View Single Post
Old 07-16-2010, 12:15 PM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Question Official Silence About Free Energy

Putting aside the dogmas of orthodox physics, there is an abundance of evidence that proves that free energy exists in direct contravention of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Take for example the simple case of capillary action. A fluid rises up a capillary tube of its own accord as a result of the surface tension in the meniscus of the fluid. And yet no energy is expended by either the capillary tube or the fluid within the tube in raising the weight of fluid concerned.

But if work is done in raising the weight of fluid up the inside of the capillary tube, where does the energy come from? For the Law of the Conservation of Energy to apply energy must be drawn from a “reservoir” somewhere within the system of fluid/capillary tube and yet this clearly does not happen.

It is interesting to consider at this point that the Law of Conservation of Energy cannot in anyway be derived from first principles, it is merely an assumption. For the early physicists it was tempting to assume that such a principle applied and in many situations Conservation does seem to apply. However just because Conservation applies in some situations, it is not logical to assume that it must therefore apply in all situations encountered in the observable universe. Its much like stating the following, “Because all the swans I have ever seen are white, all swans must therefore be white.” Of course there is such a thing as a black swan which native to Australia.

Consider also an additional example: A large meteorite in outer space becomes captured by the Earth’s gravitational pull. It begins to hurtle towards the Earth and passing through its atmosphere its immense speed causes it to burn up and when eventually it strikes the ground it leaves a crater and causes a seismic shockwave which is felt for miles around.

It is obvious that the meteorite gained a significant amount of kinetic energy from the Earth’s gravitational pull and it was this energy in the form of velocity that caused it to burn up, cause a crater and create a seismic shockwave. But logic would dictate that if the Earth’s gravitational field gave energy to the meteorite surely an economy should be involved where the energy given to the meteorite should exactly equal what was lost by a central reservoir? However the Earth’s gravitational field does not lessen after such an event and neither does the Earth’s mass decrease. So where does the energy come from?

Classical physicists got around this problem by stating that before being captured by the Earth’s gravitational pull, the meteorite already possessed ‘potential energy’ which was simply converted into kinetic energy on the way down. But is this nothing more than a theoretical bodge?

Considering the evidence that free energy must exist in theory, how could we go about harnessing it for useful purposes? I am certain there must be many, many different ways of doing this, the only significant obstacle in the way is dogma. How many physics professors are there out there who are willing ‘to stick their head above the crowd’ and speak out on such an issue?

But surely the existence of a free energy which evidently permeates the entire universe is a golden opportunity for mankind who is now living on a polluted planet where the oil prices are spiralling ever higher and higher? Unfortunately it seems we live in a world where the leading economies are hopelessly addicted to oil and where government advisors are completely indoctrinated by outmoded and half-baked principles.

Reply With Quote