Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Martin Swain on 23 Feb 2006 15:28 Scott Nudds wrote: > "Martin Swain" wrote: > >>1. How do you think relativity effects the first law of thermodynamics >> in such a way as to render it possible to build a free energy >> machine? > > > Do we assume the existance of negative mass? Snicker. > > Relativity requires that gravity waves propagate in space as quadrapole > distortions in space and time. It is theoretically possible to use a large > mass and it's associated inertial momentum to extract energy from these > distortions as they pass through the mass, stretching and compacting it as > it passes. > > Energy is thereby extracted from the vacuum of space. > > Other arguments based on relativity and quantum mechanics require that > forces of action/reaction become uncoupled. Pushes can for example be > devoid of pulls. A particle A for example can be pulled toward particle B > without particle B feeling any force from particle A. This is a direct > result of the finite speed of propagation of force fields. This also > implies immediately that the vacuum of space holds a sea of energy and that > this energy from time to time is used to accelerate objects and hence is > extracted from this underlying free energy sea. > > > >>Also, here is the first law of thermodynamics, just to save you the >>trouble of looking it up. >> >>" >>The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount >>of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the >>form of work done by the system on its surroundings. >>" >> >>It's pretty obvious, at least to me, why this indicates that a free >>energy machine can't be created. I fail to see however how it is >>supposed to be broken by relativity, but then I am no expert. > > > That's nice. And as such is wrong, and has been proven so experimentally. > In fact if it were not the case the PC you are using now would not be > capable of functioning since the transistors it uses to compute would not > work. > > Vacuum energy my boy is very real, and most probably the reason for all > quantum mechanical wierdness, with the exception of quantization. > > I would add, that it is also the origin of momentum, and most probably the > cosmological constant and the origin of the universe as you probably > misunderstand it. > > Snickering and bullshitting about transistors pulling energy from the eather aside, you didn't answer my questions. How does relativity enable the building of a free energy machine and why hasn't anyone built one yet? I don't await your answer, if you had one you would give it, instead of trying to scare me off. What exactly are you scared of? That you might be wrong? You are you know. The first law of thermodymics is just as valid now as it ever was. If there are any experiments otherwise, produce the documentation. Otherwise, eat my shorts dude.
From: Martin Swain on 23 Feb 2006 16:41 Scott Nudds wrote: <snip> I didn't read your post, but I did scan through it. No links. Get eatin bud. Haha.
From: Martin Swain on 23 Feb 2006 16:42 Scott Nudds wrote: <snip> I didn't read your post, but I did scan through it. No links. Get eatin bud. Haha.
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 16:59 "Martin Swain" wrote > I didn't read your post, but I did scan through it. No links. Of course you didn't. That would take effort and some thinking and we can't have you exert yourself now can we? Besides the links there were no cartoonish pictures either to keep your well oiled Republican mind at work. Pearls - Swine....
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 17:15
"Martin Swain" wrote > I didn't read your post, but I did scan through it. No links. Of course you didn't. That would take effort and some thinking and we can't have you exert yourself now can we? Besides the links there were no cartoonish pictures either to keep your well oiled Republican mind at work. Pearls - Swine.... |