posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:45 AM
I don't have anything new to bring to the table except my wild fascination with UFOs when i was younger. All i learned is some people think they've
seen UFOs and some think they've been abducted by them. And its real, not confined to TV. This could mean one thing or another. It could mean a good
majority of us have gone crazy. Mass-hysteria, as they term it. Its real. But, lately i been thinking i was all wrong about it. Maybe these people are
misled? Maybe our government is telling the truth? I'm 28 now, its been several years since i pursued the phenoma of UFOs. The most credible person I
talked to was in his 40's and said he had previously worked in naval intelligence. I talked to him face to face. As I did the other people. All had
stories to tell. Anyway, he went on to tell me that he he had seen a UFO. Told me it changed his life..
Was I crazy? All those people i talked to in person, were they illusioned? Am I crazy to say that maybe we're all miseld, that maybe our government
is honest? Am I being a puppet now? Or is the truth a fuzzy gray?
Or am I simply too old to keep an open mind? Don't trust anyone over 30? I'm still 28...
Anyway, back to earth. I'm not very interested in UFOs anymore. Right now I'm interested in the fact that, apparently, Tesla felt he had produced a
self-activating machine. Anybody who has read anything about free-energy devices has come across Tesla. But, aside from Tesla, many people have come
forward with 'perpetual motion devices'. And we know that this is impossible according to tried & true scientific orthodoxy. Atleast, that is what
they say. From my standpoint, I don't know yet. I'm still learning basic physics. I'm willing to learn more, but I want pointers from people who
have crossed my way. Do you think it is worth pursuring the science behind self-sustaining machines? Machines that by their nature sustain themselves
and can be tapped for purposes of generating energy? And by their nature they don't break the law of energy conservation. Its like, if i poked a hole
in a damn and the water started as a stream and then exploded into a river. I put very little energy into making the hole, but a huge amount of energy
exploded outward. Suggesting that I have to put out the same amount of energy to start this process is stupid. GPE did that for me because I was
working with nature. Technically, couldn't I say that an object in space, once put into a state of motion, remains in this state through a sort of
'self-sustaining' process? Intertia? Untill an outside force acts on it? And what about super conductors? Is it possible to break Lenz Law, under
special cases? Anyway, I see lots of things that i think should be self-sustaining, but since I don't have the background or the ability I'm left
alone feeling like a stupid kid. I know about the law of energy conservation. Yet, I come from an experience that suggests to me my government lies,
but maybe not always. So, I don't know. Can anyone help me? I'd love to 'group' up with some engineer-dudes and share some ideas about
self-sustaining machines that can be tapped for juice. I have a programming background, but I still learning elementary physics. You, me, we all want
devices that can transform one energy to another, but in a manner that is cheap and available to all people. And, people like me will point out that
less than 5% of our job market is necessary. The rest is paper work for jobs we don't really need, but who said we didn't need them? Someone needs
to oil those machines..
There's got to be a 'free-energy' underground somewhere. Tell me there is! There must be... I'm not interested in starting protests or becoming a
revolutionary. I, like you, want clean energy that allows me to live with good conscience, and not at odds with earth and its peoples. Money is for
losers. Someone once told me, "We know where chaos goes, and we won't go there." That same person told me thats why we don't have free
Continuing that same thought, doesn't it make sense for us to have a law of energy conservation in a world where people are so dependent on others?
Further, a universe with pockets of energy that builds and builds and builds and builds, could be rather catastrophic for system integrity. Would make
sense, if there was a sort of balance achieved through energy conservation!! While, at the same time, you could think of a forest fire as similar to
this thought. Think about it. A little spark ignites a ravaging fire that engulfs the entire forest in hours. We started with a little spark of energy
and through a sort of chain reaction we ended with something much bigger. I think this 'law of energy conservation' discourages me from thinking
about chain reactions.
[edit on 13-11-2005 by megabuster28]