These Are Real Pentagon Reports On Warp Drive, Extra Dimensions, Anti-Gravity, And More
-
-
We've been fooled by mainstream science propaganda for nearly one century.
Are you serious?
Mainstream science is the main reason for the difference between today's society and the society of e.g. the Middle Ages.
Mainstream science tells us that worm holes, anti-gravity or faster-than-light travel will never be part of our technology.
This is not propaganda, it is hard facts.
-
How some prediction about infinite future can ever become "hard fact"? Your objection indicates that the supporters of mainstream science have quite biased perception of reality themselves.
If humanity manages to stay alive until the year 10 000 000 AD we will find that Maxwell's equations still describe electromagnetic phenomena with high precision. And, as far as we know, they will be valid not only here on earth but in the whole of the universe that we inhabit. Is that a fact hard enough for you? Technically this proposition will not be as fact until we get there, but it is a prediction that every day will be true the next day. This is the best I can offer you.
-
Take it positively, like on LENR, defense bodies are more open minded than academic.
This is they job to consider stupid-looking ideas, because sometime one is right and this is a deadly risk, or war-winning opportunity. navy especially have a long history of supporting breakthrough technology.
-
If humanity manages to stay alive until the year 10 000 000 AD we will find that Maxwell's equations still describe electromagnetic phenomena with high precision. And, as far as we know, they will be valid not only here on earth but in the whole of the universe that we inhabit.
Newtons laws still apply, but that doesn't negate Einstein.
This idea that science is settled and unchanging is odd, to say the least. Lets cancel all future Nobel prizes if so.
-
Quote
This idea that science is settled and unchanging is odd, to say the least. Lets cancel all future Nobel prizes if so.
The problem goes deeper, as the proponents of mainstream science don't dismiss the future findings in general - but they believe, that the future theories will bring only negligible corrections of established theories. However in some cases (including the cold fusion itself) these deviations can get quite apparent and fundamental - they're just systematically rejected and ignored. We shouldn't get surprised if we would get suddenly factory of overunity devices working at megawatt scales - whereas the mainstream science doesn't bother to admit even miliWatt scale phenomena.Which is ignorance in many orders of magnitude - not just of some boundary phenomena and complete failure of scientific method.
-
Newtons laws still apply, but that doesn't negate Einstein.
This idea that science is settled and unchanging is odd, to say the least. Lets cancel all future Nobel prizes if so.
I did not say that improvements on existing theories are impossible. But that a theory which is perfectly good for a useful parameter regime is superseded by an improved theory does not make the old theory wrong. Maxwells equations are perfectly adequate for designing everything electric from motors to radio communication equipment. When it comes to describe the electronic machinery of the atom Maxwell falls short, enter quantum mechanics. The next refinement step is quantum electrodynamics.
I think it will be a very long time till we run out of candidates for the Nobel prize in physics. Actually, very few of the physics Nobel prizes require rewriting of the text books.
Moreover, this prize can also be awarded to those who exploit the laws of physics to design machines like this: https://www.nobelprize.org/nob…laureates/2003/press.html
-
We shouldn't get surprised if we would get suddenly factory of overunity devices working at megawatt scales - whereas the mainstream science doesn't bother to admit even miliWatt scale phenomena.
This me is not included in your we. It would be very surprised. Indeed.
-
Quote
This idea that science is settled and unchanging is odd
It certainly is but nobody here is saying that. Good research and deductions are not negated by new and finer work. For example, Newton's laws are just as valid today as they were when Newton brilliantly discovered them. Sure, they only work for a limited set of conditions of size, mass, speed and so on. And sure, with more powerful mathematics and scientific instruments, you can examine regimes wherein Newton's Laws become only a crude approximation or don't work at all. That doesn't change their validity over the regime for which they work within the precision Newton claimed. That will never change unless the laws affecting the constancy and predictability of the universe change. I think that was Branzell's point.
As for over-unity, first off, what the heck is overunity? Define it please. I don't think it's a very useful construct for describing anything! Like paranormal and supernatural have little practical meaning. Either something is real and can be studied or it's not.
-
Over- + unity (“the number "1"”), referring to the fact that an over-unity device should produce more energy than it receives as input.
REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM
Suppose you have a machine that produces more energy than is input to it.
Also suppose that this machine does not change in any way during operation.
Then you are the lucky owner of a perpetuum mobile of the first kind.
For a long time people have been trying to build such a machine and some still do.
Einstein has taught us that energy has a mass equal to the energy divided by c squared.
Hence a continuous export of energy from a system must be accompanied by loss of mass.
Your unchanging machine will get more and more anorectic and one day it will disappear altogether.
This is a contradiction, so there must an error somewhere in this argument.
Exercise: Find the error
Hint: Do not blame it on Albert
-
This is not contradiction - the overunity systems like radioactive banana or cold fusion reactors really lose their mass during production of energy.
All energy producing systems, mechanical, chemical or nuclear, always lose mass during the production of energy, at the rate given in Einstein's theory. A mechanical wristwatch loses mass as the spring unwinds; a battery when it discharges; a burning lump of coal loses mass when you capture and account for all of the combustion products; a radioactive banana or chunk of radium loses mass. In all of these cases, the mass lost is far too small to measure with any instrument, but it is lost.
Whenever you store energy in any system, mass is gained. Wind a mechanical wrist watch and it gains mass. Every particle in the universe follows Einstein's law.
REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM
Suppose you have a machine that produces more energy than is input to it.Nope. A match, a spring loaded watch, a battery, or a star all produce more energy out than you put in. That is not a contradiction. The term "over unity" has no deep meaning. It is actually kind of silly. All energy producing systems are over unity. If they were not, they would be endothermic, like a loaf of bread being baked, or a battery being charged.
-
Guys, I think that you have to revise your interpretation and use of the expression "over unity" in connection with energy producing machines. It is a brand name of perpetuum mobile crackpottery.
Just look here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22over+uniy%22
The typical over unity machine is a "generator" equipped with a confusing arrangement of coils and magnets. Most of those that seem to work are scams or pranks. The remainder are self delusions.
My argument above about mass loss is perfectly applicable on these "inventions" with the reservation that it would take a long time to see measurable weight loss. Let us assume that we have an over unity generator that produces 1 kW and weighs 10 kg. It will take 29 million years for the generator to disappear. But we would not have to wait that long, I think it would stop working after less than a million years.
