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.

  • H-G Branzell : This is like to say, that Holy Church cannot be reason of the Middle Ages reactionism, because it has lead into building of many churches and artistic paintings.
    Every dinosaur was once progressive in its young age.


    Quote

    Mainstream science tells us ... will never be part of our technology This ... 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. The existence of wide consensus may indicate more robust understanding as easily as very deep bias. When you're sitting at the bottom of large but flat caldera, you can get an impression, that your terrain is flat - despite you're actually sitting inside deep hole.

  • 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.

  • Quote

    that Maxwell's equations still describe electromagnetic phenomena with high precision


    Maxwell's equations? Oh come on - Maxwell equations (actually what remained from them after Heaviside) cannot even predict the existence of photons (which are quite robust phenomena observed at daily basis) - not to say about another scalar wave physics. We aren't required to speculate about violations of Maxwell's equations - we experience them all the time.

  • 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.


    image

  • 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

  • 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. But I think that many common overunity systems just transform energy of vacuum fluctuations and/or their thermal motion into a more macroscopic form of energy. They're perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind "only".

  • 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.

  • Quote

    A match, a spring loaded watch, a battery, or a star all produce more energy out than you put in.


    How you can drain more energy from loaded spring or battery than you put in? Dissolving in acid?


    Quote

    The term "over unity" has no deep meaning. It is actually kind of silly.


    After then the term "energetic efficiency" also has no meaning - if we cannot define 100 percent or more, then we even cannot define 98%, 92% or whatever else particular efficiency...
    We even couldn't apply calorimetry to detection of cold fusion. BTW The perception of meaning may be relative to its observer. For silly ants many things around them have no meaning.

  • 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. :)

  • Quote

    Most of those that seem to work are scams or pranks. The remainder are self delusions.


    You should check their principles one after another for to be completely sure and not self-deluded instead. This is how the science works - by falsification, not doubting. Other than that, the overunity is as well defined as every other energetic efficiency.


    Quote
    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


    Not always - check for example here: Brownian Motion of Graphene: Potential Source of Limitless Energy at Room Temperature

  • You should check their principles one after another for to be completely sure and not self-deluded instead. This is how the science works - by falsification, not doubting. Other than that, the overunity is as well defined as every other energetic efficiency.



    Not always - check for example here: Brownian Motion of Graphene: Potential Source of Limitless Energy at Room Temperature


    No. Science works by applying lessons learned, like the conservation of energy. This saves us from an endless morass of futile work. This is not doubting, it is just being rational.


    The best use you can have for the term "over unity" is to say that it is impossible.


    Brownian motion:

    https://physics.aps.org/synops…03/PhysRevLett.117.126801


    "While the researchers monitored the membranes for only two and three-quarter hours, they expect that this quivering, jumping motion would continue endlessly, allowing nanomachines to be powered continuously."


    Extracting energy from the random thermal fluctuations in the speed of the molecules in a fluid will make the fluid colder. It will be a heat engine and such an engine must have he heat source and a heat sink. The sink must be colder than the source. When somebody comes up with a design we may be able to locate the heat sink.


    I have seen that voltage peaks of 0.2 V have been observed, no info on the current. What can you drive with 0.2 V? Since these peaks are random you can't connect them in series and they are too small to be rectified.


    Perhaps this idea will fall in the same or a similar trap as Maxwell's demon did.

  • Maxwell’s equations – one glaring problem is that in many developments the math requires infinitesimal charges and magnetic fields in the integrations. However, it is known that charge is quantized.


    See work by Milne as reported in: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227121.pdf


    "It is impossible to use a moving test charge to measure the magnetic field without its own velocity, relative to the velocities of the other charges present in the field, bringing into apparent existence distinct additional currents. This is a very deep insight and has not been generally recognized. The important point is that either. 1) the theory is not relativistic invariant or

    2) it is not consistent with quantized charged. The second case is often overlooked and it is tacitly assumed that a test charge can be made arbitrarily small. Yet it is known that charge is quantized and is invariant to all transformations. This means that any theory which hypothesizes an arbitrarily small test charge is fabricating a nonphysical quantity. "

  • Maxwell’s equations – one glaring problem is that in many developments the math requires infinitesimal charges and magnetic fields in the integrations. However, it is known that charge is quantized.


    See work by Milne as reported in: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227121.pdf


    Why is that a problem? In the classic theory of electricity the electric charge is treated as a continuous entity and this works very well. The same philosophy is used when applied mechanics treats matter as a continuous substance.


    And this is how it must be, there is no way that we could keep track of the individual atoms and their electrons in even the tiniest speck of matter.


    But when the scientists wanted to explain away the ultraviolet catastrophe Maxwell did not come to their rescue. The embryo of quantum mechanics had to be conjured up.


    BTW, the Milne link does not load the document.

  • Quote
    No. Science works by applying lessons learned, like the conservation of energy. This saves us from an endless morass of futile work. This is not doubting, it is just being rational.


    Nope, standard and official scientific method is based on falsifications of theories and lessons learned. I'm indeed aware that for proponents of mainstream science opposite ways are more comfortable, but no theory should be considered fully proven. This is just the difference between facts and theory.


    Regarding the energy conservation law, the perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind don't even violate it - so that your references to mass-energy equivalence or energy conservation law aren't even relevant here. These theorems simply remain valid there.


    This is just the problem with many supporters of mainstream science, that they not only don't understand the scientific method, but even the subject which they're objecting because they're not aware of its loopholes. This indeed leads into frequent false negatives.

  • Quote

    The sink must be colder than the source. When somebody comes up with a design we may be able to locate the heat sink.


    Many designs and their explanations are already presented in my link. I already dedicated some time for understanding this subject, so please don't expect you can convince me with your schematic objections - everything what you're saying I already considered many times. Nature has many examples of overunity phenomena developed itself - for example the rogue waves. This is natural example of how to drain macroscopic energy from microscopic environment. Another ones are even utilized practically as so-called stochastic resonance.

  • How you can drain more energy from loaded spring or battery than you put in? Dissolving in acid?

    You misunderstand. Energy is added to the spring when you wind it up. The mass increases. Energy is "drained" as it un-winds. The mass decreases, at the relativistic rate (mc^2).


    In cold fusion, energy was added to the system when the deuterium formed in the big bang. It is drained from the system when deuterons combine to form helium. (That is probably the main reaction.) The mass of the resulting helium is slightly lower than the 2 deuterons. The lost mass converts to energy, 24 MeV per helium atom.


    After then the term "energetic efficiency" also has no meaning - if we cannot define 100 percent or more, then we even cannot define 98%, 92% or whatever else particular efficiency...

    Mass-energy are conserved. You can never create or destroy them. Energy efficiency is a measure of how well you convert energy from one form to another, such as mechanical to electrical, or heat to mechanical. It has nothing to do with the relativistic conversion from mass to energy or vice versa. That conversion always happens at 100% of Einstein's rate, in any system that produces energy or absorbs it.

  • This is all irrelevant, as nobody ever checked some overunity device with respect to mass-energy conservation law. I don't like wasting time in irrelevant discussions - my life is too short for it.

    Maybe some overunity devices really work into account of their rest mass - why not? I also already considered it. Many physicists believe for example, that protons are unstable and they're looking for examples of their decay - what if they have these examples before nose in form of certain overunity devices?


    Quote

    Mass-energy are conserved. You can never create or destroy them


    Except that the definitions of matter and energy shift all the time. The first mass-energy violation observed has lead into finding of neutrino particles (it took twenty six years ). Maybe we find some new examples of mass - energy conservation violation later and even later we will find a new explanations for them (particles of dark matter or energy, graviton, whatever).


    Or we won't - never say never. Only trolls are sure with everything.

  • Many designs and their explanations are already presented in my link. I already dedicated some time for understanding this subject, so please don't expect you can convince me with your schematic objections - everything what you're saying I already considered many times. Nature has many examples of overunity phenomena developed itself - for example the rogue waves. This is natural example of how to drain macroscopic energy from microscopic environment. Another ones are even utilized practically as so-called stochastic resonance.


    In what way are rogue waves "overunity"? Even if they are unexpectedly higher than the surrounding waves, they are not anymore unexplainably higher. The phenomenon can be described by the non-linear Schrödinger equation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave.


    "It seems possible to have a rogue wave occur by natural, nonlinear processes from a random background of smaller waves. In such a case, it is hypothesized, an unusual, unstable wave type may form which 'sucks' energy from other waves, growing to a near-vertical monster itself, before becoming too unstable and collapsing shortly after."


    The description of stochastic resonance is much too stochastic for my taste. But I can promise you, what you bet is what you get. There is no over unity energy gain.


  • Zephir, you have not referenced any mass-energy violations. The neutrino example is a supreme case of mass-energy conservation correctly predicting a new unexpected particle!


    I'd guess that most skeptics here, like me, are interested in new ideas at the cutting edge of particle physics, and look with pleasure on any experimental evidence that could support such ideas. That is different from trashing old ideas on no evidence - or jumping on every fringe crackpot idea.