How energy can and should be free

A lye pit would be so much more efficient.

And even then it doesn't produce energy so much as it doesn't waste it.

Takes a good bit of energy to make lye though.

Holla Forums was never able to science.
This thread continues the trend.

Thanks for the heads up there, 'tismo. You understand the concept of humor, right? Well judging by your post you sound like a kraut so obviously a joke would be beyond your very limited capability. All the good krauts died in WWII, sad.

So what's your argument? We shouldn't make tech because it will be abused? Is that you Uncle Ted?

Double 'tisming the 'tism irony.
also Polak spotted.

Listen, retard.
THIS is why free energy doesn't work.

Remember that whole "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" thing? That applies to electricity as well. The act of generating electromotive force necessarily produces electromotive force in the opposite direction as well. This results in a new source of friction which must be overcome.
You necessarily have to dump in more energy then you get out of a generator simply by virtue of the fact that you're generating electricity.

Just take your date to a bonfire party.

Burning Jews is an endothermic reaction and a net energy loss. Did you learn nothing from the holohoax threads?

...

...

We have come full circle in our autistic dance, user.

Wow, this sure is the first time I've seen one of those.
Seriously, retard, scammers exist. This isn't news to anyone.

Now please prove this applies to every process in the universe. You can't you say? No, that's because you can't prove a negative, ie. that something is impossible.

You will never disprove "free" energy, no matter what Bill Nye or Penn and Teller tells you. People will search for it forever. If they ever find it is another matter.

This is a slide thread m8. See

They have run out of retarded politics thread ideas so now they post retarded physics threads. Any of you retards thinking you can violate any laws of thermodynamics need to focus on things you actually understand. Over the last hundreds of years, many theories have been disputed and argued. The only ones that there have never been any doubt on, is thermodynamics. Every theory's first test is whether it makes sense thermodynamically. Do you retards honestly think you're the first white man to think of this shit? You think Faraday, Cavendish, Gauss etc. who came up with the theories and devices to test them were all overlooking something, instead of some uneducated fuckhead who has no idea how things work like you? As for your shitty magnet theory: magnets aren't permanent. If a magnet does work on something to generate a current, then work is also done on the magnet in response. You'd know this if you read a book for 5 minutes.

Saged to get this fucking cancer off the board.

I wonder who the real cancer is.

I have looked at a bunch of those type of devices and I can't see the fake in that one. Most of them are quite obvious and are usually a scam with a "pay here to access the part of the website where we reveal the secrets".
That motor has me intrigued a little bit.

The only process I need to prove it for is electricity, because that's what people are trying to turn it into.

If you could create perpetual motion, the moment you hook it up to a generator it will grind to a halt.

If something's being slid, bump it.

How about some fucking wires through the table?

No problem, now prove that electricity behaves like you think it does in every potential eventuality in the universe. The thing is, we've only explored and observed 0.0000000001n% of the observable universe. For all you know there's singularities that change the laws of physics all over this bitch. Denying this makes you, the people I like to call "glossy science magazine skeptic-fags" just as bad as the free energy loonies.

>youtube.com/watch?v=jiAhiu6UqXQ
Sorry, but theres almost certainly a hidden electric motor with battery packs inside. There's no reason for it to be so bulky, and the inventor only removes the wedges when he takes it apart.

That is why it is on the table in the first place all you have to do is move it a little bit and it is easily shown to be free standing.
What I think it is the excess power is drawn from magnets and eventually they will lose their magnetic charge.

(trips checked)
I will watch the video now. Also that is a lot of "hidden batteries" but there are a lot of scammers as well.

In the lightbulb array my dear Watson.

The funniest thing about autists? They can't recognize it in themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree.

...

>youtube.com/watch?v=jiAhiu6UqXQ
This is what I was talking about for excess energy from the magnets in this video the magnets eventually will wear out.

Duh for me I am too trusting and always want to believe people are not scammers.
I always want to inspect these devices for myself you can't see fuck all from a utube video.

Refute the evidence provided and please include citations and video of you tearing down the device proving your assertion. Two videos posted from two different builders are onto the same idea. PROVE these magnetic motors don't work. Let's see your peer review, bitch.

Otherwise, fuck off.

That speaks to the quality of your heart. The problem with this shit is that thousands of people stand ready to shower people who display something like that with money. So that there isn't an obvious and blatant cash-grab doesn't really speak to it's integrity.

The only one that ever had promise in my estimation was Stanley Meyer and even his hydrogen fuel cell quit working at one point but I do think Stanley was on to something.

...

Ok so if you were given a complete solar system, batteries, charging station, with wind backup for free and it generated energy to suit your needs, you wouldn't consider it free because you have to replace wires when they break down or replace a battery when it wears out?

So even if I could hand you a working cold fusion design that could give everyone free power forever, it wouldn't be "free" because you have to build the fucking device.

This is why we can't have nice things. Arguing semantics over trivial bullshit instead of focusing on shit that has potential. Just like the kikes want. Imagine that. It is almost as if someone has a shekel in the game.

unless an entirely new effect is discovered, that's already been proven.

If it worked, it would be marketted by now. That's all the proof I need.
The video I posted simply demonstrated a well known and accepted effect (see: counter EMF). Your video was anecdotal. Mine was demonstrative.

I want to see stirling motors being developed more. The swedes are powering their fucking subs with them. Anything that can improve upon our energy usage is good stuff.

I don't understand what's special about this? You can get a permanent magnet DC motor and you'd get some voltage out if it rotates, get a simple dc-dc booster and you'd get 5 volts which is required for basic everyday stuff.

They are trying to get their operation going you fucknut. Advertising comes when they have the means to produce it. Biug energy doesn't like the competition so funding is difficult to come by.
But you knew that which is why you made a logical appeal rather than refuting the device Moishe.

This is public education for you, people. That's exactly what I'm saying, new effects can potentially exist and you can't prove that they don't. Because you can't prove a negative. So all you can say is that "according to our current observations etc." which is a reasonable statement.

That doesn't disprove "free" energy in any way. Microbes didn't "exist" either until we invented the microscope.

Some people have been playing with using new motors to push newer more efficient alternators which power the motor and produce a slight net gain. Over unity supposedly but without being able to see what is in the motors it is hard to get numbers.

The phlogiston is real to me damnit.

...

...

Interesting, I'm actually not very knowledgeable with these stuff but I plan to read a lot of books about electromagnetism in general, should be fun.

and they have gone nowhere in how many years?

i didn't say they didn't retard. But the effect would have to be demonstrated before it is utilized for free energy.

The free energy shills are even worse than the bitcoin shills, because while bitcoin could work in an alternate universe in which everyone believed in it (which won't happen here), "free energy" can't work in any universe that remotely resembles the physics of our own.

The laws of physics do not care what you believe.

The "laws" of physics were written by kikes.

These guys haven't been soliciting until recently.

...

You are one confused user.

Here we got another one. This user has observed and catalogued the physics of the entire universe. Are you God perchance?

It's so sad to see what has happened to science. It has been completely subverted and what's being crammed down the plebian gullets is something more akin to a religion.

The old boys who actually figured shit out (instead of making shit up in pilpul peer review star chambers) are probably spinning in their graves. Perhaps they can be used as dynamos for free energy.

...

>>>/x/
>>>/fringe/

It gets old doesn't it?

Really unpopular opinion but I personally believe it was a grave mistake to separate philosophy from science. Back then a philosopher knew all sciences.

Retarded.
The fan is caused to move by the power of the man's muscles.
That's why he holds the magnet instead of simply mounting it to the cowl of the fan.

The real problem was decoupling the requirement of reproducible experiment for widespread acceptance. The peer review system (which is pretty new, well after the age of enlightenment during which every real scientific discovery was made) is obviously very flawed. Shifting the determination of validity from experience to corruptible and vain professors was an obviously bad idea, with a predictable outcome.

Which is why they did it I suppose. Science was too dangerous to have in normalfag hands.

(checked)
By definition that is not "free" all you are doing is transforming one source of energy to another and anytime you go from one source to another you have a loss so then efficiencies come in to play. For example try storing all your solar energy by pumping water to a higher elevation then capturing it back when the sun goes down you end up with maybe 10% of what little you captured in the first place.
"Free energy" is getting more out of a system that what you put into it.

Solyndra energy (solar) got a half a billion from kang nigger and still went tits up.
Show me one (1) solar or wind turbine factory in the world that is powered by the products they produce and then you have a viable energy source.

Stirling motors do not produce appreciable torque and I call BS on swedes and subs sauce nigger

bullshit. I have seen those videos years ago.

All energy has to come from somewhere. It is basic understanding at this point that energy is basically the only "real" thing there is.
Either you're creating something from nothing or there is no free energy.

Yea, Newton and James Clerk Maxwell were surely Kikes.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah you've spotted the confusion trick these shills use.
They start off implying that by "free energy" they mean over-unity.
Then they go on to show a device which outputs currents induced by the transmissions of radio stations, or leeches current from a telephone line. Then they call this free energy.
All of the free energy videos can be summed up as

...

Eddy current brakes are awesome. Many a machinist owes his arms to them. They can stop a lathe running a full speed in less then one revolution.

Hidden batteries, wires, editing. If you took physics 2 you'd understand how magnets work. You can't use them for perpetual motion any more than you can the Earth's gravity well.

Sounds about right, my professor told me that when new technologies are discovered they're never released to public and universities until they made enough money out of it and are completely depleted and there's newer stuff.

You are getting more than you put in with the systems being discussed. Free energy will never be profitable which is why they fail. Investors want to make money, not help people. Greed gets in the way and makes things worse. Look at the medical and pharma industry. Treating a problem makes money, curing it doesn't.

saab.com/naval/Submarines-and-Warships/technologies/The-Stirling-Engine/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine

The man or nation with a perpetual motion device would wipe the floor with anyone else. It's quite literally magic.

Well, it's impossible to prove your assertions there, but yes, that is true according to our current observations (a small dataset, but all we have.)

But even if that's true in an universal sense (which we don't know,) that doesn't mean there aren't unknown processes that are "free" in the sense that they give a shitton of energy through some relatively simple mechanism. Like splitting the atom, or possibly fusing them. Or something widely different.

My point is that when someone claims to have created a energy-producing device you have to research it, you can't just shout "LOL IMPOSSIBLE" because your stone tablet you got handed to you in school says so. That's my gripe here, the "skeptics" who aren't really skeptics at all, but monks in some sort of university taught scientologism cult.

Think of it this way, we don't even know what the fuck gravity is yet. Our theories of how it works are embarrassing and have to be amended like leaking ships every third year. To claim that we understand the universe in any sense yet is hubris in the greatest degree. It's like the equivalent of the christian "philosophers" of yesteryear who just copped out with "lol it's god, end discussion. XD"

...

See, this is why your people never invented anything.

It's possible to have healthy skepticism and an open mind at the same time. But then you went to university. Too bad for you.

Probably hoping in vain to have anyone not retarded answer me on this, but could someone give me the rundown on what the hell time crystals are. From my understanding they are series of atoms quantumly entagled that fluctuate regularly in 4 dimensions, which kinda breaks causation and conservation of energy. I think they've only got like 8 atoms to do it with any kind of stability.

Pls help.

...

I looked at that link and it has literally nothing to do with perpetual motion. Stirling engines burn shit to create a temperature differential across the heat exhangers and get their energy there. They're quite a bit more efficient than any other type of piston engine, but it's still 1840s' tech. The novel thing about this specific sub is that since Stirling engines are very efficient, they can actually carry the oxidizer they need on board the submarine itself in the form of liquid oxygen, instead of using air. This would have been exceedingly impractical back in the 40s, but today liquid oxygen is mass produced for many applications, like rocketry.

They've been used in industry for decades. Just because YOU have never seen one doesn't mean there aren't millions of them chugging away right now.

Who said it was perpetual motion? I just said I like to look at all manner of forms of making our energy use more efficient.

Nigger.

Yes
No, it does not. Does a sattelite in earth's orbit break causation and conservation of energy? Time crystals are quite a bit more complicated in that it's literally their base energy state, but conceptually it's similar. This is the atomic scale, which means shit like friction doesn't actually apply anymore.

What the fuck are you blabbering about?
Have you ever set foot on an oil platform, or inside a refinery? or a nuclear power station?
No, didn't think so.

Look, man. ALL available evidence suggests things are the way I said they are. Outright denying the facts as we see them is not "healthy skepticism." It's foolishness.

Now, all we need is one bit of evidence suggesting otherwise and you have have your free energy. You go out and discover that bit of evidence then we'll talk. Frankly, im going to need something more than a teardown of a supposed free energy device to believe it. People find very clever ways of hiding shit in hidden compartments. I'm going to need a theoretical model of how the thing works with peer review.

Keep going nigger.

I thought tp create this tesla shit you had to tap into the ether with e=mc2 or some shit, not play with meme magnet?. But I don't know much about this

Well, in that case I apologize. Stirlings are pretty cool, but they have shitty power to weight ratios. So they're mostly limited to use as stationary generators. But they cannot even approach the power output of turbines, so they're kinda stuck in the window between diesels and turbines, which is generally all kinds of rather specific applications where efficiency is key, or non-conventional heat sources are used. Nowadays increasing numbers are found in solar power as an alternative to photovoltaics.

This is (((PBS))) but it's a decent rundown.
"fluctuate regularly in 4 dimensions" is basically popsci buzzwordery.

...

I can't wait until Lockheed-Martin makes the compact fusion reactor and ends this line of shilling, then you retarded goons will have to come up with something else

I can read fine, you just don't understand the point. Sterling engines are ALREADY included in the plant design, WHERE THEY ARE THE BEST CHOICE.
When you say they should be used more, you're only showing your ignorance.
Used more, why exactly? Do you understand that they run on waste heat and aren't directly fueled?
Do you understand that if they WERE directly fuelled then the combustion chamber required to heat the working fluid would suffer exactly the same efficiency losses as any other combustion chamber?
No, you didn't.

The fact that this topic is even being debated is proof of how retarded the average Holla Forums user is. Free energy is mathematically impossible.

But oh noes, muh jews invented teh maths, must be a lie.

It's just a couple of goons being retarded for no apparent reason (do they think they'll get our money?) and a couple of other idiots having another argument entirely

I wonder if they have been trying to work stirlings into geothermal. I can deal with them not producing huge amounts because they are clean enough that you can have a shitton of them scattered around.

Watch this on Micro Hydro.

What fucking plant design are you talking about? Reread the entire thread you fucking cunt. I simply stated they should develop the fuckers MORE, not that they WEREN'T USED as you IMPLIED.

You stupid fucking cum gargling shit. Grow a fucking pube before jumping into the ring with adults who have in fact been there in the god's damned industry you are making an appeal to. I welded stainless on nukes. I dove rigs.

WASTE FUCKING HEAT. DING DING DING. CAPTURE IT AND USE IT YOU FUCKING MONG.

I'm not claiming to have that. I don't claim to know if "free energy" is possible at all. I'm saying your claim that it can't exist is impossible to prove and thus without any merit. That's all I'm saying.

I think we are arguing a bit past each other. I'm not riling on the fact that scammers should be exposed or that hard questions shouldn't be asked. I'm against the modern cultish mindset taught in universities today that scientific law is somehow set in stone. Because it isn't

Heavier than air flight was known to be impossible in a very scientific manner until it was known to be possible.

That's true. But ALL evidence we have is a very sparse dataset, so that doesn't really mean much. We haven't even seen how shit works outside our own little solar system. This doesn't mean let's go off to lala land and buy into every youtube video of a guy who put some batteries in a lightbulb array.

It's more of a general mindset and philosophical approach. The new way is a very closed mindset in that it categorically states things we can't know are impossible. That's what I'm against. Not disproving some russian's magic lightbulb. But the thing is, if you consider scientific current knowledge as some sort of unalterable and eternal holy law then no progress will be made beyond it either.

And that is something that has happened many times up throughout history.

Free energy/perpetual motion is not a suppressible technology. If someone developed one, he'd simply let his neighbors run extension cords to his house, and it would all grow rapidly from there. The fact that no one who claims to have developed free energy has done that is an easy proof that no one has free energy.

Anons, free energy threads are slide threads. They are total crap, don't bother reading them, if you respond, please sage.

Ok, I'll adjust my claim a bit:
There is no possible way to use the transfer of mechanical energy into electrical energy which results in a net positive. That one IS proven by the fact that counter EMF exists. It is also how most free energy devices are claimed to work.

Oooh they are looking into it.

sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/390221

Heavier than air flight was never "known to be impossible in a very scientific manner" because anyone who knew that never stuck a bird on a scale (that is to say, checked the archetypal example of flying things to see if it was heavier than air).

That test only works for witches and ducks.

Why?
For what purpose?
Develop which aspect?
I can tell that inside your teenage pea brain, you're thinking "i…if they just developed it more, they could get more and more power! aaaand eventually it would be just as powerful as a steam engine! or an internal combustion engine! just needs the development!"
No, it wouldn't, they're already highly efficient. The limit is simply the relatively very low amount of power you can extract using a temperature differential and a small volume of gas.
But carry on, the Kike is surely lying about heat capacity etc.

Nigger what do you not get about "harnessing the forces of nature" its "free" power from zog, not "free" power coming out of a faries ass.

ATTENTION

These threads are extremely important and are being slid fucking hard:

What is Solyndra?
What is the Bakken?

Funny I have a neighbor pulling in $3k a month in Seattle of all places from solar on his roof. It was all paid for within a couple months.

It is feasible especially if you want to supply just yourself. Corporations have too much invested in the current status quo to want to change. It is only when they can no longer profit from other sources that renewables will have a eureka moment and become workable.

He may be receiving $3k in subsidy.
He is not generating $3k worth of electricity from solar panels on his roof.

Sigh. As far as we know.

In a scientific manner according to those days standards. That's the point I'm trying to make. It was pretty much common knowledge back then that heavier than air flying machines wouldn't work. I assume the post enlightenment scientists of that day understood that birds were heavier than air and had some sort of other rational behind their thoughts. But it was a common dogma nevertheless.

Today we have different dogma and in all likelihood, much of it is still wrong.

I'm not saying your threads are not important, but does really EVERY fucking thread on this board have to be about burger republitard vs democretin politics?

See in post
Unless you're doing something small right next to a geyser or such, it really does not make any sense to construct GT power stations with Stirlings. Instead, the higher power output of a turbine is more worthwhile. Especially considering that you're not consuming any fuel, and the limit you can output is more about the demand and engineering difficulties than cost.

He covers his own use and gets 3k a month for the excess he generates and pushes into the grid. Sorry but that is generating over 3k in electricity if that is what they end up giving him.

Filtered.

No, it is literal fact. This is less like "what shape is the earth?" and more like "what does 2+2 equal?"
The counter EMF will always be equal to the energy being put into the coil. In order to overcome it you have to put in more energy. Unless there is an external source of energy (feel free to evoke whatever quantum woo you'd like as to where that energy may come from) the rotor will stop spinning.

Wonder why they (coolenergy) got a grant to study stirlings in geo then.
coolenergy.com

Literally nobody was saying it's physically impossible, though many doubted whether one could actually be built with real world constraints of the day. A modern day equivalent would be the fusion debate, not perpetual motion.

Perpetual motion with magnets is an idea way older than powered flight, and it's also been known to be bullshit for way longer. I suggest you actually take a course in physics I don't even mean it as an insult, genuinely do it, you'll understand the core concepts better. And by understand better, I mean actually understand, because you cannot understand physics without math.

Oh, so we're moving the goal posts.

No it isn't.
Receiving $2900 in subsidy for supplying $100 of electricity is not "generating $3k of electricity."
You were trying to imply that the solar panels produced kWH worth $3k when in fact most of the money is subsidy.
You can't power machines with fictional money converted from subsidy payments.

Are you retarded? He didn't shift goalposts at all there.

It's a myth, like the "everyone thought the earth was flat" myth.
Kikes and leftists love to imply that our forebears were retarded and lacking simple logical deductions.
Literally no one believed the earth was flat in the middle ages and "heavier than air" flight had been known for thousands of years - you think the Romans didn't have paper airplanes?

Maybe they have an idea how it might work better. But as an engie I wouldn't do it that way, because it's generally cheaper to bore deeper tubes and more of them than it is to replace your 14% efficient turbine with a 45% efficient stirling if you need something in the multi-megawatt range. My gut says the stirling will be difficult to scale up to such an extent, though I haven't done the math. If they can do it, it might be a pretty neat improvement so all power to them.

I will not invoke quantum woo because I personally am of the conviction that quantum theory as a whole is pretty much bunk science.

Still, yes, that's how things work as far as we've ever observed and I'll even grant you it's very probable that that's how it works in an universal sense. To prove it you'd have to disprove the existence of moderating forces, which you can't.

It was an example to prove a point. If it triggers your autism too much then sorry. So what's your point then, that scientific understanding of the world has been perfect and unchangeable since the age of enlightenment? Hard times for you I guess, with all these newfangled quantum fantasies and all the patchwork fixes making relativity harder and harder to defend.

I suggest you unlearn some of the bad habits you picked up in university. Go read physics from before ww2, before the academies of the west were subverted and corrupted.

I haven't even talked about physics at all or how it works in any of my posts so you have no way of gauging my knowledge of it. I'm talking about world views.

nice slide thread moishe

Learn to sage, you are contributing to the slide.

What are you even talking about?

This is something I genuinely dislike, plus the fact that everyone thinks everyone in the past was always dead serious, and people didn't use to screw around f whatever reasons like today. I personally think that Voynich manuscript was created by a random dude to trick someone into thinking it was some ancient magical book and get a decent price out of it.

See, this is why fags who cannot into math should be banned from discussing physics and engineering.

Nobody was saying that powered flight was impossible - it was pretty clearly possible, and trivial to observe in action (pic related). The problem was that nobody knew how to build a machine that could do it, and there was no engine around with a high enough power to weight ratio that could do it, so many thought it was never going to be built due to engineering difficulties. Perpetual motion, however, is considered impossible on the base, theoretical level - as it was back then.

Really, maybe you should reconsider using flight as an argument because people were trying to make perpetual motion magnet motors in the 1850s just as they are now, often with very similar designs. The people trying to fly succeeded whereas you're still just scamming gullible people.

That you don't know everything before you know everything.

Indeed the goals have been moved. Repeatedly.

The laws of physics I'm told, can't change. Unless they do. This entire debate is about fucksticks sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to accept new evidence submitted then falling back to well it is how we understood it in the day.

Move on from back in the day and accept there may be new information you didn't fucking have instead of waiting for kikes to update a textbook for 500 fucking dollars so they can push a new industry.

Understand the "laws" aren't absolutes beyond our perception. Listen and believe is liberal bullshit. Test, verify, reproduce, present evidence.

Anyone mentioning math, just don't unless you can provide all your math to be checked and you have the math from the sources you are attempting to refute to cross-check as well.

Agreed, it is a particularly irksome sort of arrogance. If anything the general population is more stupid than 500 year ago.
About Voynich, I'm not so sure, a Russian team using statistical analysis recently claimed that it is written in a real language with an English base iirc.
Marginalia is solid proof debunking the "people didn't have humour" claim.

Well, you're in luck because electromagnetism was well understood back in the late 19th century already.
You mean, unlearn all the math and forget the experiments that prove it?
How do you suppose a transistor works you double nigger?

Drown yourself in semen

How about sitting on that high horse you actually buckle up and read up on WHY we think the world is as it is? You know, you can learn all that in a fucking public library. You won't, though, because math is hard and takes work. Whereas pontificating for our edification is easy and only requires a vocabulary.

Sorry, perceptual motion violates logic as much as it does physics. It would imply an infinite amount of electrical energy as its output. Which would require an infinite amount of mechanical energy. The machines velocity would need to be continuously approaching infinity. The very existence of such a machine would imply you shouldn't even exist because it would assert that phenomenon that is able to output infinite energy exists in the universe. The universe would have already succumbed to heat death.

Magnets cannot be used to create useful work because they are stable. A magnet is infinitely attracting as it is infinitely repelling. Each side cancels each other out, it is a stable system. And thus does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Same with zero-point energy. Is is stable, it cannot have any more energy to move anything beyond itself.

That's not how you do science user. You get a group of Jewish professors to discuss what is valid science or not, and then you take what they say as golden gospel where nothing outside it is possible.

Questions are haram, so you must ridicule those who doesn't play along. That's the scientific process.

Magic, obviously.

Literally what do you mean by the term "moderating forces" and how would disproving them prove free energy isn't real?

Nobody's saying that. Literally nobody's saying that. However, certain things ARE proven. In fact, "law" in science refers to things which are effectively irrefutable.
In fact, show me ONE, that's right, ONE scientific LAW which has been disproven. Note I'm not saying "hypothesis" or even "theory." LAW.

Is the ideology i dislike the most, it is annoying how arrogant this is.
This is the first time I've seen this actually, holy hell looks amazing!

Pick up a physics textbook. Test the hypothesis. You can test shit up to and including quantum physics quite easily in a garage. But you won't, because you're not actually smart. You grew up thinking you were, but around the highschool level math started getting difficult so you decided it's not needed, like so many other /fringe/ fags.

I would also like to add that I don't think its impossible to come up with a conceptual device that takes energy from some other dimension or something. But such a device would need to be able to be recreate consistently and follow the scientific principles of scrutiny. If such a device exists then its builders should have absolutely no issues describing how it works. We know perceptual motion cannot work not because some fucking government is keeping this shit from us, but because the laws required to make it work can be easily tested at home by literally anyone with basic experimentation. Its not happening

Listen. I'm not saying you're wrong within the dataset of observations we have. My only point is that you can't be as categorical as you're being.

Take gravity, it's a force we don't understand. No one claims we do. As far as we know it's constant and unchanging. Does that mean some force we haven't observed that negates it can't exist? No. We only know we have never observed such a force.

It's not really speaking to your physics in particular. As I've said repeatedly, that's valid as far as our observations are concerned. What I'm talking about is a worldview on what is possible, probable, proven and unproven. Why is this important?

Because if some sort of unorthodox energy generation procedure that does not conform to current understanding exist (I'm not saying it does, I'm saying it's not impossible,) then the difference between "knowing" that it's impossible and knowing that it's improbable is the difference between ever finding it or not. As I try to say, that doesn't mean we should all go around accepting bogus "free energy" devices or any of that hallelujah.

k.

We already have them, they're called fidget spinners.

You, maybe. But we have actually had an experimentally accurate theoretical model for how (and why) gravity works for over 100 years now. That "counter force" as you describe it would effectively be the result of an object with negative mass.

Note: that picture actually describes gravitational lensing. I'm just trying to ring some bells about something you most likely learned about in fucking highschool.

A theory isn't a scientific law. Even the top physics kikes doesn't have the hubris to claim that it's anything but a theory at this point. You're even more rabid than your teachers.

Except it doesn't work at all so they had to invent "magical unobservable and invisible matter" to make it work. Well, I give up. Can't argue with the religious mind.

Correct. Theory and law are two different things. They even describe two different things. Gravity will NEVER be a law because that's not what laws are for.

Fucking christ, man. Dark matter is not what you think it is.

Very funky and hip video, but also a circular argument. Just go through that video's chain of arguments slowly, step by step and you'll see it.

The thing is, dark matter is not "unobservable" as far as we know. We simply haven't found a way to observe it.

We haven't directly observed the Higg's Boson until recently. Particle physics is basically the least well understood part of physics and we all know it.

22ND CENTURY SCIENCE
scalarphysics.com/resources.php

I'm just saying that dark matter is a concept, wholly unobserved, and it's only function is to repair some problems with general relativity. This is not a controversial statement in physicist circles. The rationale is that general relativity has so much going for it that dark matter is an acceptable compromise.

Which is fine, in it's own right. As a theory GR works pretty well. It's probably wrong in the end, but as long as it explains things to the degree that we can do practical shit with it, I agree with them. It's etter to bash in nails with a rock than with your hand even if you don't have access to a hammer.

The problem starts when you get people who starts thinking it's some kind of ultimate truth, rather than what it is, a pretty pragmatic theory that's the best we got at the current point. Which relates to what I've been talking about all along. A mindset that is being taught in universities today that's more akin to religion than to science. I'm not holding the top physicists responsible for this, even though I personally think they're off on a wrong tangent. They, after all, are much more often honest about what's provable and what's not.

So now you're arguing for my stance then, that we should keep an open mind to currently unobservable phenomena. But only as long as they help prop up your beliefs I suppose?

Which is what it is. Physicists are uncomfortable around dark matter because it IS a belief. Everyone acknowledges GR might be wrong. That's why it's only a theory.

So lets do the arithmetic
$3000/30 days = $100/day
You can nominally expect 8 hours/day of solar generation
$100/8 hours = 12.5 dollars per operating hour
Electricity cost here in MI is 12 cents /1000 watt hours (1KWH)
$12.50/$0.12 = 104.16 (1000 watt hours) or 104,166 watt hours or 104 KWH
Quite impressive so far now lets see the total area required to generate 104,000 watts/hour
104,116 watts/10 watts/ft^2 = 10,416 square foot of roof area
Square root 10,416 square foot of roof area = 102 feet per side of roof with continuos solar panel coverage
My whole lot is only about 50 X 150 so that is one big fucking roof your neighbor has there.
This doesn't even take into consideration a whole bunch of things like loss due to rectifying DC to AC actual peak power you obtain when the sun is overhead, cloudy days when you will not get advertised power output etc etc.
So I am sure all the anons in this thread are going to jump on board for the $3k a month to get from the power company while they live in a huge ass mansion.

Also, to really drive it home:
Your argument was that gravity is all wrong. This is a completely false notion as we know it behaves EXACTLY as theorized on scales smaller than galaxies.

To an extent you are right. It accounts for the discrepancy between what we see on small scales vs large ones.

Not at all. Neither I, nor literally anyone else, said we know everything there is to know about physics. However, you're the one disregarding scientific LAWS. The proofs for these laws are not simply that we haven't seen anything to contradict them. They are so demonstrably true in every direction in which you look at them that searching for evidence to the contrary is a fool's errand.
Your question when you see a proclaimed free energy device should never be "how did they produce free energy?" but "where is the energy coming from?"

Also, something can only be promoted to "law" if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Let's take the Law of superposition in geology:
in simple terms: "in undeformed soil, things that are at the bottom are older than those above." You can use a simple set of axioms to rove this without any room for skepticism. Things like GR will NEVER be laws. a theory is as close as they'll ever get because there is literally no way to prove it to the extent at which we can call it "law."

And "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in this case means "by necessity." No experimental evidence required, no observation needed, something that can be proven purely through logic.

What, where did I say that? I said we don't know what gravity is. Which even if all mainstream modern physics are true, no one is really disputing. Except you for some reason.

How? When? I've only ever said that "yes, according to all our observations you are correct, but you can't categorically state that possibilities outside our sphere of observation are impossible."

You can think it's a fools errand as much as you want to, but for all your kvetching you can't prove a negative. Personally I think it's a dangerous way of thinking to let infuse itself into science. You disagree. We doesn't seem to go anywhere with this.

Of course there are ways to prove it. A theoretical measuring device is not impossible. Far off at our tech level, but not impossible to conceive of. But yes, for all practical purposes we are restricted to theories for the time being.

That's not the standard for a scientific law at all. If that was true there would be no scientific laws. Please prove the law of induction "without experimental evidence or observation." Purely through logic please. Your claim is pretty absurd I must say.

time crystals are 4th dimensional objects, not "time machines". You can draw "free" energy from them, but it's so small it wouldn't be effective for anything.

here

And that is wrong. It is the curvature of 4D spacetime. According to our current model, that is EXACTLY what it is.

When you say free energy is possible

logic.

laws are not declared through measurement.

they actually are. The energy one is going to take a writeup, but las of superposition is easy: the act of something being placed underneath something else within soil after that "something else" has already been placed is necessarily deforming all layers of soil above it.
Other laws are determined by definition. Ohm's law is a good example of this: "current=volts/resistance." this is true no matter what any observation yields because these three terms are defined to fit this equation.

You should contact your nearest university then. You obviously have some sort of amazing proof that has gone by every physicist in this world.

Not really. Saying that the laws of physics might be incomplete or wrong isn't disregarding them. It's a potentiality. I live in a world where I have to relate to the laws of physics like everyone else, and as far as my observations go they are constant. This doesn't mean I have magical omniscience like you.

Ok, I now realize you are trolling me. Good job. Mea culpa, my inner aspie got the better of me.

The notion that gravity is this mysterious thing to scientists is basically popsci hype. Maybe you should take a physics class or something rather than assuming the information you get spoonfed on the internet is an accurate description of our level of understanding of these things.
I bet you think multiverse hypothesis is generally accepted, pleb.
I requested earlier that you name 1 thing that was declared as law but later proven to be false. I'm still yet to receive such an example.

To an extent, yes. To imagine a universe where these don't apply is to imagine a fundamentally inconsistent universe.

This is the
LAW
of gravitation.
We know it works but we still do not know
HOW
it works.

Not really. You like to cast aspersions on my physics background all the time, but I'm starting to suspect it might be you who are lacking in that department. Perhaps take your own advice.

That why gravity exists and what it really is is a complete unknown at this point is time is not at all controversial in modern physics at all. What we know is that it exists, that's a law. Beyond that we have are theories about how it works beyond newtonian physics. That's all.

No, I don't know of any. That doesn't mean my point is wrong.

Which you don't have the observational data to determine whether it is or isn't. That you can't understand this basic and simple fact is because you're a zealot.

...

Thomas Henry Moray. 15kW from thin air, peer reviewed, one of many. Denying quantum is denying Casmir effect, Lamb shift, Einstein himself, Tesla, Moray, Brown etc etc /thread

As t.teslafag, must also drop a quote

...

How can it be a slide thread when it's bumplocked?

Not at all. Well, Einstein was a pretty dubious fellow. But there are other ways of explaining everything quantum theory does. Like Tesla's aetherics. Tesla himself understood that GR is probably bullshit. I don't know that quantum theory is wrong, but I have problems with many of it's tenets lack of reproducibility.

...

why anything exists is an unknown. That's not an issue.

not everything is observation, moron. Take a minute and imagine a universe where law of superposition didn't apply: Things that are younger would appear in layers below older things, yet it would not deform any layers. Basically, you're imagining a universe where shit just appears out of nowhere but does not deform any soil, even in the layer in which it magically appears.
THAT is the point of laws: shit that is so obviously true they are taken as axiom.

WTF with bump locked?

By the way, disregarding facts does not make you skeptical. I'm having a hard time finding this image but do you remember seeing a shitty mspaint drawing of some retard reciting "u cannot kno nuffin" over and over again then ending with "do i sound profound yet?"

That's you. That comic is mocking you.

The mods don't want white Aryans to get free energy.

And to top this off: the existence of gravity is not a law. It's an observation. There are laws surrounding gravity but gravity itself is not law.

shit thread made by a schizo

(checked)
I don't think it is a shitty thread but every time I see a thread like this there is always some one comes out of the wood work and proclaims something like this
Or some other equally inane assertion. The fact is you can supplement your power needs and in certain areas on earth you can in fact run your home on solar but it is not cheap and it does not last forever.
And we always have the but better batteries and energy storage is right around the corner.
The whole thing is nothing but snake oil to placate the masses and push the (((green energy revolution))).

They used to have these xrays glasses too, in magazines; that you would send cash and they would send this pile of lies. You grew up in the wrong time period OP, your destiny is as a rube in the 70's/80s, tough break.

pol really needs to get its head out of its ass and realize that their holy physics is mostly (((physics))).

YOU NEED THE SAME LEVEL OF SCEPTICISM TO YOUR HOLY PHYSICS BOOKS AS TO THE SHIT YOU SEE ON TV YOU FUCKERS

Man you're putting words in my mouth. It's circular reasoning again, but why should that be any surprise, you seem to love it.

I was obviously talking about newton's law of universal gravity, which you would have understood with a tiny morsel of goodwill. Instead you're bending words, jumping from barricade to barricade, backtracking and weaseling. Throughout our discussion you've gone from claiming what gravity is being common knowledge, to that it doesn't matter, to that I'm dumb because nyah nyah. You post silly pleb tier videos with circular arguments and when I call you out on it you just insult me and dance around to the next topic.

I haven't disregarded any facts. You're the one disregarding facts. It's you who claim that the universe is consistent and in arrangement with your personal beliefs. I'm saying I doubt you can prove that. You haven't really shown any proof, only that I must be insane for doubting your holy word.

And pic related is talking about you.

i'm gonna scream some more: AND STOP SAYING "WE". STOP SAYING "WE" HAVE PROVEN IT.

*YOU* HAVEN'T PROVEN DOG-SHIT. /YOU/ HAVEN'T PROVEN A DAMN THING. /YOU/ have only read that SOME GUY has proven something.

Don't you get it? There is no "we" in this world as long as the jew can continue his thousand-year old practices of subverting goyim society… THEY EAT KIDS FOR GODS SAKE, DO YOU THINK THEY GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU???

it's called an example
words have meanings, you know. I was not using circular reasoning.

It is. Why it is is a very different question entirely.
the argument wasn't circular.

except, you know… the law of conservation of energy.

youtube.com/watch?v=zXDZWKmRxI0
youtube.com/watch?v=AV-qyDnZx0A
youtube.com/watch?v=2FR0pnQJlXE
youtube.com/watch?v=8RKAb5accC0

SURE IS STRANGE HOW IF YOU SLOW DOWN THE FOOTAGE AND IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY, ALL OF THE OBJECTS FALL AT A DIFFERENT RATE. IM SURE THIS IS JUST A COINCIDENCE. ALL THOSE PHYSICS PROFESSORS MUST KNOW THE EXPERIMENT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BUT JUST USE THE EXPERIMENT FOR KICKS AND LAUGHS. THE TRUTH MUST BE THAT THOSE TUBES JUST HAVEN'T GOT A GOOD ENOUGH VACUUM EVEN THOUGH THEY USE THEM. ITS GOOD THAT WE HAVE NASA AND A MAINSTREAM PROGRAM TO TELL US THE TRUTH:

youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

EVEN THOUGH IT IS STRANGE HOW MANY ANOMALIES ARE IN THAT VIDEO.

Heat death implies the opposite, I forget the term you're looking for, but heat death implies entropy wins.

Would this actually work?

No. the magnet attached to the boat is pulling the magnet on the fishing pole just as strongly as the other way around.
In other words: you're being pushed backward just as fast as you're being pushed forward.

Tewari has made the most effecient reactionless generator. Removing the torque and thus is able to power itself, but not start itself.

This one can pump out some serious kilowatts.
tewari.org/about.html

Let's hope it gets some attention.

India has state-approved it by patenting it. Probably as India isn't economically dependent on oil.