Why overunity MUST be difficult or even impossible to replicate.

[Pirate88179]

The definition of the Universe to me is "everything in existence".

I think it is a stretch to say that the Universe is being "added to" from nowhere. All that is, is already contained in the Universe
by definition. The Universe expanding if it is is nothing more than a similar effect to a bullet when fired from a gun, the bang
goes off but the bullet accelerates up to it terminal velocity, the bullet does not instantly go fro rest to terminal velocity it must
gain velocity at a given rate, and that rate changes throughout the course of the projectiles flight.

Same with the Universe, the big bang was not the creation of everything from nothing, it was simply the beginning of another
cycle, everything in the Universe at some stage contracts to a dense point of mass, then it goes "Bang" and it all expands at
an accelerating rate for a certain period before it slows down then contracts again.

It can be the only way. Everything that exists now and will forever is contained within the Universe. The Universe expands and
contracts and at some point will be expanding at an accelerating rate and at another point it will be contracting at an
accelerating rate.

Surely we can all agree that "something" cannot come from "nothing".

Time is a mental construct to make sense of the passing of events, there is no end to "time" or the Universe and there was no
beginning to "time" or no beginning to the Universe, after all if it began where did it come from.

Simple answer is that all that is is the Universe and all that is is all that has ever been, things just change.

...

I totally agree.  The universe is indeed expanding but,  the mass remains the same, only the space and distance between the mass is increasing.  So, no more mass exists now than what was there as the original input.  No something from nothing.  I too also agree that this is cyclical.  It has probably been going on from the beginning of time, and will continue to do so.  Start and End are human concepts and nature does not really have to follow this model.

Bill

[lancaIV]

                      "Ruhe"masse : Bewegungsmasse under 4D space-time condition (Minkowski)
                       f.e. Photon-Ruhe =299728 Km/s(Vacuum)

         

                        A.H.  Lorentz Gleichung Formula (E or e) E=mc² ~ relativistic Energy


                             
                             Massenzunahme shortly  m
                                                          =e/c² 
                             analog
                             FitzGerald Gleichung

                                                         Voll-/Halb-/Nullwert
                                                          radioactive energy

                                      Halbwert-Time(=Zeit)-Formula     `'decay'             

Time is a mental construct to make sense of the passing of events, there is no end to "time" or the Universe and there was nobeginning to "time" or no beginning to the Universe, after all if it began where did it come from.


                           Tesla time Formula T=mc²


mc²=  is a mental construct to make sense of the passing of events, there is no end to "mc²" or the Universe and there was no beginning to "mc²" or no beginning to the Universe, after all if it began where did it come from.
                                                  
                    Dank U ,Ranchhand, now is mir alles klar
                    Albern Einstein : " Bin ich verrueckt,oder die anderen ?!"
                    Albern,melde mich freiwillig ! 

     overunity is a thermodynamical fusion process ~ f.e. LCR circuit

     
A nice week
                   OCWL   

[sarkeizen]

However, the odds of finding a new, previously unknown source of energy would be, naturally, quite large.

Please provide a calculation which demonstrates this.

Philosophically speaking, mankind's largest arrogance is a claim of scientific piety mixed with a demonstrative penchant for an unspoken claim of absolute knowledge.

This. when it isn't vague seems like a rather large and unfounded generalization.

We know very little in the grand scheme of things, but ask us what we know and there is seemingly little left to learn.

Whatever constitutes the "grand scheme of things" is conveniently left out of this sentence.  Not to mention that it's probably irrelevant.  One doesn't have to know everything about everything to show that something is impossible (or highly unlikely)

From where I stand peoples desire to take complex problems and pretend that they are easily captured by awkward prose (like your own) is among the more arrogant things I see in a day.

[forest]

ant is riding on the elephant , is that free energy ? 

[lancaIV]

ant is riding on the elephant , is that free energy ? 

Is this a philosophistical question    or to become answered by strong Helmholtz & al. standpoint view  ? Six feeth under  ? Then you will have to wait !


S
  OCWL