The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


No Rogue I know you don't support the stuff that isn't backed by science, engineering or simple understanding. Perhaps I misquoted myself, I guess you were posting in regards to where I said science is cumulative and that scientific theories can only be built of the information that is in their foundation?

Which is my mistake, I know you weren't supporting the OP argument, I was actually a little confused to the point.





posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Gravity is, by definition, a conservative force. Inside or outside of the box, open system or closed. This isn't open for debate.

As for the waterfall turning a turbine, I'm simply saying that the work produced by the falling water is not enough to lift the water back up due to friction. Even in a perfect system without friction, the work done by the falling water would only be enough to lift the water back up to the original position, so you wouldn't be able to produce electricity or grind wheat or anything.

You really don't help your case for perpetual motion by arguing for free energy, however you define it.


What are you talking about the falling water produces electricity that can run pumps that can pump the water back up just fine. No laws of conservation are violated. Your problem and sciences is that you base your model on a perfect closed system and those are pretty rare.

My last post proved you wrong the energy the falling water produces is free we do not have to input any energy into it nature does it for us, it is already present in the environment we simply tap into it. Niagara falls has been perpetually creating electricity for nearly a century that's free energy and perpetual motion all in one felled swoop. Solar panels are free energy by tapping into sunlight that has been perpetually hitting the earth for millions of years... No laws of physics are violated. Tapping in to the zero point energy field does not violate the known laws of physics. It's not energy from nothing it's energy that is naturally present in the environment.

There was a time when no one even knew we could tap energy from the sun. Why is it so hard for the so called science buffs to realize the zero point field is the same it is there for the taking we are just now learning how to tap into it like we had to learn to tap into the suns energy...

As Tesla said: "Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature"

edit on 26-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




No Rogue I know you don't support the stuff that isn't backed by science, engineering or simple understanding


All of what we know today was not back by science at one time... Your statement speaks volumes as to your lack of understanding logic and reason... If we only stuck to what was backed by science we would never move forward.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You say the falling water turning a turbine can produce enough electricity to move the water back up to the starting point "just fine"
I don't think that's how it works. Care to design and carry out an experiment to prove to me it works? I think you'll be disappointed.

You think you are a genius disproving modern science because you claim you can get "free energy" from the environment when the hydroelectric process you describe fits firmly in the realm of science.
The heat and pressure of the sun converts hydrogen into helium and energy, the energy causes a phase change in water from liquid to vapor, the vapor rises and condenses back to a liquid and falls as rain to fill up the lake, the lake flows, by gravity, from high altitude from low, turning the turbine. So no, it's not "free energy." Yes, it's true that you don't have to do anything to the sun to get its energy, but that doesn't mean the energy came from nothing. When the sun stops producing energy, the waterfalls will stop.

We, as humans, have known, for almost ever, that energy can be harvested from the sun. There are so many sun god religions because the people knew the crops wouldn't grow without the sun.

by the way, perpetual motion machines have to work in a closed system, otherwise they aren't perpetual motion machines.
I sense a seriously flawed understanding in you....
Also, you can't move the goal post and change definitions and assume you have made a breakthrough. It doesn't work like that. "I can jump 3 meters" is not the same as "I can jump 3 feet" just because you think a meter and a foot are the same length.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 



You say the falling water turning a turbine can produce enough electricity to move the water back up to the starting point "just fine" I don't think that's how it works. Care to design and carry out an experiment to prove to me it works? I think you'll be disappointed.


Why would I need to do that my friend when there are hundreds if not thousands of pumps through out NY pumping tens of thousands of gallons of water daily using the energy created by Niagara falls to do it...


You think you are a genius disproving modern science because you claim you can get "free energy" from the environment when the hydroelectric process you describe fits firmly in the realm of science.


Friend you are letting your emotions get in the way here. Nowhere have I said I am disproving science. I have in fact pointed out how it is perfectly within the current understanding of science and that is why it is so amazing that the so called keepers of scientific thought refuse to acknowledge it. I have said their thinking needs to be updated only. Unfortunately scientific academia has been bought and paid for by powerful interest to protect their monopoly on the energy markets which heavily influences so called Scientific orthodox thinking.


The heat and pressure of the sun converts hydrogen into helium and energy, the energy causes a phase change in water from liquid to vapor, the vapor rises and condenses back to a liquid and falls as rain to fill up the lake, the lake flows, by gravity, from high altitude from low, turning the turbine. So no, it's not "free energy." Yes, it's true that you don't have to do anything to the sun to get its energy, but that doesn't mean the energy came from nothing. When the sun stops producing energy, the waterfalls will stop.


So what's your point? I have never said the energy came from nothing I have in fact explained this very thing a couple of times. it certainly is free energy because we did not have to input anything to get it. Free energy does not mean it comes from nothing it means it is free for the taking or naturally present in the environment like waterfalls or sunlight.


We, as humans, have known, for almost ever, that energy can be harvested from the sun. There are so many sun god religions because the people knew the crops wouldn't grow without the sun.


Oh come on they had no clue about energy and what it was. Worshiping a sun god is not thinking about harnessing the energy from the sun they were praying to a mythical being to help them grow their crops. Harnessing energy from the Sun was never really thought of seriously till about a 150 years ago or so...


by the way, perpetual motion machines have to work in a closed system, otherwise they aren't perpetual motion machines.


You're entitled to your opinion but your opinion reflects the propaganda put out but the bought and paid for Scientific academia cults and it is a relatively recent definition too. Of course they would conjure up a closed system where it could not work never mind there is no closed systems in nature and the Universe from the atom to the planets and galaxies have been in perpetual motion for millions of years... Do the electrons of matter ever stop spinning? Apparently not even in inanimate objects so even if you destroyed the universe the atoms and quarks that made it up would still be in motion.


Also, you can't move the goal post and change definitions and assume you have made a breakthrough. It doesn't work like that. "I can jump 3 meters" is not the same as "I can jump 3 feet" just because you think a meter and a foot are the same length.


Huh? what are you talking about? I have done no such thing I have explained why there is no argument with science with these devices. It is only the propaganda programming that kicks in and tries to falsely characterize the argument set up the straw men and then knock them down, it's nothing but a red herring.

So to sum it up tapping into the zero point energy field is no different then tapping into the sun or a water fall for energy all are provided by nature and free for the taking and violate no laws of physics. So called keepers of science need to update their thinking in this regard. It is doubtful they will as long as they are bought and paid for by big energy interests desiring to protect their stranglehold on us regarding energy.

In the mean time researchers/rebels our forging ahead in their garages and workshops despite the onslaught of BS thrown at them. Many already enjoying the fruits of their labors...


edit on 26-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Why would I need to do that my friend when there are hundreds if not thousands of pumps through out NY pumping tens of thousands of gallons of water daily using the energy created by Niagara falls to do it...


citation please



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Half the problem is that we don't want to admit that everything we do is within a closed system...at a Universal scale.

To even think about free energy you have to tap into the existing energy that formed the sun, which then formed the planets, which then provided sunlight, which then grew something you can eat which can then be converted into thought.

If you build a solar panel and to say the energy is free, surely you must subtract the total energy spent in it's cycle from inception to completion.
If you work out the actuall requirement for invention/R&D (Caloriiffic), materials processing, manufacturing, distribution, installation, storage and release I'm not sure how long it takes even the most modern solar panel to break even in a total energy calculation.

This aether (or the quantum superfluid vacum) we exist within does appear to have stored energy but this is probably derived from its entire volume so is probably innaccesible without a force that matches or exceeds this....

On a related note: In terms of particles appearing out of nowhere...this is probably not the case.
Small particles tunnel through space, just because we cant precisely track ther entire journey doesnt have to mean they are appearing and dissapearing...they could simply moving along another dimensional trajectory that we dont appreciate.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Why would I need to do that my friend when there are hundreds if not thousands of pumps through out NY pumping tens of thousands of gallons of water daily using the energy created by Niagara falls to do it...


citation please


Wow seriously? You do know Niagara falls generates electricity for NY and Canada?


The amount of electricity the power plants at Niagara Falls have the capacity to output is close to 4.9 million kilowatts. That's enough to power 3.8 millions homes.

On the US side, plants have a capacity of roughly 2.7 million Kilowatts, while the Canadian side's combined capacity is close to 2.2 million kilowatts.


Take a guess at how many electric pumps powered by that electricity are deployed on the US and Canadian side to move water to and around the cities and towns of that area... Nough said...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Jukiodone
 






This aether (or the quantum superfluid vacum) we exist within does appear to have stored energy but this is probably derived from its entire volume so is probably innaccesible without a force that matches or exceeds this....


Yea just like we would never go faster then 60 miles an hour, or a heavier then air flying machine would never be possible... it's amazing to me how closed minded people still are after so much history of doing things that were said to be impossible...

It has already been done Tesla did it nearly a century ago, Don Smith has done it, and Tom Bearden has done it along with others...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Having followed this thread from the beginning, I have to say, some of the posters here are being completely ridiculous. BONCHO says 'millions of years is not perpetual motion'. His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind, who has no wish to see any challenge to the orthodox. What is your point BONCHO, that a perpetual motion machine that lasts a thousand years wouldn't be any use? Of course it would, so stop with the semantics that are clearly attempts to halt discussion. For what purpose you do this, I have no idea. The same can most definitely be said for ARBINGEUR, who in all my time on ATS i have only ever seen knock down any ideas that stray from accepted current scientific thinking. Why bother being on the ATS website if you only accept what scientists have told you? Pointless.

And as for MODULI telling us that Xploder knows nothing of physics, you were proven completely wrong. Xploder really knows his onions, and gave you a verbal smackdown. You still never answered his question either. Might I suggest you exit a discussion about possibilities, for a closed mind such as yours offers nothing to the discussion.

Everyone trying to derail the thread should just stop posting in it, you clearly have an unhealthy / obsessive need to stop the discussion. Anyone who is interested in perpetual motion shouldn't let these naysayers get away with the derailment. Ironically I may well be derailing the thread by accident right now, so I'll stop right away.

PS i almost never post on ATS but I have lurked for many a year, so I'm not sure if I'll be in trouble for this post but it makes no difference either way to me.

Onwards and upwards free thinkers.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by theDarthvader
Having followed this thread from the beginning, I have to say, some of the posters here are being completely ridiculous. BONCHO says 'millions of years is not perpetual motion'. His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind, who has no wish to see any challenge to the orthodox. What is your point BONCHO, that a perpetual motion machine that lasts a thousand years wouldn't be any use? Of course it would, so stop with the semantics that are clearly attempts to halt discussion. For what purpose you do this, I have no idea. The same can most definitely be said for ARBINGEUR, who in all my time on ATS i have only ever seen knock down any ideas that stray from accepted current scientific thinking. Why bother being on the ATS website if you only accept what scientists have told you? Pointless.

And as for MODULI telling us that Xploder knows nothing of physics, you were proven completely wrong. Xploder really knows his onions, and gave you a verbal smackdown. You still never answered his question either. Might I suggest you exit a discussion about possibilities, for a closed mind such as yours offers nothing to the discussion.

Everyone trying to derail the thread should just stop posting in it, you clearly have an unhealthy / obsessive need to stop the discussion. Anyone who is interested in perpetual motion shouldn't let these naysayers get away with the derailment. Ironically I may well be derailing the thread by accident right now, so I'll stop right away.

PS i almost never post on ATS but I have lurked for many a year, so I'm not sure if I'll be in trouble for this post but it makes no difference either way to me.

Onwards and upwards free thinkers.


The problem is that this is a semantics debate plain and simple. Of course millions/billions of years is worth something and would be of use. The point is that it is not perpetual. The sun has a finite amount of fuel and it will run out so anything powered from that (hydroelectric systems, solar panels, etc) are not perpetual. We've even calculated approximately how long the sun has until it goes red giant which will most-likely destroy the Earth.

Just because some of you want to call various things perpetual and others are telling you that you are misinterpreting the definition of the word does not mean that the use of the energy as described is not and would not be beneficial on the whole.

A perpetual motion machine is a machine that will run forever. Since not even the universe will run forever, it is an impossibility. Though if you could find one that would run until the end of the universe, I imagine that would be considered 'close enough' and nobody would try to push the point very hard.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Your Niagara falls example is cute, but it still doesn't prove that the amount of electricity produced is enough to pump all the water back up to the top.
Regardless, let me see if I have this right... The work done by a windmill is "free energy" because you don't have to do anything to make the wind blow.... therefore windmills are perpetual motion machines? Lets not forget what you're trying to prove here.

I agree that there aren't many closed systems in nature, but a perpetual motion machine is, by definition, a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source. That bit about drawing energy from some external source is important because all of your recent examples involve energy from external sources. Just because YOU don't have to input energy doesn't mean there isn't an energy input. You're smudging definitions to fit your notion while condemning the apparently "bought and paid for" science for explaining things with concrete definitions.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by theDarthvader
 


The semantics are important when you talk about the objective world.
It's nonsense to say that you built a perpetual motion machine if that machine ever stops or requires additional energy input to keep going. Otherwise it isn't a perpetual motion machine.
Fin. done. end.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Solar panels are free energy by tapping into sunlight that has been perpetually hitting the earth for millions of years...

 


What do you think fruits and vegetables are?




Oh come on they had no clue about energy and what it was. Worshiping a sun god is not thinking about harnessing the energy from the sun they were praying to a mythical being to help them grow their crops. Harnessing energy from the Sun was never really thought of seriously till about a 150 years ago or so...
edit on 26-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by theDarthvader


BONCHO says 'millions of years is not perpetual motion'. His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind, who has no wish to see any challenge to the orthodox.

 


In this case you are not challenging the orthodox, your are challenging your own intelligence. Taking sound scientific theory and law, and making up your own interpretation of it is not special in anyway other than make you look like your part of the "special" class.

Why do so many people pick and choose what they want to acknowledge? Why don't you make up your own hypothesis, theory and laws from the ground up.

Start wherever you want... Hell, start with 3+1 = 5 for all I care....



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Tom Bearden has done it
Bearden got a patent, but he needs 10 million dollars to make it work.

Presumably you won't be sending him the 10 million dollars he needs to complete his hoax...I mean er, um, project?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB


Your Niagara falls example is cute, but it still doesn't prove that the amount of electricity produced is enough to pump all the water back up to the top.
Regardless, let me see if I have this right... The work done by a windmill is "free energy" because you don't have to do anything to make the wind blow.... therefore windmills are perpetual motion machines? Lets not forget what you're trying to prove here.


 


under that interpretation, gasoline-petrol is "free energy". In which case, we should probably start spamming the forum with "GAS IS FREE ENERGY!!" threads...




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


All of what we know today was not back by science at one time... Your statement speaks volumes as to your lack of understanding logic and reason... If we only stuck to what was backed by science we would never move forward.


 


It is scientific laws and sound theories that have projected us into the future. You and your misinterpretations of science is a general call for everyone to educate themselves at the equivalent of 1500s understanding of science. Where unicorn farts will be the next major move in energy production...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by theDarthvader


His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind,

 


By the way, I'm actually not the one that started an argument on semantics. Everything I mention can be backed with scientific understanding. The semantics arguments are taking well known principles out of context, in an attempt to justify something that doesn't fit in with them. The OP is arguing semantics by misrepresenting well understood information and principles.

2 posts up clarifies this greatly. Under the definition some have given "free energy" in this thread, it also includes gasoline.

I am not arguing gasoline is free energy, that is your camp. Yet I get pinned for semantics...




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 



Your Niagara falls example is cute, but it still doesn't prove that the amount of electricity produced is enough to pump all the water back up to the top. 


Actually it is dead on fact! You still trying to deny the undeniable does not help your credibility to say the least. It's not rocket science to understand the electricity from Niagara Falls has been running pumps in that area for nearly a century and have pumped millions of gallons of water probably more then The Falls have since the water is finite and recycled by nature. But for sake of argument lets say you are right and they don't pump the same amount as the falls? So what it is still free energy for the taking for all practical purposes! Solar panels don't even come close to producing the same energy as the sun WHO CARES? It is still free energy for us without any input from us!


I agree that there aren't many closed systems in nature, but a perpetual motion machine is, by definition


Only by your definition and a few other hard heads not by most...


let me see if I have this right... The work done by a windmill is "free energy" because you don't have to do anything to make the wind blow.... therefore windmills are perpetual motion machines? Lets not forget what you're trying to prove here. 


I have said windmills are free energy machines not perpetual motion machines. Still windmills are in perpetual motion as long as their is wind...



That bit about drawing energy from some external source is important because all of your recent examples involve energy from external sources. Just because YOU don't have to input energy doesn't mean there isn't an energy input. You're smudging definitions to fit your notion while condemning the apparently "bought and paid for" science for explaining things with concrete definitions.


LOL you keep repeating what I have already said and then trying to claim I am arguing against what I have already said... Please quote where I said there as no energy input? You seem to be getting desperate since your arguments have been rendered useless so now you are trying to put words in my mouth to give you something to argue with... Sigh.

reply to post by boncho
 



under that interpretation, gasoline-petrol is "free energy". In which case, we should probably start spamming the forum with "GAS IS FREE ENERGY!!" threads... 


Wow I didn't know Gasoline was provided by nature for free and all we had to do was tap into its energy. Gee I always thought we had to expend tons of energy to make it. Who knew there were rivers of gasoline free for the taking like the wind or flowing water... Guess you learn something every day...



It is scientific laws and sound theories that have projected us into the future. You and your misinterpretations of science is a general call for everyone to educate themselves at the equivalent of 1500s understanding of science. Where unicorn farts will be the next major move in energy production...


Its nonsensical posts like this with the token insult at the end (and not a very good one at that) that just makes me laugh and say just consider the source. He really is quite proud of himself isn't he and a legend in his own mind...




edit on 26-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join