. I think we all understand that many people will go to any length not to be proven wrong... that human nature thing. Myself I have no vested interest in any theory and I just want to understand how the universe works. In any case Einstein himself said in his later years that it was an unworkable theory and I agree. It is simply too far fetched and unbelievable even by OU standards, lol.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Evolvingape
The mistake Einstein made and many continue to make can be corrected by simply looking at your picture as if it were one of the three primary fields--- Electric, Magnetic and Gravic. The field is not something in itself but a condition of something already present which is EM energy from every star in the universe because as you know energy is conserved thus this energy must be present everywhere.

Time is simply a measure and it is constant however the Primary Fields which dictate the action of all matter are variable. If you read Einsteins original lectures you will find he was a very logical yet abstract thinker. In one lecture he said something to the effect that if reality does not fit the equation then change the reality and that is what he did. He changed time to gain a better understanding however again we need to think in an abstract sense. If all particle-fields must interact within a given time frame to hold any given properties then changing the interaction time is equivalent to changing the interaction in itself ie. they have the same effect. Thus Einstein's thought experiment concerning time is in a sense true but not in a literal sense. The particle-field interaction changes as a function of time, time is the measure of the interaction not something in itself.

 
AC
« Last Edit: 2015-05-13, 23:06:47 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The fundamental flaw in physics understanding and why Tesla's earthquake machine is overunity.

Smudge is of the opinion that in Tesla's earthquake machine is:   energy in = energy out.
Not so:  it's impossible.
Tesla's machine  is an overunity device.

His tapper consumes no more than a couple of watts.
If it is active for 15 minutes = 2/4 = 1/2 watt total  power.
There is NO WAY that that amount of power can cause an earthquake effect.

So where is the flaw in our understanding??

This is a must read for Free Energy researchers, particularly for newer members to OUR.



The Free Energy Researcher’s:
POWER & CREED
- A must read for those on the quest for Free Energy at OUR.
Prepared by: Darren Kozey (poynt99)
Document Date: 2009/12/13
Revision: V2.0
The Free Energy Researcher’s: POWER & CREED

Preface
The world needs an alternative to conventional energy sources; dare we call this
alternative source “free energy”?

Free Energy research is alive and well on a number of public and private forums.
There are many people actively researching in this area; the vast majority of
which are younger and less experienced folks. This is fantastic and will hopefully
secure a better future for all. However, with youth and/or inexperience, often
comes over-enthusiasm and haste. Many times indeed, it is the experienced and
technically-trained researchers that fall into the all-too-familiar trap of letting
their excitement, hope, enthusiasm, or lack of know-how, get in the way of
better judgment.

To declare something extraordinary and make claims of “overunity” without solid
substantiating evidence or proof to back it up, does a great disservice to all on
the FE quest, especially when the claim turns out to be a false alarm or a
deception.

The aim of this document is to serve as a guide to help all FE researchers avoid
the pitfalls of making an unsubstantiated claim.
To follow is a creed by which I strongly encourage all to study it, understand it,
and above all…apply it!

Dedication
This document is dedicated to all the brilliant and determined minds working in
Free Energy research…all those in the present, the past, and the future.
Thank you for your tenacity and your commitment to the FE quest.

INTRODUCTION
Most claims of overunity turn out to be the result of erroneous assumptions,
measurement errors, nonexistent measurements, suspicious measurements, or
equipment limitations. As such, a short guide is needed that all FE researchers
can refer to and apply while conducting their research and publishing their
results. The following CREED, MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY,
and MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS (for electronics devices) sections
make up this guide.

It is by no means perfect or complete, but a starting point at least, and one that
would surely go a long way in avoiding much frenzy, anxiety, wasted time, effort
and money, embarrassment, flaming, loss of respect and integrity, and arguing
etc., for all interested parties involved. If only it can be followed.

THE FE RESEARCHER’S CREED
“As a Free Energy Researcher, I dedicate my knowledge and skill to the advancement
and betterment of human welfare. I strive for integrity, accuracy, and completeness in
my work and my releases to the public.
I pledge in conducting my FE research:
- To give the utmost of performance;
- To make no assumptions, no matter how “obvious” things may appear to me;
- To never jump to conclusions when apparent anomalies are observed;
- To investigate and strive to eliminate ALL possible sources of error BEFORE
making conclusions about any observed anomalies;
- To exercise due diligence in regards to fully understanding what I am doing,
and how I am doing it;
- To conduct my experiments, tests, and measurements in a scientific manner
and with the correct and most appropriate equipment;
- To strive for and take steps towards making COP measurements that are
flawless and accurate, while understanding and accounting for the
limitations and idiosyncrasies of my test equipment;
- To place integrity before ego;
- To post claims of overunity only when backed up with solid proof and
evidence in the form of fully documented, and accurate measurements and
test setup diagrams;
- To do my best in explaining and illustrating my disclosures, and be well-prepared
to answer any questions on things I may have overlooked;
- To seek advice, guidance, and review from my un-biased peers and those
with more technical know-how BEFORE I post any extraordinary claims of
overunity;
- To do my homework (all of the above).
In humility and with need for Collective/Higher Guidance, I make this pledge.”

MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY
For anyone planning on disclosing something or making a claim, please use the
following as a guide to do so:
1) Decide and state what exactly you are about to claim:
Options here include:
a) 100% certainty you have achieved overunity.
b) You are not 100% sure and asking for help to determine if it is so.
c) You are only observing strange effects and you would like other users to
provide helpful feedback.
2) Regardless of which option fits your case, please provide in your post the
following minimum parts:
a) A complete drawing or schematic of your prototype or test setup.
b) A clear description of what the device or circuit is, what you think the
circuit is doing, or what you wanted it to do.
c) A list of references to any other devices or documentation you based your
device on.
d) A list of proper power measurements (see Power Measurements at OUR).
e) A photo of your setup is optional, but may be helpful.
3) For those with limited Free Energy Research experience, and/or electronics
experience, please post a request for someone to review your steps 1) and 2)
above BEFORE making your post and claim.
4) Refine all the above listed elements with the feedback received from the
more technically-experienced forum users.
5) Make your claims / disclosure post.

MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS
Accurate power measurements are probably the most difficult and least
understood, yet the most meaningful measurements to perform, especially in the
Free Energy circles. If one makes a claim of overunity and their measurement of
input power vs. output power is either not supplied, or is questionable in its
accuracy, no one will be interested in delving further into or inquiring about their
work…and rightly so.

Far too often researchers are fooled by assuming that their test equipment or
method is yielding true and accurate measurements, when more often than not,
this is probably not the case. In fact, most researchers probably don’t
understand the basics of how meters work and what separates a truly TRUE RMS
measurement from an “average” one. The following is a quote from Bob
Paddock’s “POWER MEASUREMENT” article linked at the end of this document:

"I had a need to make a power measurement of an unusual high-frequency wave form for an
application I was working on. Because of the esoteric nature the application had, I wanted to be
sure I would not be hearing the words "Measurement Errors".

Far too often I've seen others try to do high-frequency power measurements by looking at the
signal on their oscilloscope, or by using their bench multimeter without understanding its
specifications. Looking at a complex high-frequency wave form with a multimeter designed for
60-Hz sine waves simply does not give meaningful results."
[pony99: unless one is looking for the average value of a signal, then DC meters perform well in this task]

A great deal of FE research involves the use of non-sinusoidal, spikey, and noisy
inputs and outputs. As such there are some “precautions” one must take to
ensure that any measurements performed on such devices under test (DUT’s)
will yield true and meaningful results. Devices utilizing or creating high frequency
components are especially susceptible to measurement errors and it is imperative
that this is understood. Special care and considerations are required in these
cases in order that good measurements can be obtained.
Please refer to the Power Measurements and High Frequency Measurements
threads for detailed information on performing accurate and obtaining
meaningful power measurements.

Following are some relevant terms that require definition and clarification:

OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS
An Open System is one in which power or energy from outside the device’s
immediate domain, may be added to the system for free. This outside energy or
power is not the energy or power supplied by you the user to make the system
operate, but is energy or power supplied by the environment, universe, aether or
ZPF etc. This “outside” energy supplement is what makes “overunity” possible.
A Closed System is one in which no energy from outside the immediate domain
of the device can or will enter the system. The device sees only the energy or
power that you the user supply to it. Closed systems are therefore inherently
under, or at unity, but never overunity.

EFFICIENCY (η)
The efficiency of a DUT in a closed system, is simply the ratio between the
power converted by the device, namely “the output power”, to the power
supplied to the device by the user, namely “the input power”. Devices that
operate strictly in a closed system will always have an efficiency of 100% or less.
The efficiency of a DUT in an open system, is a little more complicated, but as I’ll
explain, not necessarily relevant to FE research.

Strictly speaking, the efficiency of a DUT in an open system is computed the
same way as that for a closed system. However, it may be difficult if not
impossible to calculate, depending on the device and its overunity mechanism.
If for example your DUT requires 10 Watts of input power to operate, wastes 9
Watts of power in heat (as measured with a calorimeter with no load), but puts
out 100 Watts, the efficiency of the device is only a meager 10% ! In this case,
at least 99 Watts of power is freely entering the system from the “outside” and
being converted and output by the device, but the efficiency is still only 10%.
To say that this device has an efficiency of 1000% is simply not correct ! Even in
open systems, the efficiency can not and must not be higher than 100%.
So by all means, strive to make your energy device as efficient as possible, but
the real and meaningful FE quest is to obtain more output power than is required
as input power for the device to operate.

COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE (COP)
Again we must examine this parameter in the context of open and closed
systems.

In a closed system, the COP will be equal to the efficiency in a sense, but is
expressed as a ratio as follows: 1:1 (η=100%), 0.8:1 (η=80%), etc. So one
should conclude from the discussion so far, that the COP in a closed system will
never be higher than 1:1.

In an open system, the COP could be anywhere from 0.1:1 to 106:1. It all
depends on the efficiency of the device (with low COP’s), and how much energy
or power is freely added to the system from the “outside” with a given input
power.

COP in open systems is computed by taking the ratio between the freely added
“outside” power (POopen), PLUS the output power (if any) supplied by the closed
system (POclosed), to the user-supplied input power (PI).
In equation form:

COP = (POopen + POclosed)/PI   OR  = POtotal/PI

Do we care if we are measuring collected open-system power PLUS closed system
power on the output? No. What we care about is obtaining more total
power on the output of the DUT, than we are supplying for device operation.

OVERUNITY
As already discussed, overunity is not possible in closed systems, and therefore
can only exist in open systems. Overunity then is achieved any time a device or
system exhibits a COP>1.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Quote
As already discussed, overunity is not possible in closed systems, and therefore
can only exist in open systems. Overunity then is achieved any time a device or
system exhibits a COP>1.

Uhm... an EM propulsion system based on a closed system was thought to be impossible and yet in the EMDrive thread we find most all the resident experts here dictating terms really don't have a clue what their talking about. Now if an Em drive and an overunity device based on a closed system are equally impossible then why has one been proven to be true by NASA and many other independent research groups?.

Let's be honest here, the statement "overunity is not possible in closed systems" is a misleading statement based on sheer speculation because not one single person knows with absolute certainty it is true. The fact is the unknows are infinite relative to what we know at this point and it makes the false presumption that nothing can ever change when history has proven otherwise.

No offense but a bunch of old farts sitting around making up excuses why nothing can ever change is no way to spend your remaining years on this planet because resistance is futile. Everything will change with or without your consent, despite what you believe because it always does whether we choose to believe it or not. Our believing something does not change the reality of things we cannot know and if you want to apply fanatical religious type doctrines to science and technology then your going to lose. The fact of the matter is that your personal flavor of personal beliefs does not dictate our future...period.

The fact of the matter is that nobody here knows what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic) and Inertia are on the most fundamental level thus we can never know the infinite number of ways in which they might interact. We cannot base our beliefs and understanding on a complete lack of understanding...that is absurd.

AC
« Last Edit: 2015-05-20, 19:21:49 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Allcanadian


You hint at that you have your own theory about  Primary Fields ,please explain your theory.
I totaly agree with you about Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, gravity), and inertia there exact nature is unknown.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@cheappower2012
Quote
You hint at that you have your own theory about  Primary Fields ,please explain your theory.
I totaly agree with you about Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, gravity), and inertia there exact nature is unknown.

My theories came about through a thought experiment relating to psychology I called -- "what's your normal". To me normal is a 6 acre yard and I don't push a mower I ride one. To another person a 600 sq/ft apartment about as big as my bathroom with no yard is normal. A crack addict in the city might think his life is normal while a cold beer after work is about as far as I am generally willing to go. The thing to understand here is that most people think their personal flavor of normal is the right one however it is seldom if ever considered from a universal perspective only as it relates to other peoples perspective.

That is we always tend to see things around us as they appear however we have no comprehension of the infinitely small or infinitely large which could be said to be the environment we are immersed in. We are on a large planet made of extremely small particles which never actually touch because there separated by fields and this aggregate we call a planet is speeding through this galaxy at 140 miles/sec towards the star Vega. This could be said to be the true reality of our existence which most everyone has completely ignored because they live in an imaginary world which they have created for themselves.

This is why the true nature of the Primary Fields is completely unknown to them because they are trapped in the same narrow minded perspective as everyone else which revolves around work, family and friends, money, their house and a new car...objects. Few if any of these things actually exist outside the context of this planet and yet this is their life, this is their normal. In any case the first thing I did was discard all the make believe human contrivance and started looking at things for what they really are, what we know they are and the rest was relatively easy.

I mean does anyone actually believe the field around an electron just is?... it just comes from nowhere and never changes or dissipates for no apparent reason?... because that is absurd.

AC
« Last Edit: 2015-05-21, 23:06:04 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Allcanadian
So you are basing your belief on a thought experiment and obviously on your ufo encounter.
The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step,having seen a ufo myself a very
long time ago along with hundreds of other people,I'm not skeptical about ufo's.Certain
 theories in physics are totally correct,some are correct in the sense you can use them,
but conceptually there not correct this creates a limitation.A ufo going from a slow speed
to thousands of miles per hour in seconds or doing sharp right angle turns indicates our
conception of gravity and inertia may need correction.example lets say the ufo weighs 10 tons,
lets say they can reduce the weight to 100 pounds at will,the ufo's inertia now is equal to
a hundred pound object ,F/m =a ,as the mass m approaches 0,the acceleration vastly increases
 assuming the ufo had a constant forward force applied to it. The occupants inside  would under
go a change in there effective mass,they would weigh less than an once,so would not feel any
acceleration,if the ufo did a sharp right angle turn,the inter molecular bonding of the ufo
is vastly stronger than the inertia generated trying to tear it apart,so the ufo would not
tear itself apart.In the early days of ufo sightings there were electromagnetic effects
reported,cars stopped,power outages,a stop sign vibrated and others.A long time ago a book
 came out that was  about an encounter that a guy hunting in the woods had,he spotted a ufo,
a 20 foot disk over head,he looked at the disk with polarized binoculars,light in the sky
 is partially polarized(blue sky),a strong enough magnetic field will polarize light,he saw
concentric rings around the underside of the disk that moved slowly.He was able to take
some pictures of this,
very weird pictures,they calculated the strength of the magnetic it was beyond any
 earth technology.This book disappeared,it had all kinds of calculations about the strength
 of the magnetic field around the ufo,the witness said that as the ufo began to accelerate
the pulsing of the magnetic field increased then the disk took off at a high rate of speed.
I understand that you are hopeful that the physics we know now will be expanded,however
there is such strong resistance its not going to happen.There are reported sightings where a cars
 have been picked up,the car occupants experienced a a kind of weightlessness,this would
indicate a field of some sort is present close to the craft.Any object getting close will
experience first a strong magnetic field as it gets closer a reduction in inertia and
 weight, air molecules will also experience this inertia reduction,so  even if the ufo travels
at a very high rate of speed there would be no heat on the surface of the ufo.Speculating a
little more,As to how the ufo fits into free energy theres a very close connection between gravity
 fields and magnetic fields,the reason the ufo's have a super powerful magnetic field, is gravity
fields and magnetic fields no not interact in an attractive way,however there is a very
close connection,I believe that  gravity and inertia  is reduced by converting some of
 the gravity field into a magnetic field,the magnetic field produced is the energy of the
gravity field,it is vast.The inertia of an object is independent to it being in a gravity
field its resistance to change in direction,or acceleration  is due to the gravity field of
 the object its self so by reducing its effective gravity field you would reduce its inertia.
There is no explanation of inertia under general relativity,it is possible to account for the
3 proofs of general relativity one of them creates a huge problem in that gravity has to be a
force,so if its not a curvature of space then its not correct in its concept.However you would
 get nowhere as nobody would listen to you,remember the discussion you had with MarkE on your
 ufo sighting,it would play out exactly like that.Here is a video for anyone interested ,
this illustrates  how the workings of general relativity, gravity, is taught as fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

Its very hard to conceive of gravity as an extremely powerful energy source vs just an
 attractive force.What I said is speculation of course,however there are points in physics
 where errors have been created,I'm not going to get into where there at, you have to look
very closely.A real world free energy device will use a concept involving the connection
between gravity and magnetic fields to generate electrical energy.



   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 495


Buy me some coffee
Re UFO tech:
Bob Lazar has explained the tech to my satisfaction.
Everything adds up technologically.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 495


Buy me some coffee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdpBgCbv5E
Is a great starting point on ufo technology.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Group: Guest
you have to be careful about Bob Lazar
look at this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym1pVpCLsUI

and this

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/bob_lazar.htm

Like free energy research that has crackpots,energy mythology,out right frauds,mad dog hard line skeptics,and people that have there heart in the
right place but are flat out wrong and  of course a few real devices.
The UFO investigation area also  has its share of frauds,crackpots and real sightings,not many.
Keep in mind, I have seen a ufo,I'm not skeptical about ufo's,I am skeptical about people and what there agendas are.
I don't believe the government has reversed engineered captured UFO's or are working with grey aliens,I do believe they have crashed UFO's,but have no clue how they work or how to reverse engineer them.If UFO's are
real and are machines,machines break or can be damaged and will crash.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 495


Buy me some coffee


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Group: Guest
OK A.King., then can you explain logically how exactly the Earth and a satellite orbiting it at close to the speed of light can both orbit the Sun in the same "period" while they are both supposedly experiencing different "rates" of time ?

Then extend that over 100 000 years rather than one year and explain how they stay together in orbit around the Sun.

The fact is that even if a satellite was orbiting the Earth at 2 x light speed, both the satellite and the Earth would orbit the Sun in the same time frame or period. This is an axiom. Any appearance of time rate variation is an illusion and the effect must have another cause or causes.

1 year is one year and if two objects in motion both complete an orbit of the Sun in one year and both remain together while they do it then logic and common sense say they both experience the same rate of time. Both have experienced the previous year as 1 year.

..

Maybe it would be helpful to look at just how an atomic clock works. Cesium fountain atomic clock. Is it really possible for an atomic clock to work the same at any point in the Universe ? I doubt it.

..

Maybe if we envision ourselves as watching the Earth and a light speed satellite orbiting the Earth while they both orbit the Sun from a great distance on another planet in another Galaxy and I think we would see them both take 1 year to orbit the Sun regardless of how fast the Earth's satellite is moving in orbit around the Earth.

..
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
It is kind of funny when we think about it... imagine we see a clock on a wall and it starts spinning slower then faster, now why would anyone in their right mind think time is changing when in fact it should be obvious the clock is changing. Next we could imagnie a ruler which miraculously shinks then grows longer, should we assume space has changed when it seems obvious it is in fact the ruler which has changed. I simply cannot imagine why anyone who honestly believes in logic and reason would take such a blind leap of faith as to assume the measure has somehow miraculously changed but not the material being measured.

I simply cannot even imagine anything more absurd but then again by the numbers 80% of people who believe in GR may also believe a bearded man in a white dress created the whole universe in about a week. Oh the humanity...

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
A.King are you religious or scientific ? On this it seems AC and I are in agreement, maybe others can also see the logic.

An electron does not orbit an atom at all. The electron is actually part of the ATOM, the electron orbits the nucleus.

Please educate yourself some more.

And we can stop an electron from orbiting in some atoms by nuclear fission, (splitting the atom) must surely mean that particular atom no longer exists.

The pendulum Clock and the atomic clock both work as resonators. Depending on the environment they could be affected and work differently.

I'm no expert but I would ask if the atomic clock is affected by gravity. And it seems that it is. http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm

Quote
The big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.

Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm
..

An atomic clock is just another kind of timepiece. The article says an atomic clock can keep time better than the Earth and Sun but they are wrong because an atomic clock will not continue to operate for as long as the Earth and Sun and it will fail well before the Earth and Sun do. Any single Man made contrivance cannot keep time over many millions of years.

The actual rate of time passing does not and cannot be altered by us in any way. We can only measure it with devices and devices will have nuances.

.

It is true that an atomic clock can keep time in a way that is better for us to utilize than the Earth and Sun and other types of clocks ect. but it fails because it is a man made device and will fail and has nuances.

..

Truth is the Sun and Earth are reliable, even if we loose all electrical power and even all our belongings we can keep track of time by using the Sun and the Earth and record it using a rock and some kind of paint or other marker..

..

« Last Edit: 2015-05-24, 02:41:51 by Farmhand »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Farmhand
I'm glad you jumped in because I didn't even know where to begin to respond to Aking's post. I mean it was so off the wall and speculative and inaccurate it just blew me away.

Quote
Quote
The big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.

I like your quote and I think it justifies the opinion that the properties of matter may be changed in which case it's a whole new ball game.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
I forgot to link the source of the quote it's a site called how stuff works hehe http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm link in my previous post now.

I just can't see how it could be possible for the rate of time to change in one place and not everywhere at once. That can't work as I see it.

I can see how a clock would work differently in orbit to how it works on Earth though. And that some formula is needed to correct the clocks for GPS.

The Universe is eternal in some form or other.

Time is a man made concept.

There is no proof of any aliens coming from light years away. Or from another time.

there may be evidence, but......

Evidence is not proof. Just like power is not Energy.

The only thing that traveling at great speed through the Cosmos will ensure you is a collision sooner or later.

Fact is the human mind wants to try to understand that which is incomprehensible to any living thing.

Ask a big bang theorist exactly where the stuff that went bang came from.

1) Nothing cannot go bang.. period.

2) Something cannot be created from nothing.

3) Therefore everything that "is" has always "been" in existence (in some form or other).

4) So there is no beginning and no end to everything that makes up the Universe.

5) And considering that, I say that time is a man made concept and time did not exist as such until man invented it.

6) Because of the orderly movements of the Cosmos we are able to exist as living humans.

7)  If the Universe reverts to Chaos then we become simply matter and time becomes non existent again.  

8) No humans or other highly intelligent beings that keep track of time means no time.

..
Lol Site code changed my 8 and ) into an emoticon, cool.

..

   
Group: Guest
OK AC, I've thought of an analogy that should "show" a paradox in theory, I'll write it out and see how it reads.

Considering no input to make the below Satellite orbit.

If a satellite orbiting the Earth at .99 light speed was transmitting real power (without loss) to the Earth at a rate of 1000 Watts for 1 hour and time was slowing on the satellite then the received energy on Earth should be greater than the energy transmitted from the satellite because the 1000 Watts should be received for longer than 1 hour on Earth even though it was transmitted for only 1 hour from the Satellite.

Sounds like theoretical O.U. or theoretical Energy from nothing.  O0

The same should be true for signal power received from regular satellites but to a much smaller degree, if they really do experience a slowing of "time" as people generally think of "time".

If the clock on the satellite and the clock on Earth are truly synchronous in rate of internal workings but the rate of time slows for the satellite and it's clock then when the signals are sent and received there must be an annihilation of Energy on one end or the creation of Energy at the other.

Paradox ?

A much more realistic view is that the clock on the satellite works differently for some reason, and time remains the same in both places regardless of what the clock reads. And due to the difference (which is fairly constant) corrections need to be made so that the GPS devices will work well enough. Remember GPS is not perfect, perfection is not possible.

..

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Farmhand
Your last two posts were awesome and it is refreshing to read posts with coherence and some kind of justification for one's thoughts. The problem is most people don't want to talk about justification or proof and they tend to make general statements and expect people to just believe what they say. To me faith and belief in no way constitute proof and while I may respect all people I do not feel compelled in any way to respect their beliefs. If a person cannot prove their belief or at the very least offer reasonable justification then it means nothing in my opinion. Otherwise were still in the dark ages and I may as well respect the fact someone may believe a pink flying unicorn named "fuzzy" created the universe in about one week.

Quote
Ask a big bang theorist exactly where the stuff that went bang came from.

1) Nothing cannot go bang.. period.

2) Something cannot be created from nothing.

3) Therefore everything that "is" has always "been" in existence (in some form or other).

4) So there is no beginning and no end to everything that makes up the Universe.

5) And considering that, I say that time is a man made concept and time did not exist as such until man invented it.

6) Because of the orderly movements of the Cosmos we are able to exist as living humans.

7)  If the Universe reverts to Chaos then we become simply matter and time becomes non existent again.  

This is what I'm talking about O0, is it true?...I don't know however you have made a very compelling argument to justify your opinion which seems very reasonable. I just cannot wrap my mind around the fact some people just expect other people to believe what they say for no other reason than they have said it. I also think your points raise many difficult questions, if something cannot be created from nothing then the universe cannot be created from nothing hence the religious argument of creation is false and science cannot co-exist with religion. If the universe has no beginning or end then science is left with a false construct because our whole system of our measurement is based on a starting point and an end point. Thus science cannot co-exist with it's own more reasonable  conception of the universe either. Were stuck between a rock and a hard place and simply believing some imaginary being created everything may actually be the easier option as delusional as it is. It simply makes no sense from either perspective, we either believe everything is and always was with no beginning or end or a pink flying unicorn named "fuzzy" created all this...I need a beer.

AC
« Last Edit: 2015-05-24, 05:34:21 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
8) No humans or other highly intelligent beings that keep track of time means no time.

In it's most basic form the Distance Speed Time triangle shows the relationship of a mass moving through a space with time.

If a mass is moving through a space then it takes time to do it irrespective of whether an observer is present to measure that time passing.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
A quick search for opposing views on Bob Lazar and this page is top pick:

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2011.01.07

This page contains a link to Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan:

In 1996, I was asked to review the content of  a Bob Lazar website by an online acquaintance. Since then, my critique has been posted to Usenet discussion boards, featured on web pages, and taken on something of a life of its own. I still get email about it monthly, which is quite amusing, considering it’s been almost 5 years since I wrote it. Since the original posting was intended to be an informal email, the tone was somewhat harsh and flippant, and some sections were a bit too dismissive. I decided recently that I would try to put together a  revision of the now-infamous paper. That revision is presented below.

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the “physics” of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint.  Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field. Lazar's text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind interstellar travel...

This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field and using that field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to the source, and allowing you to cross many light years of space in little time and without traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.

I’m less bothered by the wording of this passage now than I used to be, although I still think it’s misleading. If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That’s what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to the source" you'll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50's, the alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!

Now I’m no expert in general relativity, but I believe that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime that are not “gravitational” in nature. (In other words they would not “attract” things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of alien technology. I’m talking about an entire star’s-worth or even a galaxy’s-worth of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or even all of New Mexico for that matter.

There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.

These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE currently accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is described as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are phenomena known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this does not seem to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a wave. It isn’t a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature of QUANTUM gravitational theories, and I think they require a little explanation.

All physicists realize that the theories of QM and GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity. There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work.  But even though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized. This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton. It is no more nonsensical than the photon - which is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.

(To add to the confusion of Lazar's statement, in any quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton will be, in a sense, BOTH a particle AND a wave!)

The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.

As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that’s about it.

You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered "matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a neutron. Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make up protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually are considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form an atom.

These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of the term "matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark is considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn’t “matter” than what is it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.

It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors like these are what  make Lazar’s “theory” so dubious. How can we give much consideration to someone who claims to be overthrowing the foundations of particle physics, when it’s fairly obvious that  he isn’t even familiar with the terminology?

Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear force" in mainstream physics ...

This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.

If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves are meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement is not only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.

...it should be obvious that a large, single star system, binary star system, or multiple star system would have had more of the prerequisite mass and electromagnetic energy present during their creations.

Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy.  Mr. Lazar doesn’t seem to understand where heavy elements come from, or how they are formed.

First we have to assume that when Lazar says “large” he means “massive.” The "largeness" of a star says nothing about its mass. In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of Mars. A star's size changes drastically during its lifetime. It’s pretty clear that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.

The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that his element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn't exist on the Earth, should be present in those solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier elements. This is quite incorrect.

Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during the normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are "cooked" is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae. The supernova explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on the properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of the star systems in a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the same abundances of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE, as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions and it should exist EVERYWHERE!

The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A field around them...

No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...

Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the nuclear force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element 115 extends beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call it Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply not possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past 50 years of probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear force is VERY short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their nearest neighbors in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force extends out to about the same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear physics.

Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction which explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can predict the abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which can describe all of the properties of nuclear reactions which take place inside of stars...all as well as our current theories do all of these things (which is VERY well!) then he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize. If not, then once again his statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything that we know about nuclear interactions.

Now even though the distance that the gravity A wave extends past the perimeter of the atom is infinitesimal, it is accessible and it has amplitude, wavelength and frequency, just like any OTHER wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the gravity A wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify OTHER electromagnetic waves.

(MY EMPHASIS)
I have emphasized the use of the word "other" in this paragraph to show that Mr. Lazar apparently thinks that his "gravity A wave", which if you recall, is also the strong nuclear force, is ALSO an electromagnetic wave. Perhaps he HAS formulated a "Grand Unified Theory" after all! Or perhaps this is just another example of his careless use of scientific terms.

Conclusions

I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress, because there is one common objection to my critique of Lazar’s scenario. People will often say “Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong! Lazar could be right!” Yes. That is correct. In fact, modern science almost certainly IS “wrong.” But the only real test of a theory in science is that it works. Newton’s Laws worked. They still do in most situations. Einstein’s theories are better – they are more accurate and they work in more situations. New theories will continue to come along that are more precise and more generally applicable than the older theories, and these new theories will be tested by experiments until they supplant the old ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400 years.

So it is not enough to SAY  that modern science is wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better. And that “better” theory needs to do everything that the old theory does, and then do more. And chances are that it won’t completely turn the old theory on it’s head – because we already know that the old theories work too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current science “total nonsense” is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process – not a body of knowledge.

I can't possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar's mechanism is impossible. All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario would require a COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle physics in order to work. Not just some minor changes...I'm talking from the ground up. Mr. Lazar makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes no alternative theories. But, if Lazar's scenario is true, then we will NEED some new theories, because we are wrong about a great many things. We don't understand gravity. We don't understand nuclear interactions. We don't understand spacetime. We don't understand stellar evolution. However, considering Mr. Lazar's careless use of language, his casual redefinition of scientific terms, and the complete lack of details in his presentation, I'm willing to bet the farm that it is actually Lazar who doesn't understand any of these things.


But wait.....There’s an addendum!!

Lazar explains on his current webpage (www.boblazar.com) how his element 115 not only serves as the generator of the Gravity A wave, but ALSO as the fuel for a matter/antimatter reactor that powers the rest of the saucer. Let's take a close look at Lazar's explanation of this reactor...

"The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. "

Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's reactor.  Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!

(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself, you have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put in 2 "protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)

If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.

Conservation of energy rears it's ugly head, and once again - it looks like Bob's saucer is going nowhere fast!

I have highlighted in bold a statement by Dr. David L. Morgan that many in this community should attempt to grasp!


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2025-05-01, 23:07:11
Loading...