Why is there no Main Stream Media reporting the Rossi/Focardi E-Cat

reply to post by Amaterasu


Your argument is completely nullified by THIS

We set value on things. Even with infinite energy there will always be value set on things. And a farmer charges money for his vegetables for labour. There will always be labour. If you want to equate everything to energy you can. Me typing is taking energy converted from food. Does limitless energy change the fact that I have to eat? No.

Does limitless energy change the amount of arable land in the world? No. Does limitless energy change the amount of finite resources that we have and consume? No. Limitless energy would not shatter the world in the way you are describing.

EX. Scientists are paid for their thought processes. No matter the energy produced in the world they still have to think. There will always be jobs, there will always be money. You cannot equate every going on in the world as a representation of energy expanded. (well, you can but it doesn't mean anything when applied to real life) All it is is a statistical representation of what we expend. It has no application to the monetary system.

Infinite energy means absolutely nothing in regards to dropping currency, if anything it would spark new innovation, new jobs, new processes and about a million other 'new' things. Which would all create new markets and new ways of making money.

We don't (completely) base money on the cost of power as it is now. So why would we when power is free?

reply to post by boncho


I appreciate your points but they are slightly flawed.

Moneys value is based on the worlds confidence in that currency. It is a fiat system. For instance china has decided to stop trading in dollars as has Russia. As this happens the value and confidence of the dollar goes down globally. The value of the American dollar was completly related to our control politically, militarily, and monetarily of the energy sector.

The energy sector is by far the largest in the world. By far.

There is no way companies that not only own energy production and refinement but massive lobby power would let trillions of annual profit go without a fight.

If you look at history not conspiracy but real history the energy sector has a record of playing dirty. Ever here of socal? Do you have a firm grasp of the history world war 1 and what was happening even before than (Teddy roosevelt era)?

If cheap energy not related to fossils fuels were to be instantly available the world economy would crumble. You are naive to believe different and ANY economist would agree.

While we may use oil for other things and need food and clothes, the whole economic structure of the world is related to energy policy. Energy is what allows the growth of countries to expand. Can you imagine if any dictator could have cheap energy? How easy it would be to produce weapons and expand industrialization? We may not admit it but the west has been controlling the growth of nations through energy for at least 100 years.

Energy is a social engineering tool. How many people would work 40 hrs a week if their expenses were cut in half?

Trade has always happened. Some sort of symbolic money is closely bound to human beings. It has never in recorded history been used as such a control mechanism as much as today 100 years ago their were a lot more farms and people living on a more substance existence. Now everyone is completly dependant on money to survive at the most basic level.

An economic collapse today is far more dangerous than any other time in history and cheap non fossil fuel based energy would collapse the economic system. Don't take my word for it ask an economist.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I hadn't thought about money in that way before.
I'd always considered it odd the way people killed themselves or other people over losing it or getting their hands on it, but It's always more or less just been bits of paper with ink printed on it to me that society required us to posses really..but now, thanks to you it means something else.

You're right, we are only exchanging tokens for energy expended in the creation of the products or services, mining of raw materials, refining them and producing and delivering a product with them. Energy.

Cheers for the new neural pathways!

reply to post by coolhanddan


S & F.

Why is there no Main Stream Media reporting....

The answer is simple. Follow the dots:

The Rockefellers owned Standard Oil now known as MobilExxon.

The Rockefellers owned Chase Bank now JP Morgan Chase.

WHO owns the MAIN STREAM MEDIA???

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Interlocking Directorates
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests:
www.fair.org...

Think about it.

The Elite like the Rockefeller control us and charge huge prices for oil and scare us into poverty with things like "Peak Oil" and the "population explosion" If science proves they are LYING!

Look what happen with another great energy source - Nuclear!

Energy is a prime requirement for civilization. Any where from animal muscle power to oil we depend on energy. We have had the solution for PEAK oil since the 1950's!

If you do a bit of poking around you find the Rockefellers aka Standard oil, funded a lot of the research on the medical problems from radiation poisoning. Also SOMEONE funded all those nuclear protesters here in the USA A Want Ad I saw in the 1985 Boston Globe said "Nuclear Protesters $10/hour"

The result: Everyone is scared to death of Nuclear especially the long term storage problems.

Again do a bit of poking around we find:

In the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. scientists ignored thorium, and went with uranium because uranium produces plutonium the key ingredient in nuclear bombs. Link

The Basics
.... This thorium fuel cycle carries with it a number of important natural properties some of which contrast sharply with the uranium fuel cycle:

-At no point in the thorium cycle – from mining to waste – can fuel or waste products be used as bomb material in any way;

-The thorium fuel cycle is inherently incapable of causing a meltdown according to the laws of physics; in nuclear reactor parlance, the fuel is said to contain passive safety features;

-Thorium-based fuels do not require conversion or enrichment – two essential phases of the uranium fuel cycle that are exceedingly expensive, and create proliferation risk;

-Thorium fuel cycle waste material consists mostly of 233-uranium, which can be recycled as fuel (with minor actinide content decreased 90-100%, and with plutonium content eliminated entirely);
-Thorium-based fuels are significantly energy efficient;

-Thorium fuel cycle waste material is radiotoxic for tens of years, as opposed to the thousands of years with today’s standard radioactive waste;

-Thorium fuel designs exist today that can be used in all existing nuclear reactors;

-Thorium exists in greater abundance and higher concentrations than uranium making it much less expensive and environmentally-unobtrusive to mine;


These facts have many serious implications for the efficiency and security of energy delivery in the United States, and the world. SOURCE

A Chronology of Nuclear History

Reintroducing Thorium: Chem & Eng News

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by coolhanddan

 

Awesome post, S&F for you.......

Like a previous poster, I believe, if this is true, and truly workable, we will never see it in our lifetimes, and that is so sad........................

Why are people so cynical..?

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Your argument is completely nullified by THIS

I see nothing in expensive watches to nullify what I have said. Yes, we set arbitrary values on things. But that does NOT imply money. It may be an exchange of praise for product. Joe Watchmaker (whose bliss it is to make watches), in a moneyless society, will gain reputation for his work (as it is his bliss, his work is likely to be far better than some wage-slave on an assembly line who would rather be sailing). Demand for his product will rise. And he can then bask in the glory of praise and requests for his work well done.

And a farmer charges money for his vegetables for labour. There will always be labour. If you want to equate everything to energy you can. Me typing is taking energy converted from food. Does limitless energy change the fact that I have to eat? No.

You seem to forget what an exciting time in robotics we're living in. We can cast off Human labor to our machines. So the fact that we see a confluence of energy/machines/global contact/ethics means that now is our window of opportunity.

Does limitless energy change the amount of arable land in the world? No. Does limitless energy change the amount of finite resources that we have and consume? No. Limitless energy would not shatter the world in the way you are describing.

Um... If you took the volume of all humans, they wouldn't fill one side canyon of the Grand Canyon. If you gave 1/4 acre to every Human (all ages) in Australia, you'd still have a chunk left over - Australia being 4% of land mass EXCLUDING Antarctica. We produce enough food to feed all of us 3 times over, but because of distribution by profit (not need) we have grocery stores throwing out food to the tune of hundreds of thousands of tons a month while poor areas starve (not to mention the many farmers paid to NOT produce...). The only resources we are told we are running out of are energy-related.

So limitless energy is clearly capable of making a HUGE difference.

EX. Scientists are paid for their thought processes. No matter the energy produced in the world they still have to think. There will always be jobs, there will always be money. You cannot equate every going on in the world as a representation of energy expanded. (well, you can but it doesn't mean anything when applied to real life) All it is is a statistical representation of what we expend. It has no application to the monetary system.

Scientists will be paid in reputation to do what they love to do. If they can have what they need and what they want, to do their bliss, what do they need money for?

Infinite energy means absolutely nothing in regards to dropping currency, if anything it would spark new innovation, new jobs, new processes and about a million other 'new' things. Which would all create new markets and new ways of making money.

Oh, it will spark vast innovation, open opportunities to apply one's bliss, but money WILL vanish.

We don't (completely) base money on the cost of power as it is now. So why would we when power is free?

Well given that any money value is arbitrarily set to begin with (else inflation/deflation would not take place), and given that all it accounts for is energy... [shrug] I think we will see it becoming more effort than it's worth.

reply to post by Movescamp


The problem with your statement is that energy only dates back a couple centuries, while war, trade, money, control, sanctions and a plethora of other items that make up your argument date back much further. The question is, is how much history are you considering?

I agree, limiting energy can choke out unfavoured states, so can a number of other controls. It is not the be all end all to political control. North Korea is a good example of an unfavoured state being hampered by energy availability, but what about Iran? Seems they have a lot of oil yet they still have energy issues.

reply to post by boncho


First off war is always about resources. But I would be happy to oblige you in anthropology as it's one of my degrees. Kingstates are very different from our commercial scale culture. The use of force and supression of knowledge were king states biggest tools. I also never mentioned war. Of course it always existed. It exists with animals in droughts.

Even Iran is by far different than say Thomas Mugabe. North Korea has a huge army and so does Iran. If other whacks is say Africa could join the fight along side Iran and North Korea the danger goes up exponentially.

Do you understand sanctions? They are scorned for selling their oil and only select people buy it. Their currency is worthless in the global marketplace. If you look at early oil treaties the only middle eastern countries that didn't sign the agreements were Iran and Iraq. Which were doing fine until the entire world provided energy sanctions. Your argument is very flawed.

The same companies that own energy own the second largest sector which is the arms sector. So they havethe means to "protect their assets". Who was fdr's puppet master. Rockefeller. A man who believes in eugenics. Publicly admits it.

When is the last time we invaded or came to the aid of the textile industry? Farmers?

Now what about oil?

Yeah, they will be rock stars when the oil companies buy them out and put the technology away in a vault on Mars.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Movescamp

 

The problem with your statement is that energy only dates back a couple centuries, while war, trade, money, control, sanctions and a plethora of other items that make up your argument date back much further. The question is, is how much history are you considering?

Energy from petrofuels goes back a few centuries. Energy from the sweat off the back has been used since time immemorial.

I agree, limiting energy can choke out unfavoured states, so can a number of other controls. It is not the be all end all to political control. North Korea is a good example of an unfavoured state being hampered by energy availability, but what about Iran? Seems they have a lot of oil yet they still have energy issues.

Only because of the control afforded by a money system.

reply to post by Amaterasu

You seem to forget what an exciting time in robotics we're living in. We can cast off Human labor to our machines. So the fact that we see a confluence of energy/machines/global contact/ethics means that now is our window of opportunity.

Which is limited to the steel ore and oil used in manufacturing and maintaining the robotics.

So limitless energy is clearly capable of making a HUGE difference.

I don't see why the corporate model would have to change if companies were able to produce low cost energy.

Oh, it will spark vast innovation, open opportunities to apply one's bliss, but money WILL vanish.

The usefulness of money and energy supply do not correlate. Explain why the money system would be dropped. Does limited amounts of rare earth metals have no value in this brave new world you propose? Not everything in this world is infinite, water supply for one, metals, oil (plastics, etc.) food, etc.

You are describing a world that has infinite everything. We don't have that.

Well given that any money value is arbitrarily set to begin with (else inflation/deflation would not take place), and given that all it accounts for is energy...

I agree that it is arbitrary. But I do not agree that it is solely tied to energy. Money existed before energy consumerism, sorry. And as I said, currency forms just about anywhere people are forced to live amongst another.

And as I stated, not everything in the world is infinite, even if energy were to be. So you cannot have some place where everything is limitless, even if energy is.

Lets hypothesize that we developed space travel that let us mine infinite resources from other planets. You would still have trade, jobs, markets and a currency system to represent the work involved with those systems.

What you're describing is something long off into the future that we are nowhere near achieving even with unlimited energy.

If I understand correctly this whole argument is based on the fact that these giant energy companies are suppressing free energy technologies or by the fact that they would never let them come into being in the marketplace.

Let me add this to that theory: (please drop the tinfoil hat for a second)

If these technologies existed, and they were able to be reproduced (especially at the consumer level) how would anyone suppress that?

Like I mentioned before, good ideas take off really quickly. If someone were to release a design for free energy, how would that be stopped? Word would spread far too quickly.

That is proven by any grassroots technology or idea that has turned into a widespread commodity, service, or industry. You could even argue the Internet falls close into that scenario.

So, given this information, which is not limited to a few people. (Most people know how effective viral marketing is) Would the energy companies not know this? Would they not try and monopolize the system before it was adopted independently?

Free energy does not exist. Will it someday? Possibly. Will a bunch of secret overlords suppress it from everyone through a giant conspiracy, not likely. If it is out there people will learn about it.

The point is, is jumping on the bandwagon with scam artists and pseudoscientists is not helping the discovery of anything, except for those people to discover a larger statement in their bank accounts.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

You seem to forget what an exciting time in robotics we're living in. We can cast off Human labor to our machines. So the fact that we see a confluence of energy/machines/global contact/ethics means that now is our window of opportunity.

Which is limited to the steel ore and oil used in manufacturing and maintaining the robotics.

Steel (processed iron) is not all that scarce, hemp can provide a higher quality oil and grows virtually everywhere, and there are plenty of people whose bliss it is to work with robots and other machinery.

So limitless energy is clearly capable of making a HUGE difference.

I don't see why the corporate model would have to change if companies were able to produce low cost energy.

"HAVE" to change...? Not exactly. WILL change as the money they are predicated on dissipates.

Oh, it will spark vast innovation, open opportunities to apply one's bliss, but money WILL vanish.

The usefulness of money and energy supply do not correlate. Explain why the money system would be dropped. Does limited amounts of rare earth metals have no value in this brave new world you propose? Not everything in this world is infinite, water supply for one, metals, oil (plastics, etc.) food, etc.

Given that we have the ability to transmute elements (with LOTS of energy - which would not be an issue), "rare" elements can be made less so. Water is quite plentiful on this planet - and Dean Kamen created a water purification unit that, if run on plenum energy, can purify water on demand anywhere water is available at all. Pipelines could bring water most anywhere. Hemp oil can create better plastics than petro-oil. Food can be produced and distributed by robots - in quantities vastly more than we need.

You are describing a world that has infinite everything. We don't have that.

Effectively, in fact, we do.

Well given that any money value is arbitrarily set to begin with (else inflation/deflation would not take place), and given that all it accounts for is energy...

I agree that it is arbitrary. But I do not agree that it is solely tied to energy. Money existed before energy consumerism, sorry. And as I said, currency forms just about anywhere people are forced to live amongst another.

Money existed before petrofuels, but it has ALWAYS represented energy expended. Purely and directly, though this relationship has been obfuscated by all the trappings we surround it with.

And as I stated, not everything in the world is infinite, even if energy were to be. So you cannot have some place where everything is limitless, even if energy is.

E=MC2 We can create matter with enough energy.

Lets hypothesize that we developed space travel that let us mine infinite resources from other planets. You would still have trade, jobs, markets and a currency system to represent the work involved with those systems.

(Note the term, "currency..." This should be a clue as to the relationship of money to energy.) We don't need to enter space for those reasons - exploration is all we need. And no one would be doing any "job" that was not their bliss. And if it is their bliss, money is irrelevant as long as they have what they need and want.

What you're describing is something long off into the future that we are nowhere near achieving even with unlimited energy.

I know I have directed you to my thread wherein I explain my knowledge of the existence, capabilities and 50 years of development of electrogravitics. ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )

And, in fact, if the abundance paradigm spreads (enough people are aware and supportive), and we get the plenum extraction methods out of black ops, I give it two years for money to vanish.

reply to post by boncho


Actually currency did not always exist where ever people live around each other. Domestic scale culture traded and bartored. Sorry to say but the truth is the hoarding of recourses created currency. When a "king" could create a heirarchy to help hoard and disturb resources currency was invented. Egalitarian culture traded. This for that. Not labour as a commodity.

I also believe you are wrong about Money always being necessary though I can't say for sure though.

Money right now today is completly tied to energy. The market does not control currency or prices either. It has a part in it but because of politics, taxes, restrictions, and even speculation currency is manipulated. A global political rumor can change markets in this system. A free market may work but we may never know. A free market also requires absolute justice. If I can't sue monsanto for poisoning my water as an individual a free market is dangerous. If I can it may work. Capitalism is a great theory but all this political intervention destroys it's integrity. The political system is completly tied into the monopolies that started during the j d Rockefeller era.

reply to post by coolhanddan


Like usual, this tech and other alike are supressed . As long as TPTB is not confronted with an device ready-to-use, available for purchase directly, no idea will challenge the market when it is of this proportion of effect to the world society. Too many jobs will be lost, too many bucks will change directions...not to think about how many jobs will be created and how much the economy will grow. Its the power that would change, control would be lost, and thats a game their planning to win. Not loose.

Again when higher oilprice comes around , these things always pops up... surely probably they work, but is our society working?

reply to post by boncho


Let me give you an example. Henry ford paid government officials to pave over railroad tracks. Just because you don't have any historical context doesn't mean it's not true. Can you prove their is no supression? I can prove there is. When is the only time in U.s. History the supreme court ordered a mass book burning?

Originally posted by boncho

If these technologies existed, and they were able to be reproduced (especially at the consumer level) how would anyone suppress that?

Links:

www.broandrew.com...

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

freeenergynews.com...

www.panacea-bocaf.org...

peswiki.com...:Suppression

www.scribd.com...

www.users.globalnet.co.uk...

And there's so much more.

reply to post by Amaterasu


You are talking about science fiction. Your threads are filled with unverified claims and ideological rants. I can't handle reading indoctrination material.

I don't understand why so many conspiracy cooks are attracted to people that make outlandish claims without offering proof. The people they follow are the exact thing that they think the "TPTB" are. It makes little sense.

Please, if you have a cogent argument for electrogravitics that outlines how they operate and how energy is harnessed by them, without ten pages of rhetoric, than I will be obliged to read.

I surmise you don't because research pertaining to this is heavily saturated with pseudoscience.

reply to post by spikey


Glad I could enlighten. [smile]

2

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by boncho

 

Let me give you an example. Henry ford paid government officials to pave over railroad tracks. Just because you don't have any historical context doesn't mean it's not true. Can you prove their is no supression? I can prove there is. When is the only time in U.s. History the supreme court ordered a mass book burning?

Wilhelm Reich...? I know they burned his books. Was there one I missed?