Could the Government have access to futuristic technology scientists might say which are impossible?

reply to post by VonDoomen


Exactly.

reply to post by mistafaz


Exactly! So what keeps everything moving? Where does that energy come from?

Things are "jiggling" even in absolute vacuum.

Also, look at gravity. One body attracting another body, actually accelerating it. Where does that energy come from? And in terms of ThermoDynamics, what about energy conservation (skeptic's biggest argument against free energy). What balances the energy spent by one body attracting another via gravity?

As the second body accelerates, where does that energy come from?

reply to post by posterboy


The question should be "where is energy used?"

Energy is used in separating two masses. When we launch a rocket into space - energy is consumed to send it there. When it later falls back toward the planet, the energy is added back into the system (albeit in a different form).

The problem with "electrons spin around a nucleus" is that they don't really spin... they kind of 'exist' there. We don't really understand what is going on. The best we can do is describe where a 'particle' is going to exist (when it is required to act as a particle... or... where the behavior can be described as a particle interaction.... we really don't know if the particle exists or if it just so happens that we can think of it that way) within a certain range of probable areas.

Now - we can argue the details of that ten ways to Sunday. Physicists have been doing it since the early 1900s and the discovery/study of radioactivity. It's pretty much just two sets of belief systems.... like Catholics and Protestants. One believes in original sin and the necessity of confession to a priest... the other believes that God interacts with us on an individual level and that confession need only be between one and God - and that you are not necessarily a sinner just because you are born a human being (not that it matters much by time you're 20). Similarly - some physicists believe particles are real things jittering about. Others believe that particles are virtual as evidenced by particles only being able to explain a very limited portion of the observed phenomena (therefor - while it may work in some cases to think of them as particles - the real mechanics are yet to be uncovered).

But at the end of the day - both schools of thought use the same base material (the same model and scriptures, for the most part) and simply choose to apply and interpret it in slightly different ways.

Anyway - for there to be a "perpetual source of energy" powering a system, the system must be 'losing' energy while the system has no effective change in its own energy state. For example - a top would have to continue spinning at the same velocity even though it is continuing to lose energy to friction. Spinning that same top in a perfect vacuum would lead to it spinning for - at least in theory - infinitely (though frame-drag does add some complexity to this situation). The only reason that is possible in a perfect vacuum and perfect isolation is due to the fact that it would not be losing energy - nothing is causing it to transfer its rotational velocity into another form of energy (such as heat at the point of contact with a table, or air movement where the top touches the air and viscous drag pulls the air with the surface of the top).

Similarly - in any other system where "perpetual motion" is believed to be occurring - one must determine whether or not energy is being drained from the system before being able to make the claim that it's some kind of evidence for "free energy in nature."