Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


you forgot to include another crucial fact :

even if " free energy " replaced all petrochemical fuels - 21st century society would still be utterly dependant on petrochemical products




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 





Pretty sure the subject is perpetual motion taking place on a terrestrial level


Nah, I think you're moving the goalposts.......Perpetual motion on Earth would need to be "Over-Unity", Which to my mind is different to perpetual motion. AFAIK from the definition, Perpetual motion only needs for a moving object to not be affected by other forces, it does not need to produce extra energy to do so.....which is the definition for Over-unity.

But the fact that you stipulate that perpetual motion is impossible only on Earth kinda infers to me you concede that perpetual motion is indeed possible......and I'll take that thanks.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


The OP doesn't even know what goalposts they were aiming at to begin with. Stating that nuclear force is somehow perpetual motion (then relating to the entire fate of the universe...), but then linking us to perpetual motion machines, which are two entirely different things.
edit on 22-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ken10
 


The OP doesn't even know what goalposts they were aiming at to begin with. Stating that nuclear force is somehow perpetual motion, but then linking us to perpetual motion machines, which are two entirely different things.


this is the key point for me - not 'can something be in perpetual motion'

but can a you extract more energy from a system than you put in - i don't think so

there is no shortage of energy though: e=mc2

the problems come with practical and cost effective exploitation of this available energy

fact is oil is the cheapest energy resource we have at the moment - anyone who can come up with a 'cheaper' form of energy production would get pretty rich, pretty quick - but it's a 'money where your mouth is' situation

i think 'free' energy is impossible generally - there would always be infrastructure costs



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by hawkiye
 


instead of bleating about your alledged " anti perpetual motion conspiracy " - here is an idea - show us a device that actually works


Speaking of bleating you people crack me up did you even read the OP? Several keep bleating about show us a device that actually works.. Sigh! Go re read the OP again and then if you still feel the need to ask again to be shown please don't however you should seriously consider reading comprehension lessons...

But thanks for illustrating the conspiracy and running your programming that perpetual motion is impossible...

edit on 22-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The Never Ending Story (1984) only had a run-time of 102 minutes .......... but the fantasy never ends !



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


But thanks for illustrating the conspiracy and running your programming that perpetual motion is impossible...

 


So which one of those machines did you build and are now powering your house off of?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
If something lasts 20 years on its own power I'd call it perpetual.


Then, most large waterfalls, and rivers is perpetual then?
And Sweden got most of it's electric power from flowing water from rivers.

Amazing... :-)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I kinda get what you're going for with the whole "perpetual" thing, but it's just moving the goal post and calling it a break through that proves science wrong.

It's kind of funny that you are equating people who quote scientific laws with a cult. Perpetual motion machine people are the true looneys because they are obsessed with getting an unobtainable outcome instead of using proven science to get as much energy as they could ever need.

One can accomplish much by living in the real world, and there is nothing close minded or shameful about it.
Just think of ways to harness the energy given off by the sun. It'll be more fruitful than chasing ghosts.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
I kinda get what you're going for with the whole "perpetual" thing, but it's just moving the goal post and calling it a break through that proves science wrong.

It's kind of funny that you are equating people who quote scientific laws with a cult. Perpetual motion machine people are the true looneys because they are obsessed with getting an unobtainable outcome instead of using proven science to get as much energy as they could ever need.

One can accomplish much by living in the real world, and there is nothing close minded or shameful about it.
Just think of ways to harness the energy given off by the sun. It'll be more fruitful than chasing ghosts.



Its a good thing looneys like Tesla and others decided to chase some ghosts or you would be reading a book by candle light right now... Cults follow orthodoxy and will consider nothing else but their dogmatic beliefs. it is the looneys of their day who scoffed at orthodoxy that are responsible for moving us foward technologically in great leaps and bounds...

The history of Science is the history of mostly being wrong as the rebels defied the so called fixed laws and proved them false one by one to get us where we are today. Only a fool would think we have it mostly right now...



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Okay, first. It's dumb to credit Tesla with modern technology because there were thousands of dedicated "cult" members that used science and imagination to get us here.

Second, I'm not claiming that we know everything or have everything figured out, but we know far more than we ever have. We know enough now to fix every problem in the world, and our ability to discover more is increasing at an unimaginable rate.

Issac Newton, a scientist of renoun, said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
We are at the height of human knowledge of the real, observable world, so I'm only advocating that we use this platform and build higher, not try endlessly to poke holes. After all, The rules aren't rewritten unless there is new-found truth to base the correction on. That's the beauty of science, not the restricting dogma.

Edit: typo
edit on 10/22/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/22/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Its a good thing looneys like Tesla and others decided to chase some ghosts or you would be reading a book by candle light right now...

 


Your diatribe is getting old. You repeat the same thing over and over again, and when I ask you where is your perpetual motion machine that is powering your house (that you claim is so easily obtainable), you completely ignore the question.

Your bull-snip- is not actual history, and you choose to spout an ignorant interpretation of the past to further your own deluded beliefs. Yes, outside the box thinkers have advanced science, but they all learned what was in the box first and improved on already explored science.

And the light that is illuminating my house right now is attributable to many people...


1850 Joseph W. Swan began working on a light bulb using carbonized paper filaments
1860 Swan obtained a UK patent covering a partial vacuum, carbon filament incandescent lamp
1877 Edward Weston forms Weston Dynamo Machine Company, in Newark, New Jersey.
1878 Thomas Edison founded the Edison Electric Light Company
1878 Hiram Maxim founded the United States Electric Lighting Company
1878 205,144 William Sawyer and Albon Man 6/18 for Improvements in Electric Lamps
1878 Swan receives a UK patent for an improved incandescent lamp in a vacuum tube
1879 Swan began installing light bulbs in homes and landmarks in England.
1880 223,898 Thomas Edison 1/27 for Electric Lamp and Manufacturing Process
1880 230,309 Hiram Maxim 7/20 for Process of Manufacturing Carbon Conductors
1880 230,310 Hiram Maxim 7/20 for Electrical Lamp
1880 230,953 Hiram Maxim 7/20 for Electrical Lamp
1880 233,445 Joseph Swan 10/19 for Electric Lamp
1880 234,345 Joseph Swan 11/9 for Electric Lamp
1880 Weston Dynamo Machine Company renamed Weston Electric Lighting Company
1880 Elihu Thomson and Edwin Houston form American Electric Company
1880 Charles F. Brush forms the Brush Electric Company
1881 Joseph W. Swan founded the Swan Electric Light Company
1881 237,198 Hiram Maxim 2/1 for Electrical Lamp assigned to U.S. Electric Lighting Company
1881 238,868 Thomas Edison 3/15 for Manufacture of Carbons for Incandescent Lamps
1881 247,097 Joseph Nichols and Lewis Latimer 9/13 for Electric Lamp
1881 251, 540 Thomas Edison 12/27 for Bamboo Carbons Filament for Incandescent Lamps
1882 252,386 Lewis Latimer 1/17 for Process of Manufacturing Carbons assigned to U.S. E. L. Co.
1882 Edison's UK operation merged with Swan to form the Edison & Swan United Co. or "Edi-swan"
1882 Joesph Swan sold his United States patent rights to the Brush Electric Company
1883 American Electric Company renamed Thomson-Houston Electric Company
1884 Sawyer & Man Electric Co formed by Albon Man a year after William Edward Sawyer death
1886 George Westinghouse formed the Westinghouse Electric Company
1886 The National Carbon Co. was founded by the then Brush Electric Co. executive W. H. Lawrence


www.ideafinder.com...



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



Your diatribe is getting old. You repeat the same thing over and over again,


Pot meet kettle...


and when I ask you where is your perpetual motion machine that is powering your house (that you claim is so easily obtainable), you completely ignore the question.


Why would I continue to respond to your repeated demand in multiple threads when you refuse to even consider what I have already presented and not only do you refuse you then take it upon yourself to try and ridicule and defame it without ever having examined it... Sigh!


Yes, outside the box thinkers have advanced science, but they all learned what was in the box first and improved on already explored science.


And had they listened to flat earthers like you they never would have ventured outside the box. All we hear from your over worked pie hole is "it can't be done" "it violates the laws of physics" "its impossible" blah blah blah. Never mind how many times in history so called absolutes of science have been found to be wrong or misunderstood. Also despite the fact none of the devices I have referenced on the other site violate any current understandings of the laws of physics but of course you would not know that because you have not bothered to examine any of them but instead choose to attack them and dismiss them out of hand... Sigh!

You are the most negative Nelly defeatist on this board. You jump on any and every thread repeating your crap like a satanic mantra!

I have never said any one should not know and understand current science that is false construct made up by you to justify your tripe. You will defend your current box to the death and it is so ridiculous it is laughable and just goes to show how immature egotistical and the emotional child you are... Get over yourself if you really think this is all crap then what do you care move on... But no you are so insecure and pathetic you are still repeating the same garbage here you have been since day one... Give it a rest grow up and get a life.


edit on 22-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by aynock


fact is oil is the cheapest energy resource we have at the moment - anyone who can come up with a 'cheaper' form of energy production would get pretty rich, pretty quick - but it's a 'money where your mouth is' situation


We already have that. it's called Solar Power. Even without solar cells. You can make a big passive solar heater made from soda cans and use that heat to generate other forms of power.

~~~~~~~~

We have an Over Unity device. It's called the atom bomb. You say, no wait.. that's different.. that energy is stored and is at rest until you release it. BS. That's a theory not a proven fact. You cannot measure that huge amount of energy inside that hydrogen atom until you split the atom so you don't really know it's stored energy at all - it's just a guess like tons of other things science guesses about to complete their theory and sell it to the public. Doesn't make science right or correct.

In quantum physics, particles have been observed winking in and out of existence. Where do they get the energy to do this? Science does not know. It could be they use energy that is perpetual. Certainly no energy loss from the atoms electrons, protons or nuclei have been detected and the orbits of those particles do not stop.

Instead of armchair scientists on ATS stating falsehoods like that's impossible why don't you guys sit down and shut up and admit you do not know enough about the world or physics or thermodynamics to say it's impossible. That's the honest thing to do and it is the truth. Not until we have all the knowledge in the universe will we be able to say otherwise. You guys think you know all the knowledge in the universe already? No wonder people don't respect you. You are the snake oil salesmen. You would have everyone believe you can do something you obviously can never do. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. You are deceiving the people as much if not more than those snake oil salesmen you disagree with.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
We have an Over Unity device. It's called the atom bomb. You say, no wait.. that's different.. that energy is stored and is at rest until you release it. BS. That's a theory not a proven fact.


Wut? The same thing is true for oil, the energy released when you burn it is stored in the potential energy of the chemical bonds. A nuclear reaction is the same, but using the potential energy of the nuclear bonds, that's why it's called a nuclear bomb. This is not only well understood, it has been known in a fair amount of detail since the 1940s.



You cannot measure that huge amount of energy inside that hydrogen atom until you split the atom


Yes, you can, using basic nuclear physics. The model is called quantum chromodynamics.



so you don't really know it's stored energy at all


you don't...



In quantum physics, particles have been observed winking in and out of existence. Where do they get the energy to do this? Science does not know.


They need no energy to do this; that's been understood since the 1910s. And "winking in and out of existence" is a drastic oversimplification of what's really going on, which, as I said, has been understood since the 1910s.



Instead of armchair scientists on ATS stating falsehoods


I am an actual, professional, theoretical physicist. You are the "armchair scientist."


you do not know enough about the world or physics or thermodynamics to say it's impossible.

I do.


You are the snake oil salesmen.

Generally one has to sell things to be a snake oil salesman. Ironically, the pro-perpetual-motion people are the ones trying to sell things.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 





I am an actual, professional, theoretical physicist. You are the "armchair scientist."


I got a good laugh out of this statement! So you deal in "theories" yet you have the nerve to claim "you know" all these things you claim and to call others arm chair scientist... Bit of a contradiction don't you think... Another product of the Academia cult... Entertaining to say the least...
edit on 23-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Why would I continue to respond to your repeated demand in multiple threads when you refuse to even consider what I have already presented and not only do you refuse you then take it upon yourself to try and ridicule and defame it without ever having examined it... Sigh!


 


You post regurgitated links to people who have been discussed before or have already been outed as frauds. All we are asking is for one specific replication you have done, which should be easy since you believe it works and claim it's easy to do.

A year ago people tried this same argument, and would spam the forum with link after link after link of free energy claims, expecting forum members to go through each and everyone and cry shenanigans if I didn't. I'm not spending ten hours going through every link you can google for free energy. If you are bringing something to the forum, you should be able to make an argument for it yourself and back it up with sourced material in a concise, cogent manner.

If you have one specific machine, that you know yourself works, (because you made one) or you have credible sources backing the claims, then by all means post about that specific one. And people will go over the information.

You do remember the amount of time I put into Rossi when he first came on scene, many and many hours, and what came of that exactly. Where's everything he promised? Where's everything you promised out of that whole fiasco? Just a few more months I bet...




Never mind how many times in history so called absolutes of science have been found to be wrong or misunderstood.


Source?

You will be hard pressed to find scientific laws that have been proven flat out wrong. Mind you, you should probably first educate yourself the difference between a hypothesis, theory and a law.

wiki.answers.com...
www.neatorama.com...
en.wikipedia.org...




And had they listened to flat earthers like you they never would have ventured outside the box.


The only people who would have believed the earth to be flat would have been the uneducated or the dogmatic ones like yourself, who believe things for no good reason or do so without evidence to suggest it is so.

Since it was known that the earth was spherical before the time of Christ, I'm not sure why you would even mention it. Especially in the intended negative context you so often try to use...


Some ancient authorities in the doxographic tradition credited the Greek philosophers Pythagoras, in the 6th century BC, and Parmenides, in the 5th, with recognizing that the Earth is spherical.[64]
Around 330 BC, Aristotle maintained on the basis of physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical.[65]
The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes.


en.wikipedia.org...




You are the most negative Nelly defeatist on this board. You jump on any and every thread repeating your crap like a satanic mantra!


Technically, I just respond to the same threads over and over again. You know... the ones that claim something without evidence to back it up, and then attack anyone who questions the claims. Or the generalized ones where so much unrelated information is dumped on the reader that it can only be intended to confuse people, while not actually being evidence for anything.

ie.

Tesla
Aliens
Nazis
NWO
=
Free energy






But no you are so insecure and pathetic you are still repeating the same garbage here you have been since day one... Give it a rest grow up and get a life.


Why not just build your magic box that makes free energy and sell it, or sell the energy? Prove it works I'll even give you start up capital.

I wouldn't mind having a life making money off no cost, all profit energy sales.

You have one in your own house right? Since you know that they work and all?
edit on 23-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


I got a good laugh out of this statement! So you deal in "theories" yet you have the nerve to claim "you know" all these things you claim and to call others arm chair scientist... Bit of a contradiction don't you think... Another product of the Academia cult... Entertaining to say the least...

 


It is sad that you don't even know what a theory is related to science. Hint: It does not have the same meaning as the layman term.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Moduli
 





I am an actual, professional, theoretical physicist. You are the "armchair scientist."


I got a good laugh out of this statement! So you deal in "theories" yet you have the nerve to claim "you know" all these things you claim and to call others arm chair scientist... Bit of a contradiction don't you think... Another product of the Academia cult... Entertaining to say the least...
edit on 23-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



After 5 pages I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're in your early teens and not a troll. Those are the only two possibilities for being this thick.

You've started an argumentative thread stating that everyone who has better understanding of a scientific subject than you is part of a "cult." You provided no evidence to prove your point and insulted everyone who has tried to help you wrap your mind around the subject. You're never going to get anywhere in life by accusing people of being involved in a conspiratorial cult just because they are more knowledgeable and experienced than you.

At least you have a few years before you're an adult.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I don't claim to be any kind of scientist at all you snake oil salesmen. Thank you for proving me right by your post.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join