Alternative Energy

ken10
Well here are two well known "Earthlights" events....

Explain in detail how either one of these 'events' circumvents the laws of physics.

AugustusMasonicus


They are not physical laws due to them having operable flaws, what you postulate is not possible.

As we understand it today. There are new schools of thought coming out all the time. Most if not all up to this point were not right.

But remember Thomas Edison, he didn't fail 250 times before he created the light bulb, he just found 250 ways not to do it.

On day, it may be that some of the laws of physics will be re-written. Then again maybe not. But we cannot stay closed minded to the possibility.

On magnets, what do we know ? We know that there is a constant flow of electrons from the north to the south. There is an energy held in transit for some reason. We call it flux. Or lines of force. maybe we are like cavemen using spears and rocks in using electricity. Maybe there is a better for of energy to use not based on the electron. maybe the gravitational wave or something like that.

reply to post by Fromabove


Hutchison's work (however flakey) was based on harmonics, frequency and magnetism.

I think the guy is a bit off, but got lucky and cannot reproduce the luck. But I think he is on to something.

Throughout history harmonics have played a big part. Perhaps for good reason.

network dude
As we understand it today. There are new schools of thought coming out all the time. Most if not all up to this point were not right.

I do not disagree. What I do take umbrage with is that some laws are immutable, otherwise the universe as we know it would not exist. Theories of 'unlimited' energy is not something that possible.

'Untapped'? Yes. Unlimited. No.

On day, it may be that some of the laws of physics will be re-written. Then again maybe not. But we cannot stay closed minded to the possibility.

In scientific terms the word 'law' means something that is immutable and hence cannot be rewritten. Can there be minor modifiers? Certainly. But claiming 'unlimited' energy sources is not a minor modifier.

reply to post by Hijinx


I know mercury isn't magnetic in it's original state. What I wonder is if it can be magnetized then run around a tube to create rotation.




@WTF2008:

Nikola is spelled with a 'K', not a 'C'.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I agree to a point.

But what if Stan Meyer was really on to something? Sure water in finite, but if the output of separating Hydrogen and using it for fuel is water, then it's renewable. or perhaps he was just a nut and the Pentagon had some dumbasses that were really, really gullable running it.



The world may never know.

network dude
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Hutchison's work (however flakey) was based on harmonics, frequency and magnetism.

I think the guy is a bit off, but got lucky and cannot reproduce the luck. But I think he is on to something.

Throughout history harmonics have played a big part. Perhaps for good reason.

I agree and I think this is where the future of energy is going to go, universal energy (harmonics).

AugustusMasonicus

Freezer
Doesn't really break the laws of physics, as these devices tap into natural sources of energy, they don't create energy from nothing.

Any device that claims to make 'unlimited' amounts of energy, as in the Original Post, most certainly does break the laws of physics.

Tesla envisioned a universe with infinite energy. All we have to do is tap into that energy and we will have 'free' and essentially unlimited energy without breaking those pesky laws of physics. The sun gives us an enormous amount of energy everyday, not just in the form of light and heat. The cosmos, the stars also give us energy at night. Background radiation is a form of energy that is always there.

I've also heard that our magnetosphere gives off energy too and even has a ULF resonate frequency, iirc ~5-6 hz. If this is true, perhaps this too could be tapped for 'free' energy.

I put free in quotes because it is not truly free, it would cost to build devices to tap into those energy sources and they would need occasional maintenance.

To me "free energy" would be the following statement.

FREE ENERGY: Any type of energy that is not paid for in order to use. This does not exclude expendables that are used once if they are not paid for.


The entire world uses energies that are paid for. The universe has energy in abundance and the person who can glean from it will be totally energy free in terms of paying the man.

In the sense that one can create energy, this cannot be done as it would break the laws of physics and add to the totality of the universe. However, energy can change from state to state and making use of it while that is happening is the free part.

The universe is in continual movement. Electro-magnetic energy is constantly flowing in everything around us as we expand ever further. The key is to make use of it's radiant properties, which if Tesla had had another 30 years to his life would probably have achieved. He believed it could be done. So do I.

AugustusMasonicus

Frankinpillow
It may be considered a "national security" threat if an unlimited supply of energy was found...

More importantly it would have destroyed the known laws of physics which would mean we had bigger issues to be concerned about.

People put too much into the so called " Laws of Physics". A Law of Physics is simply a general guide line to follow when given a certain situation using certain materials. People get the very mistaken impression that our "Laws of Physics" are set in stone and are unchanging - nothing could be further from the truth. "Laws" can and have changed many times when there is a unexpected change in the material or situation and the expected observations are not seen. This leads to new understanding of these general guide lines.

So.. yes, it IS entirely possible these so called Laws can be destroyed - even completely re-written.

AugustusMasonicus


In scientific terms the word 'law' means something that is immutable and hence cannot be rewritten. Can there be minor modifiers? Certainly. But claiming 'unlimited' energy sources is not a minor modifier.

Incorrect. A Law is a general rule.. and is Not immutable.

Definition: A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. Scientific laws imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions.

I think it's way premature to say unlimited energy cannot be found or proven to exist even within our current perception of the laws of physics - we simply don't know enough to make that claim. Humans are babies and know next to nothing about science. Therefore the responsibility of science it to continue to search, experiment study data and keep an open mind as to unlimited energy being a real possibility. To deny this of science ( because after all thats the job of science) is to make science a dogmatic religion. I don't want any religion in my science unless and up to the time they discover that the Miracles of god are based in science. LOL.. and one day, i do believe through science, we will understand the mind of god.

Also factor in there may be ( and this is most likely given our very limited knowledge).. may be other laws out there we have yet to discover.

network dude
But what if Stan Meyer was really on to something? Sure water in finite, but if the output of separating Hydrogen and using it for fuel is water, then it's renewable. or perhaps he was just a nut and the Pentagon had some dumbasses that were really, really gullable running it.

But this would not be an infinite energy source; only one that was much more efficient once a means was discovered to have less energy input for cracking the molecules into separate atoms and then processing them for energy production as opposed to what is derived from the resultant energy production.

JohnPhoenix
People put too much into the so called " Laws of Physics". A Law of Physics is simply a general guide line...

When people say the laws of physics are 'simply a general guide' what I hear is 'I do not understand basic science'.

Any physical/scientific law is more than a guideline:

Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. source

When you can start proving them wrong feel free to post your evidence.

People get the very mistaken impression that our "Laws of Physics" are set in stone and are unchanging...

Right, people like Feynman and Davies...

Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:

True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

JohnPhoenix
In scientific terms the word 'law' means something that is immutable and hence cannot be rewritten. Can there be minor modifiers? Certainly. But claiming 'unlimited' energy sources is not a minor modifier.

The continuing definition.....

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.

The likelihood of magical unlimited energy appearing is rather unlikely.

Incorrect. A Law is a general rule.. and is Not immutable.

Please read:

Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations (see below), to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are better viewed as a series of improving and more precise generalizations.

Unlimited energy would not 'an improving or more precise generalization', it would be a drastic rewrite of the known physical laws dealing with mass and energy.

I think it's way premature to say unlimited energy cannot be found or proven to exist even within our current perception of the laws of physics - we simply don't know enough to make that claim. Humans are babies...

Anecdotal and irrelevant. Your opinion of the human condition does nothing to change the way the universe operates and has operated for close to 14 billion years.

reply to post by jrod


So it would have to be some sort of amplifier that can tap into background radiation or whatever other forms of energy, then output it. I think that solar may take some bigger steps and become quite efficient in the future. IDK how far in the future that will be, though, but it's bound to happen. Tesla has been one of my top 3 hero's since grade school. A fascinating, brilliant man. I wish I could go back in time and bring him here and watch him take it all in. There should be a show on TV like that(don't say Quantum Leap please

reply to post by Frankinpillow


Well, I'm no expert here but there's a huge elephant in the room that the energy corporations and our screwed up government has done their level best to insure goes undiscovered. In a few words, it's a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. While I'm no expert here, consider the situation we have here now with energy costs and expenses continuing to rise, can't we do better? I think this is a viable option that will at the very least tell the arabs and others who dictate terms to us, including the majority of the major energy providers to take jump into a lake of their own oil. For those of you out there who don't know a whole lot about this topic (which I'll say includes me), here's a couple of basic introductory videos: LFTR, energy for the future? LFTR's in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors As I've said above, I'm sure as heck no expert here but we CAN do better than the screwed up situation we've got now. Pass it on, make it happen!

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Your are still thinking in a very limited dogmatic fashion. You make assumptions that we do know it all or at least so much that the possibility of discovering unlimited energy and or new substances and it's observations under new conditions - could never be a real possibility.

Thats not scientific thinking. Thats dogma. Real science is open to the possibility that all things are possible until we have all the knowledge and understanding in the universe that would prove otherwise. This hasn't happened and it's not going to happen in a hundred thousand years.

JohnPhoenix
Your are still thinking in a very limited dogmatic fashion.

No, I am thinking in a rational fashion. The 'unlimited' energy believers would be in the opposite camp.

Learn how simple mechanical physics functions.

reply to post by Fylgje

More of a feedback loop than an amplifier. If there really is a background resonate frequency because of our ionosphere at 5-6hz, the wavelength would be enormous and would need a giant antenna to 'catch' that frequency.

Tesla showed that a metal plate on the roof and metal rod in the ground will have different potentials, harnessing that potential might be possible with hundreds or thousands of capacitors wired together in a way that they discharged one after the other. By the time the last capacitor discharges, the first one will have had enough time to recharge to start the cycle over again.

I do believe that abundant cheap electricity is possible, however those who make a fortune selling us electricity seek to destroy any technology that could hurt their profit margin.