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.

 

Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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)



According to mills there were 9 mistakes. Did you notice that he wrote that paper rebutting the other one, and also, every referenced paper in the rebuttal was written by him too?

Meaning that there were no other independent physicists backing his rebuttal. As in, he can make the whole thing up, including the rebuttal....

There are no verifiable, independent scientists supporting his claim. He has done this for twenty years, where is the so called device?




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

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?



Rowan is paid by him and employs his own physicists that he hires. Were is the data from their tests? Where did it get peer reviewed.

Jesus, for all these loony conspiracy ideas, you would think people could pick one out when it is right in front of them

Look up Rowan University and it's list of noted alumni, they are radio personalities, professional athletes and beauty queens. It isn't a university dedicated to physics. They are either part of the scam or they turn a blind eye because they are being paid.

Provide their data for the experiment at least, before you make such claims.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Explain if Rowan reproduced his claims than why is it not out for open peer review? Why is it so secret but yet they chose Rowan to work with them? Explain why after 60 million dollars and 20 years, nothing viable has been produced. Scientists do not make those claims, without supporting evidence.

If his science was legit than anyone with know how could reproduce his claims. But they can't.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It is open for anyone to replicate.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
www.blacklightpower.com...


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.”


Independent verification and the public is welcome to replicate the experiments.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
einstein was smart when compared to his contemporary peers of the time. come up with e=mc2? he may have in the context it is now used, but the formula is not his own. one of his teachers i believe actually came up with the formula, lorentz, can not remember his name. all einstein did was play some semantics on the words to to explain it the way we know it. now a true genius and math person was tesla.

"I am even grateful to Einstein and others because through their erroneous theories they lead mankind away from that dangerous path I followed."

"A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named, universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another."

-Nikola Tesla

this man came up with a plethora of inventions that are used today. radio, ac power, neutrinos coming from the sun, all invented or discovered by tesla. if he was alive today and used electric processes to explain the universe do you think people would agree or disagree? from what i can see today i would say no merely based on the fact that astrophysicists do not think that plasma scientists papers on plasma in space have to do with their work yet all the plasma papers can reproduce effects seen. that is true science, experiment experiment experiment. not math.

to those who say einsteins theories are true because they work. lets forget the fact that einstein did not believe in his own formula to explain the universe. there is more then one way to skin a cat. einsteins equation does nothing more than show a mathematical way to skin the cat, while tesla actually showed the way to skin a cat and not possible ways.

this friends is the point of this rant i guess. science today is a cluster f of magic and myth. math is used to explain possibilities of the process of outcomes, no one tries to find the actual process to the outcome, just a "educated" guess that looks good on paper and if it sounds good to you and it sounds good to them and we can keep our money then its true!

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. he showed us what true science is and should be, how to apply it, and how we should think about it. if it were tesla working on the manhatten project, not einstein, i am sure we would have colonies on the moon by now.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

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


Special relativity can not account for the anomalous energy.

Read first, then respond.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ha! ha, ha, ha, ha!

Did you even read the Rowan report???

Here it is!

You will noticed that the only people referenced in the study is Mills and BLP.

Now what is superinteresting about this report is that it does not claim anything about making energy! All it is, is a study to show that they produced a "hydrino" which they claim has unlimited amounts of power.

There is no comparison of energy values of a normal Hydrogen atom compared to their new "hydrino". And the best part of it all, is this is nothing more than a novel chemistry experiment.

EXCERPT:
To precisely confirm the presence of hydrino hydride ions and molecular hydrino in these salts we plan to perform further neutron diffraction.

THEY DO NOT EVEN CLAIM TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE HYDRINO.

Do you get it, this study only verified that the experiment by BLP could be replicated, not that it produced any results!


These reactions were carried at temperatures in the range of 500o C to 600o C in a kiln for 68 hours.

Oh, 68 hours in an oven that runs at 5-600C, I wonder how much energy that takes? So even if it did provide some mega energy atom, it took 68 hours of baking to produce the catalysts in the experiment.

Understand that the whole experiment is about making KH*CL = Potassium hydride and Chlorine.

So in other words, they did an experiment that is a hundred or more years old. Wow, no wonder it worked.


Supposedly after making the catalyst you mix it with hydrogen and it turns into a hydrino, EXCEPT THERE IS NO CLAIM OF THIS HAPPENING.

Fraud!Fraud!Fraud!

Please debunk that if you can, because I would love to live in a world of hydrinos, I really would...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


how is this any different from the particle accelerator experiments? they have not produced what they are looking for yet people still believe in their mission. i too would love to live in the world of their god particle. why even look for a particle when we know a particle is just our awareness of interacting energies. refer to double slit experiment.

double slit


sorry about the link, just joined ats and yet to figure out how to embed you tube. forum search FTW!
edit on 10-3-2011 by tokinjedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


laughing about it doesn't change the fact that SR can't explain the results, while Mill's theory can.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.


That's not true.

LR can account for them in a steady state universe.

Not only can it account for the clocks, it can do so in a much simpler fashion.

www.metaresearch.org...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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.
You're reading what he wrote WAAAYYY too closely.

It LOOKS like burning coal gives you more than you put in but in reality you're burning what represents millions of years of processes, driven by the earth and sun and whatever else I've not mentioned here. What he's saying is that when we don't understand something it LOOKS like it gives us more than we put in, but in time we will understand that it only LOOKS like magic.

It's not magic. It's not free either. We can't create energy. We mine it. It's finite. There's untapped energy all around us. The challenge is to figure out the universe's code so we can tap it!
edit on 10-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

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
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.

My mind is open to the electric universe theory and everything else I see around here. But I'm a nobody. I know what I am. I don't pretend that I can make Einstein tremble. I wish I saw more of this humility from others. Respect the man. Many have tried to bring down Einstein. The fact that he's still around says something. I think Einstein would welcome the disagreement, though. That goes to show you his character. Even if he knew how preposterous the arguments were, he'd still welcome them.

I mean probably 99% of us are preposterous 99% of the time. Better to be preposterous about science theory and practical matters, right? Science needs the attention anyway.

Gotta start somewhere!
edit on 10-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tokinjedi
 





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.


Before you make more ignorant claims that I assume came from your study of circle jerk Tesla sites, I suggest you read up on everything there is to know about the guy. For one, he was for AC energy, and it seems we all use AC energy today, so the ignorant conspiracy that people are hiding his work is just stupid. Some of his ideas were valid and some were ludicrous, like many genius people.

Tesla was an engineer, more than a "scientist", He had lawyers, he did PR and he developed practical applications to sell to the public.

Einstein gave a foundation for many scientists to build off of. That is what a scientist does. If you want to go spout ignorant claims about Tesla, that I am sure you haven't fact checked, than start a thread for it.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tokinjedi
 


Your right, I should have said relativistic mass. You still have nothing to add. You are basically calling people with ideas that have provided results idiots, but you have none your own, and you have no insight to anything.

There are theories that have quashed certain things Einstein said, there are things that support it, everyday science changes and new understandings are found. If you want to claim that some crackpot of a hero of yours invented something that explains the entire universe, than please show me this theory.

For you to say Einstein proves nothing, quantum mechanics proves nothing, Newtonian physics proves nothing, than you are just a very, very, ignorant fellow. Because when a new theory comes up, people will base it off of current knowledge, the best way to find a new hypothesis is to prove your current one wrong.

So unless you have something sensible to add to this debate...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join