It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by boncho
That paper was published in 2005.
Mills has issued a rebuttal to their nonsense.
www.blacklightpower.com...
There were 9 mistakes in that paper you linked.
edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by boncho
Dude.
Did you not see the video of Rowan University verifying his experimental results?
What part of this are you not comprehending?
In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Dr. John L. Schmalzel P.E., Professor of Engineering and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, “In additional independent tests conducted over the last 12 months involving 13 solid fuel mixtures made by us from commercially-available chemicals confirmed by multiple analyses, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.3 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions.”
Chemists Drs. Ramanujachary and Mugweru said, “Additionally, we have analyzed the reactants and reaction products and are confident that the procedures we have followed and chemicals we have procured, characterized, and reacted are not capable of generating the quantities of heat we have observed with previously known chemistry. This significant development makes it readily possible for other laboratories to demonstrate the repeatability of these reactions that produce anomalous heat regularly in our university laboratory. Moreover, we have also reproduced BLP’s tests for the third time that identify a new form of hydrogen as the likely explanation of the additional heat produced.”
Originally posted by lordoftheonionrings
reply to post by fordrew
Couln't agree more, this guy has no idea what he is talking about, he is acting like energy is being created out of thin air and that is not the case it is being released through a chemical process. And how does that disprove Einstien.
Oh and by the way I believe that space and time can in fact bend, when was this disproven?
Please stop bashing Einstien
Originally posted by lordoftheonionrings
reply to post by fordrew
.
Oh and by the way I believe that space and time can in fact bend, when was this disproven?
Please stop bashing Einstien
Originally posted by tokinjedi
Originally posted by lordoftheonionrings
reply to post by fordrew
.
Oh and by the way I believe that space and time can in fact bend, when was this disproven?
Please stop bashing Einstien
and if you believe in god that also makes it true and disprove that. when was being able to bend space itself proven to be possible besides on paper? the universe does not work on hopes and wishes. where are your facts, sir?
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by tokinjedi
Originally posted by lordoftheonionrings
reply to post by fordrew
.
Oh and by the way I believe that space and time can in fact bend, when was this disproven?
Please stop bashing Einstien
and if you believe in god that also makes it true and disprove that. when was being able to bend space itself proven to be possible besides on paper? the universe does not work on hopes and wishes. where are your facts, sir?
Actually, the entire GPS system orbiting are planet is evidence of Time Dilation because the inner clocks have to be constantly reset because of the speed and relative gravitational variations between our satellites and the Earth.
Plenty of Einstein theories have proven scientific method behind them. Don't bash him.
You're reading what he wrote WAAAYYY too closely.
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by buddha
It brakes no rule of science.
it is like using a heater to heat up coal.
when the coal burns it is hotter than the heat you put in.
no big deal?
they just dont know how it works yet.
this is like a cave man rubbing two sticks together.
and they catch fire.
Magic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No! Just Science.
science we dont understand yet..
so you run around saying ,
“it can not be done, Impossible!”
sighs...
How does the coal provide heat? It provides it through the energy stored inside the coal. Meaning once the coal is burned energy is released, transformed and collected and the rest is gone off into the universe not to be recaptured by us.
The point is that there is an energy value stored inside the coal. And when that coal is gone there is no more energy left, meaning you have to go and get new coal.
So the idea that you can have free energy, or unlimited energy, is trumped by the conservation laws. There is exotic forms of energy in the universe and it is one day possible for us to create something that will be far more efficient than what we use today, revolutionary even.
But if you are to claim that we can take energy from a magic place and there is no science backing up these claims than you are a crackpot. Simple as that.
Back it up with real world evidence then. Get into peer-reviewed journals. The reason SR is so popular is because it explains real world processes and phenomena. Nothing else comes close yet. I don't like how this thread bashes Einstein because if you're going to bash Einstein then you better have a solid backing and mucho evidence on your side! Otherwise, you're just another Mr. Anonymous that the internet has created. Notice how the internet has made everyone self important? It's so easy to use too. Everyone has an opinion. The internet makes us all feel like royalty. When in fact we're just as dumb as we were before. None of us can hold a candle to Einstein.
Originally posted by tokinjedi
reply to post by boncho
because of speed and relative gravitational differences, huh? yet that one thing you put in there is yet to be proven, gravity. that alone makes it a flawed theory. yes, the gps works but is it really because of a force we yet to understand? or do we understand the outcome and make some tools that work within the outcome under the laws we think the universe works by? nasa discovered that the finite constant in space is not the same everywhere. hell, their gravity experiment with the satellites and gyroscopes did not even prove gravity is there. what they got was energy that interfered with the results even though they accounted for the energy noise. really, we have a basic understading of how stuff works, but we are not pushing the boundaries of what we know beyond what einstein has setup for us. really that is the outcome of the military industrial complex we were warned about.
i do not bash einstein, but the way his work has come to be fact when there are other ideas that are more scientific then the rubbish old ideas modern scientists and followers still push because academia, military, and corporations are comfy with each other.
a theory for a electrically driven universe was put forward and even reproduced things we see on earth like the auroras before the time of gr.
"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space."
-Kristian Birkeland
why bring tesla into this? because he lived in the time of einstein and shat on his science. he was a true scientist and not a magic numbers guy.