Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

a reply to: Nochzwei

Well, time and space are considered to be one and the same. So we are saying the same thing.

a reply to: pikestaff

And some theorists say there are little green men on Mars. What's your point?

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well, time and space are considered to be one and the same. So we are saying the same thing.

On the contrary they are completely separate entities

a reply to: Nochzwei

Not relative to light in the way we are conversating about them. In any case, I am not here to argue for the dichtomy of time/space. t is a known and accepted fact within real physics.

The only argument that I can see that can be made for this is the following: the volume of the universe is seen to be finite (it is a "bubble or football/spherical shape), whereas, due the indestructibility of energy (can neither be created or destroyed), its time must be eternal. So, the volume of space is finite, the time of space is eternal. That is the only distinction that I understand and that I will accept. Other then that, in no way is time/space two separate entities.

Unless taken out of context. d/t=s. But of course, we are discussing relativity and the bending and warping of space around celestial bodies and the effect it has on light. Not here to argue semantics.

You don't understand what a scientist is. There are scientists, and there is science fiction, and there are some that blur the line. A true scientist, will NOT pose a blurry line as a fact. IN FACT, a scientist will go to great lengths, sometimes beyond his lifespan, to clear up a blurry detail. Don't confuse a scientist with a pseudo-scientist.

Use common sense, and critical thinking.

a reply to: GetHyped

GR is hokum imo. Im talking of contrary to gr
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

a reply to: Nochzwei

Well, that's because you don't understand GR. S=T. There is an equivalency between the properties of space and time within the context of GR. When space is warped, time is warped in equivalent proportion. Time is a measurement of the movement of space. The measurement of space is carried out through time, or more simply, it takes time to measure space. Movement is time, time is motion.

GR, within the confines of what it is intended to describe, is a perfect theory. But, you are free to believe what you want. Ok? I'm done.

a reply to: zayonara

And just who are these "true scientists" claiming Einstein's wife did all the work?

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well, that's because you don't understand GR.

Sure I do. its just a hodge podge generated out of pure and erroneous thought process

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Sure I do. its just a hodge podge generated out of pure and erroneous thought process

That is a pretty inelegant way of describing one of the most elegant thoughts of our time.

That being said, if it is erroneous, feel free to devise a test procedure that can prove so.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Sure I do. its just a hodge podge generated out of pure and erroneous thought process

That is a pretty inelegant way of describing one of the most elegant thoughts of our time.

That being said, if it is erroneous, feel free to devise a test procedure that can prove so.

I've posted elsewhere a simple but an elaborate test. Besides you can also read thru my bending or unbending of space thread

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I've posted elsewhere a simple but an elaborate test. Besides you can also read thru my bending or unbending of space thread

Any test that could invalidate GR would be earth shattering.

If you have it, send it in for peer review and get the ball rolling.

You could be the next 'Einstein'...

Until that happens, I'm sticking with the, currently still valid, elegance of the current equation.

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.

So he is worse then Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot.........I am sorry sir but you are in fact the retard. Einstein is wrong but not evil.



I have seen a lot of stupid posts over the years this one is the winner..winner....chicken dinner.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Jumping in a bit late on this (about 5 years late), but I need to ask:

Are you Mills?

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.

But the MS is still in that wild loop created by him

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

in the meantime : where is the independent publication of the " results " from the aledged testers - this farce has been going on for several years now

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Thing is, even if the theory had any merit (which it doesn't), the practicalities of this claimed unit are so utterly ridiculous that it could never work.

Sixty square metres of water-cooled solar panels running at 1000-suns intensity in a box the size of a large filing cabinet? Seriously?

a reply to: Rob48

the heat fron the water jacket SHOULD be a viable energy source in its own right

PS - reading the blackblight claims in a drunken stupor helps - the fuel flow " figures " are dervived from the reactor vessel having a rotor which is spun at 2000 rpm [ apparently from a separate motor - don't ask how its powered ]

don't ask why either

I never said it made sense - but the nature of the woo woo does become clearer [ ish ]

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I have actually had some answers to my questions direct from Randell Mills.

Apparently the "solid fuel" is a slurry which is driven through the cell by rapidly rotating roller electrodes. These recycle, recharge and compress the fuel and feed it into the cell. Apparently there needs to be enough fuel to cover a 30-second recharge cycle, so this amounts to about 150 kg for the 10 MW cell.

If you refer to the specs, this solid fuel has a density of 5 g / cm³, this means that there has to be 1 litre of solid fuel slurry being pumped through the cell every second, equally divided into 2,000 "aliquots". And remember, if I might be forgiven for mixing my units, the actual "fuel cell" only has a volume of 1 cubic foot.

As for the heat issue, this is all dealt with by forced-water cooling which is built into the off-the-shelf PV cells. Apparently there are units in the field that deal with this sort of waste heat, so it's no problem at all.

For reference, this is a 53 kW concentrator photovoltaic system at 500-suns intensity:



BlackLight Power intends to pack down sufficient panels to generate 188 times as much power as this system into a box 1 metre x 1 metre x 1.25 metres.


I hope that makes it all crystal clear