[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.1301988 [View]
File: 49 KB, 625x450, gravity-waves-625x450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1301988

The universe is inherently flawed. This flaw can be seen thanks to gravity. So says Stephen Hawking.

discuss

>> No.1278032 [View]
File: 49 KB, 625x450, gravity-waves-625x450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1278032

I am frustrated with /sci/'s inability to see that once a law has been contradicted in the smallest hypothetical way, it can be contradicted in a much larger applied manner.
What I am trying to get across to everybody is that energy is not finite, and the energy within this universe, although cannot be extracted instantly, it cannot be quantified and IS unlimited.

My example of a "Free energy mechanism" was not proposed as something that might perpetually give free energy forever. It was simply an example of how the current laws used to give barriers to energy are incorrect.

We have been taught that input = output
Gravity is a force, but it requires no input. it has no fuel. it never ends, it does not die, it is constant, yet it is a force. A force, like any force, capable of moving things. When you move something, you are expending energy. depending on how that energy is spent, it can be harnessed and subsequently converted into electrical energy.

My argument has yet to be contradicted properly. So far the only argument I have heard is that my hypothetical free energy mechanism would eventually come to an end. Of course it would, but the fact remains that it would create energy in its lifetime, yet it requires no energy to begin with.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]