Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Science
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
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
  #2  
Old 07-17-2010, 11:24 AM
jane doe jane doe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 356
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Most economic positions are based upon the the intent of monopoly. If free energy cannot be harvested thru congress to a corporate monopoly, it won't be provided for all the people.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-17-2010, 07:29 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane doe View Post
Most economic positions are based upon the the intent of monopoly. If free energy cannot be harvested thru congress to a corporate monopoly, it won't be provided for all the people.
FREE ENERGY cannot and will never be harvested through CONGRESS to a coporate monopoly because it is FREE.

Thus, the reason it is hidden from public knowledge and the point of Gale's post.

In any event, we thank you for your input.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 07-19-2010 at 07:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-18-2010, 03:25 AM
FallaciesAbound FallaciesAbound is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 125
Talking Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Wow, I havent seen misunderstanding of physics like that since my parents made me go to a Baptist elementary school.

Capillary action, though on the surface appearing to be spooky, is really quite simple. Water has very strong intermolecular attractions that come into play. This is why you have surface tension, and is the reason that water forms a meniscus. It is this intermolecular attraction that draws the liquid up the tube until it achieves equilibrium with the gravity pulling the liquid down. There may be a way to harness the energy of the molecular attraction, but it is a pretty tiny force all things considered. I doubt you will be driving a car on it anytime soon.

The meteorite problem is a bit thornier, give how it was presented. So maybe for the sake of clarity I should simply re-write the narrative the correct way. A meteorite that is caught in the Earth's gravity well certainly does receive quite a bit of a boost to its kinetic energy, but so does the Earth. Just to a lesser extent. Remember that the force exerted is the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So while the meteorite gains energy due to gravitational acceleration, so too does the Earth, but to a far smaller degree owing to the far larger mass of the Earth. The energy isnt drained out of some reservoir like draining a battery, because gravitational attraction is a fundamental property of all matter. In fact, the Earth's gravity well becomes a tiny bit stronger after impact because the meteorite's mass is added to that of the Earth's.

Now we already do take advantage of gravity to provide huge amounts of power. In fact, most of Las Vegas is powered in such a manner. Its called hydro-electric. Dams make use of gravity to generate their power, and do it quite efficiently. Of course you have to get the water up there first, and nature provides this part. So really, even hydro-electric is actually solar powered.

Gravity can also be used in storing energy. The excess energy from solar cells can be used to pump water uphill behind a dam to be released later for power generation. Renewable energy companies have been doing this for years
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-19-2010, 11:48 AM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by FallaciesAbound View Post
Wow, I havent seen misunderstanding of physics like that since my parents made me go to a Baptist elementary school.

Capillary action, though on the surface appearing to be spooky, is really quite simple. Water has very strong intermolecular attractions that come into play. This is why you have surface tension, and is the reason that water forms a meniscus. It is this intermolecular attraction that draws the liquid up the tube until it achieves equilibrium with the gravity pulling the liquid down. There may be a way to harness the energy of the molecular attraction, but it is a pretty tiny force all things considered. I doubt you will be driving a car on it anytime soon.

The meteorite problem is a bit thornier, give how it was presented. So maybe for the sake of clarity I should simply re-write the narrative the correct way. A meteorite that is caught in the Earth's gravity well certainly does receive quite a bit of a boost to its kinetic energy, but so does the Earth. Just to a lesser extent. Remember that the force exerted is the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So while the meteorite gains energy due to gravitational acceleration, so too does the Earth, but to a far smaller degree owing to the far larger mass of the Earth. The energy isnt drained out of some reservoir like draining a battery, because gravitational attraction is a fundamental property of all matter. In fact, the Earth's gravity well becomes a tiny bit stronger after impact because the meteorite's mass is added to that of the Earth's.

Now we already do take advantage of gravity to provide huge amounts of power. In fact, most of Las Vegas is powered in such a manner. Its called hydro-electric. Dams make use of gravity to generate their power, and do it quite efficiently. Of course you have to get the water up there first, and nature provides this part. So really, even hydro-electric is actually solar powered.

Gravity can also be used in storing energy. The excess energy from solar cells can be used to pump water uphill behind a dam to be released later for power generation. Renewable energy companies have been doing this for years
I think FallaciesAbound its a simple case of your not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Trying to blind us with pointless scientific detail isn't much use at all.

In the case of the capillary tube you still didn't explain where the energy reservoir came from or whether it could be depleted. In fact you didn't even DENY that free energy was possible in the example since you claimed it wasn't powerful enough to run a car on.

As for the gravity example, having the Earth accelerate as well just makes the situation worse. You now have twice as much energy to explain away. Presumably the Earth itself had 'potential energy' when it accelerated towards the meteorite?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-19-2010, 06:27 AM
jane doe jane doe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 356
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
In any event, we thank you for your input.
The input is free energy, the internet connection is not. The energy is free, yet the obtainment is not.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-19-2010, 07:08 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane doe View Post
The input is free energy, the internet connection is not. The energy is free, yet the obtainment is not.
Did I just hear some needy person seeking attention say something?

Nah.

Didn't think so cause she's Jane Doe and she's dead.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-20-2010, 02:19 AM
jane doe jane doe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 356
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Didn't think so cause she's Jane Doe and she's dead.
your behavior is funny and entertaining.....well done 'in deed'.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-31-2010, 10:07 AM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane doe View Post
Most economic positions are based upon the the intent of monopoly. If free energy cannot be harvested thru congress to a corporate monopoly, it won't be provided for all the people.
Are you suggesting a conspiracy by monopolists which would technically be illegal?

Microsoft for example has had problems from the monopolies commissions.

In theory, at least, the government would be on the side of Free Energy if, of course, it could be proved it did exist.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-02-2010, 10:55 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by galexander View Post
Are you suggesting a conspiracy by monopolists which would technically be illegal?

Microsoft for example has had problems from the monopolies commissions.

In theory, at least, the government would be on the side of Free Energy if, of course, it could be proved it did exist.
I can't believe you title your thread "Official Silence About Free Energy," suggesting there is a conspiracy to hide it and then say that if it were proven to exist, the government would support it.

Please tell us who you think is suppressing the reality of FREE ENERGY that you say exists.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 08-02-2010 at 11:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.