Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You know, It doesn't matter if Einstien was right or wrong. He was a brilliant man.

How about showing him a little bit of respect?

He's a retard that thought space could bend and led us down the wrong path of science for nearly a century.

He's the worst human being to ever walk the face of the earth.

Space does bend: [snip].
It was proven way back in 1919 by precisely documenting gravitational bending of starlight.during a solar eclipse; stars could be seen around the rim, of the eclipsed solar disk out of their real position by a precise amount predicted by Albert Einstein. The suns gravity distorted space and the light rays of stars behind the sun were bent.
Examples of "gravitational lensing" are found by astronomers using hubble and the VLA quite frequently today.

Search for gravitational lenses

Most of the gravitational lenses in the past have been discovered accidentally. A search for gravitational lenses in the northern hemisphere (Cosmic Lens All Sky Survey, CLASS), done in radio frequencies using the Very Large Array (VLA) in New Mexico, led to the discovery of 22 new lensing systems, a major milestone. This has opened a whole new avenue for research ranging from finding very distant objects to finding values for cosmological parameters so we can understand the universe better.

A similar search in the southern hemisphere would be a very good step towards complementing the northern hemisphere search as well as obtaining other objectives for study. As can be expected, if such a search is done using well calibrated and well parametrized instrument and data, we can expect to have a very good outcome. The use of the Australia Telescope 20 GHz (AT20G) Survey data collected using the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) stands to be such a collection of data. As the data were collected using the same instrument maintaining a very stringent quality of data we should expect to obtain good results from the search. The AT20G survey is a blind survey at 20 GHz frequency in the radio domain of the electromagnetic spectrum. Due to the high frequency used, the chances finding gravitational lenses increases as the relative number of compact core objects (eg. Quasars) are higher (Sadler et al. 2006). This is important as the lensing is easier to detect and identify in simple objects compared to objects with complexity in them. This search involves the use of interferometric methods to identify candidates and follow them up at higher resolution to identify them. Full detail of the project is currently under works for publication.

In a recent article on Science Daily (Jan. 21 2009) a team of scientists led by a cosmologist from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has made major progress in extending the use of gravitational lensing to the study of much older and smaller structures than was previously possible by stating that weak gravitational lensing improves measurements of distant galaxies.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...







Mod edit: insult removed.
Discuss the topic, not each other.
Courtesy Is Mandatory

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by mnemeth1
He's a retard that thought space could bend and led us down the wrong path of science for nearly a century.

He's the worst human being to ever walk the face of the earth.

Me no understand:

A lot of other people besides the OP don't like Einstein:
There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters

A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it's an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was no less than a cheat.

A quick glance at anti-relativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works – very few of them in agreement with each other. But despite their many differences, common themes among these self-described iconoclasts do emerge: resentment of academic 'elites', suspicion of the entire peer-review process in mainstream scientific journals and a deep-seated paranoia about the extent of government involvement in scientific projects.

"there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by anti-relativity cranks, called 'Crisis in Cosmology'. I think the first one was held in Spain and they're planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane."

The conference planners sent out invitations to Gaensler and hundreds of other physicists. "Before registering," he says, "you had to fill out this 10-point, bulleted manifesto, agreeing to all sorts of propositions from the start. For example, 'I do not accept that the universe is expanding', and so on, the kind of thing you would never see at a real scientific conference. It was hilarious."

It's not just one person, it's an epidemic.

Personally I'm not sure that Einstein was completely right, but whoever comes along with a better theory is going to have to explain observations better than Einstein's theories and so far nobody has been able to do that. Einstein's ideas aren't as sacrosanct as the doubters like to suggest, they are just very well tested and agree with observation:

www.cosmosmagazine.com...

It doesn't seem to make any difference to point out to anti-relativists that, second to quantum mechanics, relativity is the most tested theory on the books.

And the testing hasn't stopped. None of the physicists I spoke to pretend that relativity is somehow sacrosanct, as dissenters typically complain.

There are enough problems with the standard model that I'm sure many physicists would LOVE to have a better model. The problem is, none of the alternatives are better.

and his theory of relativity was wrong two

Originally posted by lokiliesmith
hahaha listen in at 00:48 sec mark... he says most of his work is in photovoltaics and "wind turbans"...

wind turbines.
2

reply to post by 46ACE


I am not in a position to argue with you about the bending of 'space', but gravitational lensing sounds to me like bending light, not space. Is that the same thing?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Real science is always about finding better ways of explaining things.

Of course, the problem is that we no longer find better ways of explaining things. We rely on fantasy fiction to explain things. We are reverting back to the dark ages of mysticism where theory trumps evidence.

If a theory does not agree with the experiment it is wrong.

Einstein's theories have been evolved to a point where they literally can not be falsified through experimentation.

That means there is no science behind them any longer, only conjecture and mysticism.

Classical physics of the flavor promoted by Mills puts limits and constraints on atomic models that the current thieves and liars of the scientific establishment find TOTALLY ABHORRENT. You can't continuously lie and steal forever if your fraud is put inside real physical limits that must meet with observed experimentation.

There's nothing in Mills theory that is made up, and I think that is what bothers the statist liars the most.

Mills wants to take away the fantasy fiction part of their precious theories and replace it with hard physical constraints.

Originally posted by PuterMan
I am not in a position to argue with you about the bending of 'space', but gravitational lensing sounds to me like bending light, not space. Is that the same thing?

Gravitational lens

Spacetime around a massive object (such as a galaxy cluster or a black hole) is curved, and as a result light rays from a background source (such as a galaxy) propagating through spacetime are bent.

The bending of light is a consequence of the curved space-time.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There's nothing in Mills theory that is made up, and I think that is what bothers the statist liars the most.

Since hyydereinas haven't been confirmed by the larger scientific community, they do seem kind of made-up.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Rowan ran triple tests which were further confirmed by the CfA/Gen3 team.

That's proof enough in my book.

He's published everything needed to replicate the experiments and yet no one has come forward to prove him wrong.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that he is wrong when the experiments say he is right, simply because the larger scientific community refuses to accept the truth.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is a logical fallacy to conclude that he is wrong when the experiments say he is right, simply because the larger scientific community refuses to accept the truth.

Perhaps it is a logical fallacy, I'll grant you that. But I suspect the fact that nobody will come forward to replicate the result has something to do with the story of the boy who cried "wolf"! All the past replication efforts have failed for the last 20 years so they probably just don't believe him anymore. So even if he's actually right this time, nobody will pay any attention until the reactors go commercial.

Then there will be plenty of desire to replicate the hydrino results if that happens. But until it does I can understand why he's largely ignored.

Originally posted by 46ACE
Space does bend: [snip].
It was proven way back in 1919 by precisely documenting gravitational bending of starlight.during a solar eclipse; stars could be seen around the rim, of the eclipsed solar disk out of their real position by a precise amount predicted by Albert Einstein. The suns gravity distorted space and the light rays of stars behind the sun were bent.
Examples of "gravitational lensing" are found by astronomers using hubble and the VLA quite frequently today.

I was gonna stay out of this thread until I saw this statement. That is simply smoke and mirrors, and any one of you can test it in your garage. What is needed...

Cold humid nights are best...

Get a standard lamp (without the shade) and a cardboard box. Paint the inside and outside of the box black. Poke holes in the box... BTW make sure the box is large enough to place your lamp (lightbuld) inside while turned on, so not to burn the box... just saying...

Then at five feet away place a burning oil/kerosene lamp in from of the box with the lamp inside and turned on. Now place an object in front of the oil lamp that obstructs your view of the flame but not the convection emanating from the lamp. Move just far enough away that you can barely make out the light shinning from the holes within the box. Now adjust your view until you can see you are looking at the lighted holes through the convection. You have just successfully bent space and time... OR... just proved that is nothing but a visual illusion and nothing more... Science has known before Einstein died that was pure stupidity. Einstein and that professer got the idea most likely from looking through a camp fire or from oil street lamps while looking up at stars... I'm not going to bore everyone with how that is most likely true... however... I would suggest you all read the lead up to Einstein fixing the math errors that allowed him to retain his discovery.

BTW ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS and 3D MATHEMATICS absolutely proves its completely impossible for space to bend, completely impossible!!! Because if SR was even remotely true the supposed space that is bending to allow planets to maintain our rotational distance and velocity would cause explosions so large and so ugly no solar system let alone galaxies could ever exist. Black holes don't bend space and time... they simply hold light, and then when they reach critical mass, they produce Gamma Bursts... A very select few of scientist have known this for 60 years.

You want proof?

Fine...


You will need to create a circular object that not only allows light to enter, but that also does not allow light to exit... This sphere must also be able to maintain extreme pressures both internally and extreme pressure externally, while at the same time being able to expand and retract several centimeters. Inside of the first sphere you will need mercury , and a certain gas that gets extremely hot when compressed. This sphere must be suspended dead center within the second sphere. The second sphere must be larger then the first, and must also allow light in but not allow light to escape. The type of gas inside the second sphere must get colder as pressure increases. Not only that, the pressure inside the second sphere needs to be increased and decreased on regular intervals. Outside of both spheres, you must have light enter into the sphere from every angle of the outer sphere... every single centimeter of the sphere must have light entering into the sphere. Above the lights, on both the top and bottom of the spheres and above the lights, you must have powerful magnets, positive on the top and negative on the bottom, top spinning clock wise, the bottom spinning counter clockwise. Also, you must make sure you have the ability to capture/bleed energy and be able to open up both spheres in emergency situations... or it will kill you and everyone within several miles... depending on the size of your experiment, and/or length of time you allow the light to accumulate. The Nazi weren't putting Energy into the Bell they were taking it away.

I realize you wont believe a word of this, so that’s why I’m not worried about putting this online. I wont explain what material is needed to create the spheres, nor will I tell what kind of gases need to be used or what type of light should be used for best results… the last thing I want is some nerdy kid building this in his garage. What I will tell you though… everything you need is available without permit. Even though mercury is hard to get and is illegal in large quantities, you can still find it if you know where to look… not because of its health hazards… oh no… there is a far more sinister reason… and you won’t believe a word of that answer either!

--Charles Marcello

Originally posted by littlebunny
Move just far enough away that you can barely make out the light shinning from the holes within the box. Now adjust your view until you can see you are looking at the lighted holes through the convection. You have just successfully bent space and time.

No that's an atmospheric effect. There's no atmosphere in space. There's an atmosphere around the earth, but it's the same atmosphere we look through to observe the stars near the sun whether there's a solar eclipse or no solar eclipse. Therefore it wasn't an atmospheric effect in 1919 when the gravitational bending of light was first confirmed.

Besides, how do you explain the stretched out shape of these lights if you don't believe that gravity bends light? It sure looks like something is bending the light into these long shapes, and we happen to see a lot of mass and a therefore a lot of gravity in the picture (where the arrows are pointing), not a coincidence.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c989478b2d72.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


there is to an atmosphere in space, to even suggest there's not is lunacy... Our planet exists smack dab in the middle of a giant convection source called the sun that produces solar winds all day long… and our solar system is loaded with ice crystals. Everyone knows this... There must also be water in half frozen half liquid state... it must exist or what the hell is left by Comets, and how did they get so frozen? I realize the universe has to be a giant empty void for an expanding universe and for the theories that say space bends to be true... But its simply impossible... The universe is loaded with physical matter on/in the atomic and sub atomic levels... Either the big bang happened or it didn't... science cannot continue to have it both ways. No atmosphere... What nonsense!!!
I don't mean to be rude, I'm not blaming you... Its just madness that that nonsense is still being taught in schools.

---Charles Marcello

There are ways to generate free energy.

I used Nathan Stubblefields 1898 patent for an "Earth Battery" and have been making them for power.

They produce low voltage but a simple "Joule Thief" circuit can take that power and light LED's. I've also been tinkering with a couple other low voltage circuits people are making on the Energetic Forum to charge batteries.

Imagine Nathan Stubblefield discovered this in 1898 and that's what powered telegraph's back in the day...and that poor American died of starvation. He discovered one of the most important inventions for mankind and didn't get the benefit of it. His knowledge is being reborn as the world is preparing for life after crude oil.

I have several buried Stubblefield Coils in the garden and they light LED's around it. I have 2 others plumbed into the garage and they power a small radio.

Free Energy is real. And it's 100% American.

Originally posted by littlebunny
Then at five feet away place a burning oil/kerosene lamp in from of the box with the lamp inside and turned on. Now place an object in front of the oil lamp that obstructs your view of the flame but not the convection emanating from the lamp. Move just far enough away that you can barely make out the light shinning from the holes within the box. Now adjust your view until you can see you are looking at the lighted holes through the convection. You have just successfully bent space and time...

You are saying that gravitational lensing occurs because of convection currents?!?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Besides, how do you explain the stretched out shape of these lights if you don't believe that gravity bends light?

Here's a good answer from my knol:
knol.google.com...#

• Abell 3376 emits massive amounts of x-rays in a halo estimated thermally to be at over 60 million degrees Kelvin. There are no plausible explanations for this outrageous amount of heat and xray emission that encompasses the entire galaxy cluster using standard shock and gravity theory. The so-called shock "injection problem" in proposed solutions to these observations is ignored. Collisional heating of neutral gas can not generate 60 million degree temperatures. Mechanisms for the creation and maintenance of the required magnetic fields and the associated plasma have not been addressed. The Sun doesn’t even get that hot. That’s over 20 times hotter than the hottest point of the solar corona and over 10,000 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. The electric model of galaxy formation offers an obvious solution to this problem as well as the unaccounted for magnetic fields.

Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed to change in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous! The notion that gravitational micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations observed over time. Recent papers on lensing read like a science fiction novel with a nearly infinite number of hypothetical postulates propping up the theory.

In conjunction with this argument:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses;

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only to face conflicting data from another model, and so forth – of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.

Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that’s left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo. Also on the galactic scale, the Abell 3376 galaxy cluster exhibits a ring system that is not due to “gravitational lensing" as do numerous other galaxies and galaxy clusters such as Hoag's object. Ring formations are a common occurrence in space, the majority of which are totally unrelated to any proposed "lensing."

Further, given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed. Magneto-optical effects such as self-focusing have not been thoroughly reviewed as a possible cause of the observed visual distortions around the Sun. Given the electric model, it seems such effects could possibly account for the observed refraction of light.

Since we know entire galaxy clusters can have ring systems, any proposed lensing around galaxy clusters should be taken with a grain of salt.

Further, since we know the standard model is incapable of answering why the Able cluster is so insanely hot, it stands to reason plasma cosmology's view of galaxy formation is correct. If it is correct, then the answer to the ring systems around galaxy clusters becomes obvious.



Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This thread seems to follow same sad pattern as other threads you author:

XYZ (anything, really) ===> Einstein is a moron ===> Einstein cross is composed of separate quasars connected by plasma.

Phew.

lastro.epfl.ch...

Look at the spectra, if you care. It's the same quasar.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

This thread seems to follow same sad pattern as other threads you author:

XYZ (anything, really) ===> Einstein is a moron ===> Einstein cross is composed of separate quasars connected by plasma.

Phew.

lastro.epfl.ch...

Look at the spectra, if you care. It's the same quasar.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain to me how spectra proves they are the same quasar.

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

there is to an atmosphere in space, to even suggest there's not is lunacy... Our planet exists smack dab in the middle of a giant convection source called the sun that produces solar winds all day long… and our solar system is loaded with ice crystals. Everyone knows this... There must also be water in half frozen half liquid state... it must exist or what the hell is left by Comets, and how did they get so frozen? I realize the universe has to be a giant empty void for an expanding universe and for the theories that say space bends to be true... But its simply impossible... The universe is loaded with physical matter on/in the atomic and sub atomic levels... Either the big bang happened or it didn't... science cannot continue to have it both ways. No atmosphere... What nonsense!!!
I don't mean to be rude, I'm not blaming you... Its just madness that that nonsense is still being taught in schools.

---Charles Marcello

edit on 9-12-2010 by littlebunny because: (no reason given)

You don't understand a single thing about the solar wind, atmospheres, or the nature of the big bang.

Particles do not need an atmosphere to move through; in fact, an atmosphere would interfere with their motion through it! The charged particles of the solar wind fly out through the void.

"No atmosphere" is not synonymous with "complete and total void." There are dust particles in the air here, but that doesn't transform it from "atmosphere" to "dust cloud." There being comets and stuff does not suggest that there's an atmosphere at all.

Comets got frozen because there is no mechanism that would heat them. I don't even really understand how you think that couldn't work...

The big bang theory actually indicates that there would be swaths of void. Especially in conjunction with Conservation of Energy & Matter. As the universe expands, its elements drift apart from each other. Because new junk can't be created in the space between them, there comes to exist a void.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Lets not pick on einstein. He was a quirky genius.
His GR and SR may well be partly flawed, but he came up with his theories
nearly a 100 yrs ago. So he stands and remains vindicated.

Will do some research on blacklight power and then post again.
But is this mills bloke the same canadian fatso who was told to shut shop by
the canadian authorities?

I just want to give my testimony on this and try to answer any questions people might have here... I have been studying this topic for several years and I am fully convinced this is real. I have been thinking of opening a thread on this but it's very difficult to try to eplain this to omeone who knows nothing aobut it. We hear these claims all the time and usually it is a scam... this appears to be the lone exception.

Now that I think about it it kind of makes you wonder if maybe there is a reason this scam is attempted so much.. maybe we have been intentionally conditioned to see the idea of water being free enery as absurd. I find it hard to belive the powers that be would be unaware of this.

For the people that claim this subject has been around for so long with little development.. keep in mind that it is a huge challenge trying to turn some anamoulous physical phenomena into a working theory and reliable technology. Also realize that he has been hindered by people who have claimed he is a crackpot or a scammer. Who know how quickly this might have been developed if not for those obstacles.