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: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 





I think Einstein would welcome the disagreement, though. That goes to show you how much character he had. Even if he knew how insane the arguments were, he'd still welcome them.


I think this is one of the most intelligent statements in this thread because Einstein not only supported alternate theories but he worked on some that didn't fully integrate with SR. And if you bash Einstein you are essentially bashing all ares of modern science because SR applies to more than one theory! Hence its widespread acceptance.

It is virtually impossible to discount all theories of science with one new super-theory. Because previous theory is backed by real-world findings, the new 'super-theory' would have to either expand on current observation or rewrite the entire universe to make it so it was completely original, in essence, for it to discredit current theory, it would have to rewrite the laws of physics.

Meaning the world would have to be upside down, topsy turvy, -walk out of your house and float into space- nonsense. The only thing a super-theory can do is build on what is known and perhaps make corrections on theory that is flawed.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tokinjedi
 





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.


BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO BACK THE IDEA!

Do you not get it? People did not run supercolliders just to see what happens. They are looking for something that the math suggests is there. And they have produced results, maybe not the free energy results you go looking for but they have produced tons and tons of data. Literally, the last press release CERN had if I remember correctly is that it could take years to sift through the data.

MEANING THEY ARE USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD. They are not claiming to make a free energy device.

and to your video....


In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.

edit on 10-3-2011 by boncho because: oops



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tokinjedi
 


First of all I said I beleive it to be true, with my tiny brain I can conceptualize Einstien's theory and it makes sence, that being said I, as well as Einstien are probably way off based and are working off a flawed system that was never right to begin with. I was simply asking how his theory was disproven from this article and it is clear that it was not. So I am going to stop this exercise of futility until another day.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.


What anomalous energy? Link us to the paper that supports such claims.



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


The paper I read and linked makes no statement about such claims.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Lets break down the statement that BLP made and you reposted.

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.

Anomalous heat, could mean they either A: Didn't calibrate their equipment or B: Did not do any equations or factor in heat creation to their experiment.


"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"

As in, they don't know what causes it. It could be a hydrino or the flying spaghetti monster.

This is proof of nothing, once again.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What is it with you and "space does not bend" and "Einstein is a idiot"
Are they going to bring their generators to market by not bending space?

Ok Einstein is a idiot..........i'm sorry what have YOU done for the advancement of science? You must be much smarter then Einstein so why are you not giving us this free energy?

You are just derailing your own thread with this "Einstein is a idiot" and "you can't bend space" nonsense.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
What anomalous energy? Link us to the paper that supports such claims.



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


The paper I read and linked makes no statement about such claims.


That's because you don't understand either Mill's theory or SR.

SR does not allow for hydrogen below ground state
en.wikipedia.org...

A "new form of hydrogen" as is claimed, is a state of hydrogen below the ground state.

By empirically proving that such a state does indeed exist, SR has been disproved.


edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





By empirically proving that such a state does indeed exist, SR has been disproved.


Explain where that was "empirically proven."

Please provide the paper.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by boncho
What anomalous energy? Link us to the paper that supports such claims.



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


The paper I read and linked makes no statement about such claims.


That's because you don't understand either Mill's theory or SR.

SR does not allow for hydrogen below ground state
en.wikipedia.org...

A "new form of hydrogen" as is claimed, is a state of hydrogen below the ground state.

By empirically proving that such a state does indeed exist, SR has been disproved.


edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


By the way, please tell me how a theory Einstein developed disproves all his other work? With no evidence to the contrary.

The concept of zero-point energy was developed in Germany by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913, using a formula developed by Max Planck in 1900.[1][2] The term zero-point energy originates from the German Nullpunktsenergie.[1][2] The German name is also spelled Nullpunktenergie (without the "s")



Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state.


I think you have finally exposed your total ignorance on the matter. I really have no idea where you are going to go next.


edit on 10-3-2011 by boncho because: +info



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This teenager has already made a free energy device, only it's been nicknamed ''death ray'', heh, dramatic.



Here's an A.T.S thread about it www.abovetopsecret.com... and here is a really heavy duty version of the device www.youtube.com...
edit on 10-3-2011 by Hawkwind. because: added youtube link



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You should keep on commenting as if you know what you are talking about.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by boncho
 


You should keep on commenting as if you know what you are talking about.


If I don't then please prove me wrong. Please provide some evidence, some actual data that what you state is true.

Or is this another "scientific secret" that you and only the people that know about it, refuse to let out?


I provided data disproving the claims of BLP and I also provided circumstantial evidence to why they are doing it. But if you have new information to shed light on something, please do.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
This teenager has already made a free energy device, only it's been nicknamed ''death ray'', heh, dramatic.



Here's an A.T.S thread about it www.abovetopsecret.com... and here is a really heavy duty version of the device www.youtube.com...
edit on 10-3-2011 by Hawkwind. because: added youtube link


It's not a free energy device as in what the OP is claiming. This is a solar energy device which comes from a nuclear reaction in the sun.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Whether Mill's theory is right is a separate issue from Special Relativity's ability to explain the reaction.

It can not be proven that Mill's theory is 100% correct and that the hydrino is a valid new form of matter.

However, the fact that SR can not explain the reaction automatically means it is wrong.

Mill's theory CAN indeed predict and explain the reaction, therefore Mill's theory is automatically more right than SR.

Based on experimental evidence, we can conclude that SR is junk.

edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'll give you a hint if you want to continue with this idiotic crusade against Einstein. Recently, a paper was released that put into question Hubble's Law. And if proven correct it would revolutionize modern physics. It would change most everything there is about SR and a new theory would have to be adopted.

But, as this is science, real science, no one is making any claims about their observations because nothing conclusive has come from it.

So if you want argue your point with unexplainable observations you can. A quick search and you should be able to find the paper I am referring to.

That however, is a big difference from claiming BLP created a free energy device on physics that only they know about, while they won't release data and instead publish misleading news releases and papers that have no claims whatsoever inside of them.
edit on 10-3-2011 by boncho because: typo



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by boncho
 


Whether Mill's theory is right is a separate issue from Special Relativity's ability to explain the reaction.

It can not be proven that Mill's theory is 100% correct and that the hydrino is a valid new form of matter.

However, the fact that SR can not explain the reaction automatically means it is wrong.

Mill's theory CAN indeed predict and explain the reaction, therefore Mill's theory is automatically more right than SR.

Based on experimental evidence, we can conclude that SR is junk.

edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


I don't think you get it. Show me where they said they have made the hydrino, they haven't. They are making wild presumptions over a calculation of heat energy that they do not even describe in their scientific paper.

It does not mean SR is wrong because THEY HAVE PROVIDED NO DATA.


Where is Mills theory? Please link me to it, and sum it up in your own words too if you can. It seems like you know a lot about it.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You can keep lying if you like, but anyone can get the data from BLP's site.

Any laboratory is free to replicate Mill's findings.


www.blacklightpower.com...

For the complete theory, it is published here:

www.blacklightpower.com...


edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by boncho
 


You can keep lying if you like, but anyone can get the data from BLP's site.

Any laboratory is free to replicate Mill's findings.


www.blacklightpower.com...
edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Did you read the quote I posted from their paper? It made no claims about producing a hydrino, they said they 'thought it would explain the excess heat' but THEY LISTED NO DATA ON ENERGY/HEAT CREATION.

The only experiment to recreate from the paper I read is how to make Potassium Hydrate - NEWSFLASH - That's been done before.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You are quoting one paper.

You asked for the data, I have provided you dozens of papers with all the data you could ever want.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by boncho
 


You are quoting one paper.

You asked for the data, I have provided you dozens of papers with all the data you could ever want.



Yes, data not peer reviewed by anyone...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join