"Free Energy" machines, page 1

Originally posted by Lethys

Ugh, no one is saying its like that. A scientific law is simply an observed fact about the universe that has never been shown incorrect in experiment within its domain.

The keyword here is within its domain... And you boldly claim that it is observed facts about the universe that lay ground for theese laws... However the truth is, that it is a theoretical asumpsion about the universe, and that the law only have been obseved under certain domains, witch leaves other domains open to not aply to the law.

Thus when people are skeptical of claims of free energy, it is because such a thing has NEVER been shown to be possible. If someone wants people to believe in their claim of free energy, the burden of proof is on them. The reason patents aren’t awarded to people who have designs for free energy devices is because so many people file such claims in an attempt to scam people, using the patent to give them the appearance of credibility.

This is true, there are so many scammers out there, and the word "free Energy" is also wrong, it should be named "alternative energi" to first off all, make standard scientist interested instead of repulsed.

And i dont believe any demonstration have been ever shown to show proof of gravity to function in the way standard science use it... as either newtonian or Einstein related..but still they use it as they see fit.
But please do direct me to a physical model of standard science gravity replication...I do believe several "gravity push" models have been made...

You don’t need vortex mechanics to prove that the zero point field exists. And you still can’t extract energy from it.

From a Vortex mechanical view you don't need standard science's models to prove the zero point field either as it is well proved in vortex mathmatics and models.
And you cannot claim that all possible experiments have been done with zero point fields or vortex mechanics.

If the concept of black holes were an attempt to fool people, they would have thought of a cooler name then black hole. It is evident that it is the pseudo scientists who rely more on cool sounding names like vortex mechanics, and plasma cosmology.

I never claimed that it was made to fool people...I claimed that people was easily fooled by it.
And I still believe the theory stands and falls with gravity... and since no standard science gravity model can be proved, then I can look for other models to explain the phenomenons in the sky for me.

Anyway, this doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of free energy, just jabs at modern science.

I'm no Bokser, but yes... standard science could need a good slapping now and then

A free energy device actually could generate a lot of power and wealth. If one of those energy barons did come across such technology, they could easily use it to become extremely powerful. And if they really do have the power to suppress such technology as you imply, then they would also have a power to keep the true nature of the technology itself a secret, and essentially be the only one capable of providing such cheap energy.

Do you really believe that Energy Barons have any entention of producing more energy than at the present day?...
They would have a hard time keeping up the prize of energy, if people knew they could practically make it for free, via alternative methods.
And that is the whole issue here...there is no money in it for the energy barons and hence no power...However as you state, they could hold it secret even if it was in use.

---

Originally posted by buddhasystem

There are objects observed even now that are prime candidates for containing black holes:
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes..objects that are "prime candidates", if the "black hole" scenario was actually true...
However no proof of this exists what so ever... only indications and theories...
Besides... the whole "black hole" theory have changed several times already, to make it fit the observed scenarios, witch indicates that its foundation is weak and false.

What the heck are you talking about?

Im talking about the energy potential stored in the nuclear waste products of both low and high level radioactive waste, witch is the ugly byproduct of this hazardous way of energy production.
There have been calculations to prove that when taking the waste into account, the efficiency is lower than low, 1% of the energy produced is used, rest is waste.
Ill see if i can find an online link to theese calculations.

You seem to possess large amounts of ignorance when it comes to forming a judgement about anything scientific.

And you seem to possess a large amount of arrogance toward critics of established science. And there is a difference in criticism and ignorance if you didnt know?

Particle accelerators that cost billions of dollars are not used to produce "elements" (smaller machines are used for that). Large accelerators are used to produce and study fundamental phenomena and particles.

Define what you mean of fundemental phenomena please? When I said elements, I ofcourse meant particles, and the supposed "matter", made after the socalled "Big Bang".

And it's an amazingly interesting field, if you care to read about it. Accelerators do not "fail to produce" -- they in fact produced a startling amount of knowledge about this world and forces that operate in it.

I have read a great deal about it, and also know alot of what they try to figure with theese experiments, such as:
- The Higgs mechanism, witch is basically a form of superconductivity in the vacuum
- Extra dimensions, as they think is indicated by theoretical supposed gravitons
- the nature of socalled dark matter and energy
- Answers to why, the socalled weak gravitational force is so weak compared to the socalled other fundemental forces

And this is of top of my head... so please don't go the typical standard science way, and assume, that i don't know anything or never care to read standard science...cause frankly...it's getting old

But please explain the phenomenon of "cold electricity" to me, since your so well educated? I'm looking forward to a standard science view.