/sci/ - Science & Math

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1276908]

Hi /sci/
So, I heard you guys don't like 'Free energy'
I know the laws of physics, I know how the conservation and conversion of energy>heat/electricity works, and I do know that one cannot simple 'Create' energy.

But with every known scientific formula dealing with energy, there is one obvious outstanding flaw to said laws of conservation.

The existence of energy and mass by itself contradicts any of these laws. Actually, the laws of energy and this fact may very well go hand in hand mathematically, but how the laws of conservation are perceived perpetuates the belief that somehow energy is in short supply or is not infinite and will eventually 'End'. If this is your mindset, you are wrong.

I'll make this short and sweet.
Tl;dr: Gravity does not require fuel, but it is a form of energy, as it can create heat from nothing. Two gigantic motherfucking balls of ice at zero goddamn Kelvin will warm up if introduced to each other in space by either crashing into each other or orbiting around each other.
My argument is that 'Free energy' by means of creating electricity constantly through gravity or magnetism is not only possible, but being done fucking everywhere, including my own room.

So /sci/, stop being so abrasive to the idea of 'free-energy', even if it is a mis-interpretative phrase that is in need of updating. You're all sounding like bible-thumpers, dismissing these abundantly obvious universal properties of mass and energy just because they contradict what academia has taught you.

[Anonymous No.1276930]

how about take a physics class

[Anonymous No.1276929]

Go watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Come back in an hour.

[Anonymous No.1276934]

>Gravity is a form of energy

Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.1276932]

1: There's no such thing has zero kelvin.
2: Your tl;dr was longer than your main body.
3: That heat isn't produced by gravity, it's produced by the friction caused by the materials tearing themselves apart.

[Anonymous No.1276956]

>>1276934
Fukken lold

[Anonymous No.1276981]

>>1276956
where you laughing at your own stupidity?

[Anonymous No.1276986]

moar sage

[Anonymous No.1276994]

>>1276981
not the same person, troll

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1277000]

>>1276929
>>1276930
>>1276932
>>1276934
>>1276956

Could you all read your own posts and tell me just how you don't think you all sound like christians bitching out an atheist?

pic related.

>That heat isn't produced by gravity, it's produced by the friction caused by the materials tearing themselves apart.

Yes, thank you for that obvious assertion. It's obvious that I meant gravity causes said friction, and that friction generates heat, and that heat is a form of energy

god damn.

[Anonymous No.1277001]

Gravity is energy. W = mgh

[Anonymous No.1277008]

The 'zomg magik nrg' that can be 'pulled from gravity' is just gravitational potential energy moving to another type of energy, in you case heat.

Move along.

[Anonymous No.1277015]

gravity is a force

[Anonymous No.1277016]

>>1277001
Requires mass, trol

[Anonymous No.1277018]

Would have been god-tier trolling if we had the retard summerfags in here atm.

[Anonymous No.1277024]

>>1277018

Oh look, here's one now.

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1277034]

>>1277008
Like I said, I am well aware of energy conversion.
I just want to see somebody point out that electricity can NOT be infinitely transfered from a device that exploits either gravity or magnetism.

If you agree that this is entirely possible, I am sorry for wasting /sci/'s time

If you disagree with this statement, explicitely explain to me how a greater amount of energy can not be extracted from such a device than the energy put into it.
goodluck

[Anonymous No.1277041]

>>1277034

Well, how does one go about getting energy from gravity?

[Anonymous No.1277050]

>>1277041
You don't get energy from gravity. Gravity is a force. Force != energy.

[Anonymous No.1277053]

>>1277050

I asked the OP.

Shoo.

[Anonymous No.1277054]

[Anonymous No.1277062]

>>1277053
oh shi-- my bad, I didn't realize the op was tripping. I would have butted out.

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1277068]

>>1277041
are you telling me you can't think of a hypothetical mechanical way for two conventional objects to create heat through friction while spinning around eachother in space? There is a moon I'd refer to, someone else should know the name of it.

There are also many instances of people using either a combination of magnetism and gravity or just magnetism to sustain motion indefinately with quite a bit of force output.

[Anonymous No.1277080]

>>1277062

No harm done.

[Anonymous No.1277093]

>>1277068

>There are also many instances of people using either a combination of magnetism and gravity or just magnetism to sustain motion indefinately with quite a bit of force output.

Such as...?

[Anonymous No.1277090]

>>1277068
>There are also many instances of people using either a combination of magnetism and gravity or just magnetism to sustain motion indefinately with quite a bit of force output.
No there isn't, you fucking moron and/or troll.

anyways, fuck off

[Anonymous No.1277087]

>>1277068
Hey OP! Do you even know what the terms you are using mean? Cuz it sure doesn't seem like it!!!

[Anonymous No.1277089]

>>1277068
>friction
>angular momentum lost
>object impacts onto planet/moon/star/etc

[Anonymous No.1277100]

>>1277090
>>1277093

OH SHI- HIVEMIND

[Anonymous No.1277113]

>>1276908

Really. It's time.

[Anonymous No.1277115]

What the fuck. Gravity is just a curvature in space-time as described by Einstein's theory of general relativity with an infinite range. Calling it a force may give you an incorrect interpretation, but it is merely one of four basic and fundamental interactions between elementary particles. Also, the game, you've lost because this is an obvious troll.

[Anonymous No.1277132]

>>1277034

Alright, let's start with how the first part of your post says that you agree that energy cannot be created, and then you contradict that statement without bothering to explain why. You've done nothing here but accuse us of having a paradigm bias.

>" Actually, the laws of energy and this fact may very well go hand in hand mathematically, but how the laws of conservation are perceived perpetuates the belief that somehow energy is in short supply or is not infinite and will eventually 'End'. If this is your mindset, you are wrong."

What the fuck are you saying here? That perpetual motion is possible, or that we can harvest the motion that exists?

It's actually quite annoying to read the words of somebody as obnoxious as you who hypocritically resorts to ad hominem attacks BEFORE anybody else has responded, and then complains when arguments that are higher up on that hierarchy chart are used, especially when the opening statement was badly written.

[Anonymous No.1277169]

>>1276908
Your are smart so I'll ask you something even though it is not related to your thread.

Do you think there is a unifying theory to 'everything'? If so, what are your thoughts.

Also, I have this 'unfounded' theory. I think that there is some unseen "force" (for lack of better word) that regulates things--I thought for a while it might be neutrinos as they run through everything--maybe they are picking up on the energy of the universe (yes, I know they have no electrical charge) learning, or even guiding the 'innate', instinctual commands that all living things live and die by.

I think that this 'universe' has been before, and it runs it's course and every time it does "this thing/energy/whatever you want to call it" learns more on how further to sustain its existence somehow.

I mean the universe--you look at it and that shit is alive, in a way. Galaxies clashing together--birthing stars, not unlike our cells smashing and creating life. There is death and life in our universe as there is death and life in our closed earth system--just different manifestations of the same thing, yes?

[Anonymous No.1277195]

>>1277089
actually it would just synchronize the rotation with the orbits, nothing would crash into anything, we would just lose our tidal forces because the earth would rotate with the same angular speed as the moon would orbit.

in that sense, getting energy from gravity is legitimate in the form of energy from the incoming and outgoing tide.

I don't know wtf he's talking about with the magnetism shit.

[Anonymous No.1277211]

>>1277195
Um no. Friction means one of the objects (or in likelihood, both) slow down. Then their orbit begins to spiral toward the large mass. Bye bye energy masheen

[SINISTER No.1277212]

>>1276908
LAMO,

Energy conservation isnt a fundemental law dumshit. Energy conservation only works for special cases of certain systems.

ENERGY ISNT ALWAYS CONSERVED!

TAKE YOU LIMITED HIGHSCHOOL UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS OUT OF MY /SCI/!

[SINISTER No.1277248]

>>1276908
Also, the majority of your post is just bullshit
I KNOW FUCKING 12 YEARS OLDS WITH A BETTER UNDERSTANING OF PHYSICS!

[Anonymous No.1277304]

>>1277169

I think the universe, if it had some kind of unified intelligence, would be insulted at the distinction between life and death as if life (in the Earth sense) was the good son of the universe whereas all other energy systems were hordes of bastard sires with no connection and no value but to be discarded and servile to this biofascism.

It has been nearly a century since cybernetics and sci-fi taught us that we are already dead, of unlife. Not exactly dead but continually replenishing our energy process and output via the consumption of other energy systems. Almost four hundred years after Spinoza deconstructed the human's ape obsession with visual-spatio knowledge (reason) as merely focusing upon a certain attribute of a reality that is supported by attributes unknown.

"We do not know yet what a body (entity) may do"

The whole universal intelligence argument smacks of a new age appropriated of the western tradition of magic, "As Above So Is Below", that owes more to a need for men to justify the relations of civilized men between each other ( "So as a God rules over his subjects, so shall I rule over you peasants and just as we priests serve God so you shall serve us priests as servants of God") than an honest look at the undead relations that animate our reality.

[Anonymous No.1277342]

>>1277304
Universal intelligence is not a human thing at all. I think you may have that part confused. I think "it" has done this type of thing before. This force that came to spit out the universe--not a god at all. Just, whatever it is, that is part of us because it is us--to put it weirdly.

Anyway, that could account for us coming to the point of understanding many aspects of the universe. Like we know it because we are "it".

Well, I know what i mean but I don't think I'm able to explain very well but what you responded did not make sense to me, sorry. It's not the answer I was expecting because it seems like you did not really read what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.1277352]

>>1277211
the friction slows down the planets rotation, not its orbit

two planets that always have the same side facing each other (like how the moon always has the same side facing the earth), wouldn't cause any friction to occur. i.e. the tidal forces would exist, but they would be fixed relative to both bodies, so they wouldn't move anything.

at least this is how I understand it.

[Anonymous No.1277375]

>>1277352
Read what I said. I was responding to the person that said that he could make two objects in orbit generate heat by friction and then use that heat to generate electricity. Friction implies loss of velocity. This means the object will fall out of orbit eventually.

[Anonymous No.1277377]

u guys want some bag ?

[Anonymous No.1277390]

[Anonymous No.1277398]

[Anonymous No.1277408]

[Anonymous No.1277419]

[Anonymous No.1277430]

[Anonymous No.1277431]

>>1277342

The dangerous assumptions are that
1. We are a teleology of some higher organizing system
2. That human "intelligence" requires cosmic explanation as opposed to the purview of billions of years of struggle between organic and inorganic systems on a planetary mass in a solar system at the edge of a galaxy in a cluster of galaxies in a supercluster of galaxies...

I am not saying such things are impossible, I'm just saying it's more probable that such explanations are the bias of our ape scanning systems than anything that is tangible, usable, or even meaningful. Meaning requires judgement dammit. When is this new age blob god going to judge us? It's an all powerful idiot dat whut it is. Doesn't tell the rapists from the saints and the hopes from the nightmares.

[Anonymous No.1277444]

[Anonymous No.1277451]

>>1276904

ｃＨRiＳＢEaR ＰooLＴAＲＤ, rｅｍoVe ｙoUR_clＯｗＮ_OF:_HtTＰ://tIｎｙurl.Ｃoｍ/3AXｖＥ5ｄ
bfb q bcgxmc ausn r tjx a he

[Anonymous No.1277455]

[Anonymous No.1277460]

>>1277375
which is the part I'm trying to correct with that example.

Friction (in the situation of 2 orbiting bodies) actually implies loss of _angular_ velocity, the objects eventually would stop rotating relative to each other. While maintaining the same orbit (if that makes sense).

This is happening with our earth and moon now... in a few (hundred?) million years we will have a fixed tide instead one that moves around the earth and one side of the earth will always be facing the moon, and the other will always be facing away from the moon.

[Anonymous No.1277466]

[Anonymous No.1277473]

[Anonymous No.1277476]

>>1277460
yeah sorry angular velocity.
Anyway it'd fall out of orbit. There goes that guy's 'free energy'

[Anonymous No.1277485]

[Anonymous No.1277494]

[Anonymous No.1277500]

[Anonymous No.1277513]

[Anonymous No.1277525]

[Anonymous No.1277528]

[Anonymous No.1277536]

[Anonymous No.1277547]

[Anonymous No.1277551]

[Anonymous No.1277629]

>>1277431
You are right, I really don't think it cant tell between the saints from the idiots, actually. It can only tell if "things" are running as they "should". We see to things are running as they should too but that is not a human trait only.

That whole judgment thing IS a human trait, however, and what we came 'from' is not human, nor is it horse, ape, maggot, cell, atom. It is something different.

[Anonymous No.1277933]

watsup with bags

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.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.

[Anonymous No.1278037]

wow obviously you dont understand real physics, it takes distance between the objects to create there potential energy... still not free

[Anonymous No.1278045]

>>1278032
Successful troll is successful. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.1278053]

you need space between the two masses to create the energy. to get them apart again uses energy..... surprisingly THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT THAT IT GIVES YOU TO MOVE THE OBJECTS TOGETHER. learn so real physics dumbass

[снайпер No.1278057]

>>1276932
>There's no such thing has zero kelvin.

Yes there is.

There's just no way to prove anything is at zero kelvin because the act of measuring will impart energy into the object in question and warm it up.

[Anonymous No.1278067]

>>1278032 "Free energy mechanism"
Free energy through friction?

I'm trying to follow your train of thought and I'm not sure I'm getting it.

Nothing you mentioned yet give you free energy/motion in a closed system.

[Anonymous No.1278086]

>>1278032
>not only possible, but being done fucking everywhere, including my own room.
why don't you go ahead and elaborate on this point then, this is not a hypothetical assertion

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1278124]

>>1278053
Elementary shit my friend.
The example shows that energy can be created from the force of gravity
Additionally, the energy spent to move the object away from the other is less than the potential energy it can produce through friction of the particles within each mass as one orbits the other.

Mass A is fired away from Mass B
Mass B is thousands of times larger than mass A
Mass A expends x amount of energy
as mass A orbits mass B, the interior of mass A undergoes constant friction as the particles it consists of are perpetually pushed and pulled from eachother by the mass B's gravity.
Centrifugal force stops either mass from ever colliding, yet the friction continues to create heat on mass A.

Friction of mass A over time will grow to be greater than the energy spent to launch mass A into orbit around mass B.
the input is now greater than the output in a zero gravity environment.
If the output of energy can be greater than the input required to create the mechanism, the idea that energy is finite is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.1278137]

Is this what you meant OP?

the two planets orbit each other, and the water in the middle follows the path of the planets. The resistance of the turbines and volume of water would be just right to match up with the speed of the orbit. Infinite power?

[Anonymous No.1278143]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Anonymous No.1278157]

I see what OP is saying
never got how the universe could come from nothing. the big bang theory does not really add up with how scientists believe there is limited energy in the universe. what exactly is the origin of the energy in the universe right now?
and can any one tell me how this works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZjNbjhxgt4&feature=related

maybe this is what op is refering too when he mentions magnetism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0oUaPZ_wF8&feature=related

[Anonymous No.1278189]

>>1278032
With this thinking, all energy is free energy. Energy is the ability to cause change (i.e. exert a force). The electromagnetic force is the same way; put a negative charge in one place and a positive in another and voilà, you have a voltage and magical movement from nothing. What you have failed to see is that the process of separating two charges (or masses) itself requires energy. In fact, it is the same amount of energy that is released when the objects move back together. This mysterious energy that was previously imputted into the system is something we like to call "potential energy," which can be turned into usable energy in the familiar form of motion, called "Kinetic Energy."

to be continued...

[Anonymous No.1278192]

cont'd
>>1278189
The funny thing is, the kinetic and potential energy always add up to the same fixed value in a closed system. Those two gigantic motherfucking balls of ice at zero Kelvin have a potential energy proportional to their masses and the distance between them, and they'd have a net kinetic energy of zero (seeing as none of thier atoms are moving). After these two collide, there is a magic, unexplained conversion of invisible potential energy into tangible kinetic energy in the form of heat. The total sum of all the kinetic energy of all the atoms in those magically heated ice blocks will be exactly equal to the potential energy of the original setup.
Now say you want more free heat, and you decide to put the ice blocks back and smash them into each other again... Well, where do you get the force to move them? The only energy in the system is the heat energy of the collision (remember, you don't really exist in this system; you can't just pull them apart). But if you somehow break thermodynamics and harvest every joule of heat energy and push those ice blocks apart, you will only be able to attain exactly the original distance apart before you no longer have any energy left to separate the blocks (and they will once again be at 0K), so then gravity sends them smashing into each other again.
In conclusion, lrn2energy.

[Anonymous No.1278197]

>>1278124
>Additionally, the energy spent to move the object away from the other is less than the potential energy it can produce through friction of the particles within each mass as one orbits the other.
this is where you're wrong, you assume two bodies will create friction no matter how they orbit, which is not true.

the heat is produced by the tidal forces moving matter because of the rotation of one body relative to the other. if two bodies are orbiting without rotating relative to each other (think spinning barbell without the bar in the middle), then there will be no friction, no heat, no energy change.

the reality of the situation is friction between bodies that are not in this state will causes the bodies to eventually transition towards this state of equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.1278198]

OP, if you would like to be taken seriously:

-Give a clear and detailed example of how to extract free energy using your method
-It better make sense
-Diagrams if possible

We will then show you why you are wrong, and we can go.

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1278248]

>>1278137
This is one of many variants.
Tidal forces are also viable if water or gas exists on either mass.

[Anonymous No.1278262]

>>1278248
Tidal forces actually affect the distance between two bodies. The moon is retracting away from us at about a cm a year.

What is important is the sense of mean motion, i.e. whether the 'moon' orbits faster or slower than the body rotates. If the former, the moon with recess. If the latter the moon will close in. Energy is conserved. Sorry bout it.

[Anonymous No.1278264]

>>1278197
This. Sorry but no fre energy for yu0

[Anonymous No.1278273]

>>1278248
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

[Anonymous No.1278326]

>>1278032
>My argument has yet to be contradicted properly.

No, your argument has yet to be asserted properly. You're talking completely within classical or Newtonian physics, where gravity is a CONSERVATIVE FIELD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_vector_field

Speaking to the top of the pyramid:
>>1277000
You have not formulated a damn thing analytically, and it follows that you cannot calculate a damn thing. An English teacher told me, "You don't understand a subject until you can write about it," and my PhD advisor told me, "You don't understand a theory until you can calculate it." You've offered no equations so express what you're talking about except W=mgh. So that's your genius breakthrough: W=mgh?!

Like Julia Sweeney said when she learned what quantum mechanics really says: "Deepak Chopra is full of shit!"

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1278331]

>>1278197
see:
>>1278248

Rotation was suppose to be a given. I know that if two bodies orbit eachother with the same face facing eachother, they would remain in the same physical state/shape, and no friction would be created.

In the example that there are two bodies, one orbitting the other, friction on the interior would have no effect over the centrifugal force or gravity that maintains the orbit that causes this friction.

Tidal energy is another great example of perpetual energy that has a potential of being transformed into electrical energy without being detrimental to the forces that create it.

Perpetual motion has been created many times on earth, and although the circuit for older perpetual motion machines are closed, newer versions of these mechanisms are being manufactured, and they clearly exceed the energy put into them in the duration of their lifespan. my argument that input can be lesser than output has not yet been contradicted.
When input(x) < output(y), input(y) can create another quantity of energy of force greater than itself (z), and so on. any value of energy essentially can be transformed into a much much larger value over time.
decent examples posted already:
>>1278157

[Anonymous No.1278341]

>>1278326
Not dude you are addressing but are you saying that gravity is not a conservative? :O
Sorry my knowledge is not so good

[Anonymous No.1278361]

>>1278331
>Implying tides are perpetual motion

[Anonymous No.1278368]

>>1278331
TIDAL FORCES SLOW THE ROTATION OF THE PLANETS TO THE POINT OF PLACING THEM INTO TIDAL LOCK WITH EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!

that is what you were supposed to try to understand, the angular momentum is where the energy for the tidal forces is being drawn

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?!?!

I MAAADD!!

[Anonymous No.1278396]

>>1278368
> the angular momentum is where the energy for the tidal forces is being drawn
correction, it's where the energy for the friction is being drawn

gravity causes tidal forces -> non-tidally locked orbit causes friction -> friction slows angular momentum of planets -> planets become tidally locked

[Anonymous No.1278422]

>>1276908
we as the people of /sci/ have clearly given you the answer to the question. no you cannot get infinite energy becaus of gravity. when you move an object closer to another object you get movement(energy). but if you then take that energy away from the two bodies that were in motion you have no way of moving them apart again, as it takes the same amount of energy given to move the two object back to their origianl distance from each other. so it is not infinite becuase yes you can get the energy when the objects move together, but once everything is as close as possible to everything else, you will need to pull them back apart and give that energy back. so go learn how physics really works and come back with a plausible idea

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1278532]

>>1278368
>>1278396
OP here

I actually did not know about tidal locking. that particular example seems a lot less practical now.
I am still adamant that energy input can be lesser than energy output, as I'd explained in this vague expression >>1278331

I think it best for me to leave this thread, my example was imperfect, but I will be back later with something a bit more solid. I have quite a few examples, but for /sci/'s sake, I'll elaborate and express them in numbers some other day.
the most blatant contradiction still confuses me. it is as follows:
either
A: universe has no starting point, no beginning and no end. Therefore energy is a constant exchange of bodies that exist in the equilibrium of the dimension we exist in
or
B: the big bang brought upon the beginning of the universe. it also 'created' energy in doing so.
>Created energy
>greater than input
or it had that energy stored up from some prior-to-big bang- realm; if so, see case A
goodbye /sci/.

[Anonymous No.1278594]

Tl;dr: Gravity does not require fuel, but it is a form of energy,
----------------------------
Gravity DOES require a fuel [(Mass)(Density)] Two objects in "space" (understanding said 'space' is NOT void of matter) will NOT commence
orbit, or gravitational friction IF the masses, and the density of the masses are not above the mass/density of nothing (pretty much stating that unless you have mass that has density, gravity will not commence) This shows that in order for gravity to 'work' so-to-speak it must be FUELED with Mass.. More energy is created (gravitationally), with more mass. This creates a new system (that acts much like a fractal system, not a closed/open system to the masses/objects/fields around it) in the said state. "free energy" is 'not possible' because although ALL energy is conserved, it is transformed into chemical,gravitational, and physical energy. this energy is "lost" due to the effect on the nearby fractal-like systems.The reason why 'free energy' cannot be used/controlled is because humans (even nature) CAN NOT create a closed system that is not fractal (in which to store/keeptrack of/ maintain all forms of said energy).
------------------------------

[Anonymous No.1278607]

as it can create heat from nothing.
-------------------------------
Heat is NOT created from nothing. Just because you cannot physically see the matter in space, does NOT mean it is not there. Space (if nothing else) is a friction of time, time is needed for gravity's effects to cause heat.
-------------------------------
Two gigantic motherfucking balls of ice at zero goddamn Kelvin will warm up if introduced to each other in space by either crashing into each other or orbiting around each other.
------------------------------
This cannot happen unless an exterior system was affected by the leaving of the two said states.

[Anonymous No.1278616]

------------------------------
My argument is that 'Free energy' by means of creating electricity constantly through gravity or magnetism is not only possible, but being done fucking everywhere, including my own room.

Energy is never free; There is, and always will be a cause/effect catch-22. If you cannot see this; you can never truly progress in /sci/.
Comments?Questions?

[Anonymous No.1278632]

[None !!TG4uV76dfzO No.1278669]

>>1278594
>mass = fuel

a characteristic of fuel is that it has a state where it is used to create energy, and a state where it can no longer be used for energy.

mass, like energy, can not end and can not begin, unlike what the word 'fuel' represents
it cannot be created or destroyed.
I don't see mass losing it's gravitational potential by having other bodies exist around it. two specs of sand will never come apart from eachother in space unless acted upon by a third energy.
I don't see energy as fuel. I dont see that when energy is used it is gone. Anyone with basic understanding of conservation of mass and energy knows this basic principle.
What modern 'free energy' ideas concern is not the creation of energy, but the extraction of energy through means that require no fuel to get it in the first place. no solar fuel, no coals, no gas. Simply a mechanism that harnesses perpetual motion and converts it into electricity. A mechanism like this is not a deviation from modern physical laws, it is just fairly hard to design.

saging my own thread now.

[Anonymous No.1278779]

a characteristic of fuel is that it has a state where it is used to create energy, and a state where it can no longer be used for energy.

<--->
Mass has both of these states. Mass can no longer be used for energy, when there is no gravitational pull on it. I agree with your thesis of two particles of sand. But were ALL of the universe one particle.... there would be no physical gravity. because nothing is being pulled upon, and nothing is being put into motion by this particle.

Mass can no longer be used for a 'fuel' when 1; there is no mass (obviously) and 2; there is nothing for mass to act upon. I simply stated Mass as a fuel because it causes gravity (more-of gravity if put into more/less energy when there is more/less mass, as a proportional energy source)