Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 491700
  • *Total Topics: 14471
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 9
  • *Guests: 86
  • *Total: 95

Facebook

Author Topic: What if ?  (Read 17569 times)

Offline elecar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
What if ?
« on: June 15, 2013, 01:42:50 PM »
Everyone who has an interest in OU and perpetual self running mechanisms will be aware of the differing views of those who believe it is possible and the largely scientific counter argument that it is not possible because of this law and that law, and thermodynamics blah, blah, blah.

To be fair to the scientific group, as of yet no one has shown any of the above can be achieved. But by way of a discussion, I want to introduce a “what if” and the ramifications of  such a device being presented that did show OU, self running or perpetual motion.

So to get the discussion started, someone creates a working SMOT, shows and proves it works. There is obviously still going to be conflicts of belief, but what would the ramifications of such a device be in the larger context. Rewriting the laws of physics ?

Discuss.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

What if ?
« on: June 15, 2013, 01:42:50 PM »

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
Re: What if ?
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2013, 02:38:04 PM »
What you don't know and I can only guess is the nature governon to limit the energy from ambient pulled on the spot area. In other words I believe it can be done only in small quantities around the whole world , spread rather evenly.
Check the articles in Colorado Springs about strange phenomena from the period when Tesla operated his experiments there.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: What if ?
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2013, 03:03:03 PM »
Forget rewriting the laws of physics.... how about rewriting the "laws" of warfare?

If you think drones are bad now, how bad will they be when they never need to refuel or recharge their batteries? If you fear terrorists with bombs, how much more afraid should you be of terrorists with unlimited supplies of energy?

And so on. Any new invention is evaluated first and foremost for its utility as a weapon, or otherwise useful on the battlefield. It's in our nature as terrestrial primates. You pick up a rock, I pick up a branch. You attach your rock to a branch to make a club.... so I invent the spear. You then invent the bow and arrow. And so on, until we wind up here.

Offline elecar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: What if ?
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2013, 03:17:25 PM »
Hi TK, that is for a politics forum. I am putting out a "what if" with regard to OU.  I am guessing it would not go down well with any scientist as it would go against all the laws they so often quote.
What would make it even worse is if some uneducated, illiterate person was to prove it. Could you just imagine the fall out. All those years of college and uni, reciting verse and line about all those laws, only to find they did not hold up to something as simple as a SMOT.


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3016
Re: What if ?
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2013, 05:52:11 PM »
I think all it would prove is that science is incomplete in its understanding of everything,, and I think that the vast majority of scientists believe that there is much more to learn than what we already think we know,, so it would only add another window in which to view all things, and that would lead to a better understanding of things.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What if ?
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2013, 05:52:11 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
Re: What if ?
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2013, 05:57:38 PM »
Working on it  ;D  There is no need to actually change any law - all laws of nature allow free energy continously, we just don't know yet how to tap more then a few percent (using solar and wind power) and I heard that high efficiency solar panels are supposedly supressed.... You must realize this : energy is continously flowing into Earth from cosmic sources, there is no other possibility to maintain steady rotation.

Offline elecar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: What if ?
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2013, 07:43:42 PM »
Forest, using the SMOT example physics says it can not be done, thermodynamics and all that. It can not be that Physics law #2 would still stand if a SMOT was  (1) running itself (2) providing excess energy even if that energy was no more than lighting an LED.
Surely science could not have it both ways, either the SMOT is impossible or physics is wrong.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What if ?
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2013, 07:43:42 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
Re: What if ?
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2013, 09:03:29 PM »
Forest, using the SMOT example physics says it can not be done, thermodynamics and all that. It can not be that Physics law #2 would still stand if a SMOT was  (1) running itself (2) providing excess energy even if that energy was no more than lighting an LED.
Surely science could not have it both ways, either the SMOT is impossible or physics is wrong.


elecar


Buy a small solar panel, connect led bulb to it and put it directly toward sunshine. Got it ? Impossible ? Any thermodynamics law is violated ? Physics is right, but scientists are mistaken as always.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: What if ?
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2013, 09:23:06 PM »
Hi TK, that is for a politics forum. I am putting out a "what if" with regard to OU.  I am guessing it would not go down well with any scientist as it would go against all the laws they so often quote.
What would make it even worse is if some uneducated, illiterate person was to prove it. Could you just imagine the fall out. All those years of college and uni, reciting verse and line about all those laws, only to find they did not hold up to something as simple as a SMOT.

No, I completely disagree.
All it would take is one genuine case of a properly performed experiment that reliably indicated an anomalous effect, even a tiny bit of OU or excess COP the way we define it here. One repeatable and consistent experiment or demonstration. Then "conventional" science and scientists would be all over it, trying to repeat it and explain it. You could not keep them away with fences! Graduate students are always looking for research projects and the more grad students there are the harder it is to find something actually new and relevant to research for their PhD dissertations, which are supposed to add to knowledge, not just repeat what's already known.
It doesn't matter whether this repeatable demonstration comes from a twelve year old autistic kid who doesn't even speak, or from someone like a Richard Feynman. Sure, if it came from Richard people might pay more attention to it _at first_, but no matter who or from where it comes, the important thing is repeatability and confirmation of claims. When those things are done, for real, then there is no problem from capital-S Science at all. Real scientists do change their minds when they are proven wrong! It happens all the time. It might not "go down well", as you say, and some scientists might never give up their opinions, but this is a matter of personality, not science itself. We've all seen cases where a FE device or theory is soundly disproven but the core group of believers hangs on and seems utterly impervious to reason. Some people still believe in MyLOW, ffs. Scientists, the people, are no different. Science, the discipline, though, is self-correcting and what we "know" is a broad consensus and is always being revised, updated, and yes even corrected.
"Show me the sausages". If your sausages are real, then no scientist will be able, reasonably, to dispute them. But the problem is that we haven't seen any real sausages. Some people, like me, might include the word "yet" at the end of that sentence, but the sausages that we might someday see will _not_ be violating any fundamental laws that we "know" to be true, like 2LoT, conservative gravity, and so on.

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
Re: What if ?
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2013, 09:35:53 PM »
TinselKoala


Nice dreams, but look what happened to cold fusion....

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What if ?
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2013, 09:35:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: What if ?
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2013, 11:08:42 PM »
TinselKoala


Nice dreams, but look what happened to cold fusion....

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. There are still many completely conventional and legitimate scientists trying to replicate the various CF/LENR claims that have been made. Major energy corporations have sponsored some of this research. The problem with CF/LENR is not with the scientists who are investigating it, but rather with the pseudoscientists who pretend to do research and report it, like the recent paper by Levi et al. reporting on a Rossi reactor demonstration. There are so  many holes in the presentations of the CF "believers" that it has not been accepted by "mainstream" science, and this is because of the shoddy work and inadequate reportage of the believers, not because the "mainstream" is closed to new ideas.
The reason that the Bell Labs reports of the invention of the transistor were believed and accepted is because the science was good and repeatable. And now look where the transistor has gone. The reason that the P&F reports were not believed and haven't been accepted is because the science was bad, the reported phenomena not repeatable. Not because science is closed to new ideas.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: What if ?
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2013, 11:12:56 PM »
Forest:

Quote
Working on it  There is no need to actually change any law - all laws of nature allow free energy continously, we just don't know yet how to tap more then a few percent (using solar and wind power) and I heard that high efficiency solar panels are supposedly supressed.... You must realize this : energy is continously flowing into Earth from cosmic sources, there is no other possibility to maintain steady rotation.

For what it's worth I am just going to address an issue or two because they pop up all the time on the forums.

The notion that energy is "continuously flowing into the Earth" to keep it spinning is wrong.  If you make anything spin while it is floating in the vacuum of outer space then it will spin forever.  It could be the Earth or a hockey puck, it doesn't matter.  There is no friction and there are no unbalanced forces acting on the spinning object so it will spin forever, no energy required.

In fact the Earth is slowing down and that's why we have leap seconds but I am ignoring that.  In fact space is not completely empty and I am also ignoring that.

The laws of Nature are all about unity.  They do not allow for "free energy continuously."  We are lucky in that we have the Sun providing us with energy.  But again I must stress that is not free energy.  It's just unity in action one more time.  The Sun is just a unity device that is burning fuel and it will eventually run out of fuel and die.

Quote
Our Sun creates E = 3.9E+26 joules of energy every second. To balance the books, every second the Sun destroys m = E/c^2 = 4.3E+9 kilograms of mass. This mass loss, equivalent to more than 4 million tons per second, is accomplished by fusing 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium. Source(s): Experienced geologist.
 
 http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryd…
 http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3…
 http://mb-soft.com/public2/sunworks.html

The idea that higher efficiency solar panels are being suppressed is just another crazy conspiracy theory that you read somewhere.  The person that wrote that probably has ulterior motivations to create some fake buzz to get more web page hits or to sell something.  It's just the dark side of the human condition that is manipulating you for profit.  It's the Inverse-MIB in action.

Since I am here, I will address the good old "zero point energy" idea.  All of the leptons and anti-leptons jumping in and out of existence and the neutrino and anti-neutrino flux, bla bla bla.  I am no expert here, but that is like being in an isothermal bath of hot air.  Yes, there is heat energy in the air.  The problem is that the temperature is the same everywhere.  So you can't do anything with it, you are stuck in a heat fishbowl and unless something special comes along, there is nothing that you can do to take advantage of it.   So, 3D space may represent a type of energy density, but we can't do anything with it.   There is no magic solution for that with our current technology and there is the distinct possibility that we will never be able to harvest any of this "ambient background space energy" for lack of a better term.

Sterling's catch phrase whenever he writes up yet another improbable free energy proposition is that this new device "might be tapping into the clockwork of Nature."  Right now that's just a meaningless catch phrase.  I want to scream sometimes when he writes that.  Do you really think a $250 electric fan from some semi-creepy commune in Brazil is any better or more efficient than a $20 electric fan from Walmart?  Which fan do you think cost more energy to produce?

I hate to be so depressing, but I think that it's important sometimes to remind people of the context of our understanding of what the real world and the Universe is all about.  Sure let's be open to new ideas but at the same time let's not propagate false ideas like the Earth spins because it is being "powered from cosmic sources."  Some ideas are simply fundamentally wrong and we as human beings need to pull together sometimes and at least try to have agreement on some basic facts.

MileHigh


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3016
Re: What if ?
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2013, 12:46:18 AM »
Strange to have TK and MH agree with me :)

The true scientists I have known are all about what is,, but there are a few that are about there own agendas,  it is important for all of us to not paint all of science with the same ugly brush.

When something new and unique is displayed in a fashion that all can duplicate, science will change with it, and all that the new thing will show is that science is not complete and *IS* looking for a better understanding.

Offline orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: What if ?
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2013, 02:47:56 AM »
If scientists were only half as open-minded as the science-apologists claim, the much needed academic acceptance of mainstream overunity technologies like SMOT, Ainslie's MOSFET oven and overbalanced wheels would have enabled us to use those breakthrough technologies to smooth our SMOT's, heat our heatsinks, and overbalance our overbalanced wheels long ago.


But it is apparently so that science just can't jump over its own blinders and accept the reality of free energy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2531
Re: What if ?
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2013, 09:20:49 PM »
Hi TK, that is for a politics forum. I am putting out a "what if" with regard to OU.  I am guessing it would not go down well with any scientist as it would go against all the laws they so often quote.
What would make it even worse is if some uneducated, illiterate person was to prove it. Could you just imagine the fall out. All those years of college and uni, reciting verse and line about all those laws, only to find they did not hold up to something as simple as a SMOT.
The problem with a SMOT, even so simple they are, they works on basic physics. They cannot be looped in order to get a positive feedback that accelerate the cycling steel ball so excess energy can be taken out. A SMOT is a funny magnetic toy, but not much more than that.


Vidar

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What if ?
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2013, 09:20:49 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: