Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

Originally posted by moebius
blacklightpower.com claims:

Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) Scientists have confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation

which is clearly wrong!

The physical equipment the research was conducted in was owned and operated by the CfA. The technicians who worked on the research were CfA scientists.

So what they are saying is entirely accurate.

Read the first few lines of the paper:
www.blacklightpower.com...

reply to post by mnemeth1


Now that is where I put my faith!



And sadly, distrust - big brother needs to keep us in tow from things like this, why, we might actually benefit from such things.

Can't have that!..

I just wouldn't discredit old Einstein yet - the fruits of new ideas are often seeded by the concepts of old ones.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

If you could debunk Einstein back when he was alive, then he'd be an idiot. But no one was smart enough to debunk him until now. He had theories, and theories, are not proven fact, they're just a basic idea of what we think is going on. He gave us that. Now we have finally found out what he didnt'. No need to crucify someone for trying.

Anyone that believes space bends is an idiot.

Therefore, Einstein was an idiot then and he is still an idiot posthumously today.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well, know who I'd call an idiot in this thread,
and it aint Einstein...

You have zero facts...
Show us the facts...

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sais the anarcho-capitalist. Just what academic credentials or history of education do you have to be able to be in a position to judge someone that brought about the birth of many new technologies during and beyond his life?

Using wild speculation I too could say that had einstein not been instrumental in finishing the development of the atom bomb, then the second world war would have progressed beyond 1945 and claimed more and more lives.

You sir, are the idiot. "Anarcho-Capitalist". You seem to be crying more about these unfounded beliefs, than you do about the trillions being spent in fighting pointless wars. Amusing you blame it on the scientist though.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well, know who I'd call an idiot in this thread,
and it aint Einstein...

You have zero facts...
Show us the facts...

Because a working prototype and research validated by Harvard is zero facts.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Sais the anarcho-capitalist. Just what academic credentials or history of education do you have to be able to be in a position to judge someone that brought about the birth of many new technologies during and beyond his life?

Using wild speculation I too could say that had einstein not been instrumental in finishing the development of the atom bomb, then the second world war would have progressed beyond 1945 and claimed more and more lives.

You sir, are the idiot. "Anarcho-Capitalist"

edit on 8-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

An idiot is someone who thinks other people are better at running his life than himself.

Which also happens to be the definition of anyone who is not an anarcho-capitalist.

Blacklight Power have been knocking around for years making these claims.

So far the number of devices they have powered with their magic substance is exactly zero.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The CfA technicians did standard measurements of a supplied hydrogen sample for Gen3 . The did not evaluate the experiment results. I don't see how they could be able to confirm it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Your response was quite hilarious and brought a smile to my face and made me chuckle. In turn I will provide you, the child, with a star for such a great attempt at humor.


You were joking, right?

The topic of this thread is "Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again", so discussion should be focused on that.

Back to the topic, please.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Lol right or wrong, he took the step of putting it all out on the field. Just by proposing ideas, and people not agreeing with it, forced the research into a different area. Personally I think we need more scientists, researchers and people who like to make inventions to put more on the field.

Remeber that in the history of everything created, it had to fai in order to succede.

Good news though if we get that mass produced in a comercialized scale. The Sooner we can boot the oil habbit, the better of we will be.

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?

Einstein was intelligent, to be sure. But not brilliant.

He was intelligent enough to know decent ideas when they crossed his patent desk in Austria. Then he was intelligent enough to put those ideas into a mainstream venue.

But he hardly created any of his theories on his own. When left to his own devices he came up with some real stinkers.

Originally posted by moebius
blacklightpower.com claims:

Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) Scientists have confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation

which is clearly wrong!

My research agrees with what you're saying. I haven't found evidence that anyone independently confirmed the hydrino. But NASA made a $75000 grant to research an aspect of the "crackpot theory" that doesn't involve hydrinos:

www.wired.com...

The space agency is funding a study of an engine based on a novel conception of the structure of hydrogen, the central idea behind a maverick New Jersey researcher's Grand Unified Theory. This theory has been derided as a "crackpot idea" and "voodoo science" by respected experts in physics.

Anthony J. Marchese, a mechanical engineering professor specializing in propulsion at Rowan University, is getting modest funding ($75,000) from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts to build and test a BlackLight Rocket.

Nowhere on his project home page, however, does Marchese make use of the controversial buzzword hydrino. Adoption of that term could land a researcher into a quagmire over Mills' derided Grand Unified Theory, which dismisses the Big Bang theory and much of mainstream quantum mechanics. The theory is secondary to Marchese -- he's more interested in the energy that might be harnessed from a new phenomenon, even if Mills' paradigms don't bear out.

So it's interesting to see NASA thought some aspects of Mills' ideas were worth a $75,000 investment, even if other ideas of Mills turn out to be incorrect fringe ideas.

If anyone has any link about independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, please post it. Until we see independent confirmation, it seems highly suspect at best, and crackpottery at worst.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I love this.

You are like the third person to just totally ignore the OP and claim they are crackpots with no proof.

I'm sure you all will be saying the same thing after they bring their generators to market.

Its like you have blinders on that refuse to allow your brain to actually process information that conflicts with the brainwashing you've received at the hands of the State.

OH GOD its another thread by mnemeth1 .....




how many times do people on ATS have to tell you that free energy does not exist? How many times does a MECHANICAL ENGINEER have to tell you that it violates either the first or second laws of thermodynamics?

OH WAIT if I recall arguing with you and you say SCIENCE IS A LIE.

Once again the process that is described is not free. So why do you call it free?

edit: and to comment on your comment about how mainstream scientists and researchers horde prestige and grants... I guarantee 100% that you know absolutely NOTHING about how it is to be a researcher or scientist and how difficult the process is to obtain grants.

Originally posted by fordrew
OH GOD its another thread by mnemeth1

.....




how many times do people on ATS have to tell you that free energy does not exist? How many times does a MECHANICAL ENGINEER have to tell you that it violates either the first or second laws of thermodynamics?

OH WAIT if I recall arguing with you and you say SCIENCE IS A LIE.

Once again the process that is described is not free. So why do you call it free?

edit on 8-12-2010 by fordrew because: (no reason given)

I seem to recall you trying to sell me on the fact that space bends.

I'm not buying it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You are like the third person to just totally ignore the OP and claim they are crackpots with no proof.

What's in the OP? 2 links to the site claiming to get energy from hydrinos, an entity that nobody else has independently confirmed. One of the links contains a report paid for by the company making these hydrino claims. None of this has been verified.

At best it reminds me of the "cold fusion" claims of years ago, where experimenters may think they really have something, but until others can duplicate the findings, it's an unconfirmed claim.

I noticed you didn't provide any links showing the existence of the hydrino has been independently verified (the report mentioned is not independent). Independent verification of claims is part of the scientific process. Calling Einstein a bunch of names won't change that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You are like the third person to just totally ignore the OP and claim they are crackpots with no proof.

What's in the OP? 2 links to the site claiming to get energy from hydrinos, an entity that nobody else has independently confirmed. One of the links contains a report paid for by the company making these hydrino claims. None of this has been verified.

At best it reminds me of the "cold fusion" claims of years ago, where experimenters may think they really have something, but until others can duplicate the findings, it's an unconfirmed claim.

I noticed you didn't provide any links showing the existence of the hydrino has been independently verified (the report mentioned is not independent). Independent verification of claims is part of the scientific process. Calling Einstein a bunch of names won't change that.

OK lets see.

Rowan University confirmed it

Harvard CfA run spectrographs confirmed it

They have multiple licensing contracts with private power companies

The research is all freely available online


You can sit there and actually watch a Rowan University professor walk through a test shot of the reactor.

Here's Rowan's report on their own letter head:
www.blacklightpower.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1He's a retard that thought space could bend and led us down the wrong path of science for nearly a century.

I couldn't agree more. And it's idiotic of us to take what this man says as infallible proof. He's just a man, and everything he says will eventually be proven false. No single man knows anything for a fact. And that's a fact.